WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

November 2016: Plenty of Smoke, Not Enough Rain and Snow

By: Bob Henson 4:22 PM GMT on November 14, 2016

The atmospheric spigots have been turned off across most of the United States over the last several weeks. According to the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor report from Thursday, November 10, more than 27% of the contiguous U.S. has been enveloped by at least moderate drought (categories D1 through D4). This is the largest percentage value in more than a year, since late October 2015. The upward trend of the last month is worrisome given the outlook for the coming winter: drier-than-average conditions are projected by NOAA across the southern half of the contiguous U.S., a frequent outcome during La Niña winters.


Figure 1. U.S. Drought Monitor released on November 10, 2016, valid for the week ending November 8. Image credit: National Drought Mitigation Center.

Where’s the Western snow?
It’s common for parts of the mountainous U.S. West to take until late autumn or early winter to build up a proper snowpack, but such a delay seldom extends to the entire region. This month, nearly all of the high country of the western U.S. is running far below the seasonal average for the amount of water held in snowpack. Ski areas are feeling the pain, especially since temperatures have rarely been cold enough this autumn for snowmaking to supplement nature. Several of Colorado’s major resorts have already postponed their opening dates, including Keystone, Breckenridge, and Copper Mountain.

The paltry snowpack is especially striking in the Pacific Northwest, which just experienced its wettest October on record. Most of that precipitation came in the form of rain, leaving all but the highest mountains snow-free. “Still early in winter but snowpack is terrible,” tweeted Brad Udall, senior water and climate scientist at the Colorado Water Institute. Outside the Pacific Northwest, precipitation has been scanty and temperatures have been consistently warmer than average.


Figure 2. The amount of water held in western U.S. snowpack (snow water equivalent) as of November 13, 2016, shown as a percentage of average for this date relative to the 1981-2010 median. Values are well below 50 percent over most areas. Image credit: USDA/NCRS National Water and Climate Center, courtesy @bradudall.


Figure 3. Temperatures are running well above average over nearly all the United States (as well as Canada and the Arctic, not shown here) for the first 12 days of November 2016. Shown here are the departures from average (anomalies) in degrees Fahrenheit. As of Monday morning, November 14, NOAA reported a total of 2713 daily record highs and 18 daily record lows for the month thus far. Image credit: NOAA/NWS Climate Prediction Center.


East of the mountains, the Plains and Midwest have been especially mild this month (see Figure 3 above). The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has yet to see a temperature below freezing, breaking the city’s all-time latest-freeze record of November 7, 1900. La Crosse, WI, and Peoria, IL, have also broken their latest-first-freeze records as they wait to dip to 32°F. All three locations should finally get a freeze this weekend in the wake of a potent storm system swinging across the central U.S. The storm will bring high winds and widespread snow to the northern Great Plains and Upper Midwest--perhaps a foot or more in parts of the Dakotas. The Central Plains could see an inch or so of rain, but prospects for rain further to the south and east are looking dim.

Weeks on end without a big Southeast rain
It’s been more than a month since parts of the Southeast have seen a drop of measurable rain. Birmingham, AL, is on a record dry streak: 56 consecutive days without measurable rain as of Sunday, beating the previous record of 52 days set in 1924. “Nine minutes of sprinkles Nov. 4 and another bout of sprinkles on Oct. 16 has been the entirety of Birmingham's rainfall so far this fall,” observed Jon Erdman in a weather.com roundup on Sunday. The most widespread rain since Hurricane Matthew in early October fell from eastern Georgia across northern South Carolina and southern North Carolina on Sunday, with widespread 0.5” - 1.0” amounts (Wilmington, NC, picked up 1.77”). However, nearly all of the significant rain fell east of the drought-stricken areas. Assuming no major rainmakers arrive over the next couple of weeks--and none are on the horizon right now--large parts of the Southeast have a shot at their driest autumn on record (September - November).

In a region where rain is usually plentiful and frequent, a drought this prolonged has major consequences. In northwest Georgia, “our dirt is like talcum powder,” ranger Denise Croker (Georgia Forestry Commission) told Insurance Journal last week. Smoke from wildfires across the southern and central Appalachians has poured across the Southeast, especially where inversions have kept the smoke confined near the surface, as explained by Marshall Shepherd (University of Georgia) in Forbes.


Figure 4. Streamers of smoke can be seen blowing northwestward from wildfires across the southern and central Appalachians on November 7, 2016. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.


Figure 5. Enhanced infrared satellite image of Tropical Storm Tina at 1430Z (9:30 am EST) Monday, November 14, 2016, just before Tina was downgraded to a tropical depression. Image credit: NOAA/NESDIS.

Tropical Storm Tina pops up and fades out in the East Pacific
A cluster of showers and thunderstorms gained just enough organization over warm waters (above 30°C) off Mexico’s Pacific coast to become Tropical Storm Tina on Sunday night. Tina was the 21st named storm of this year’s busy East Pacific hurricane season. Located about 200 miles west of Manzanillo, MX, Tina didn’t last long as a tropical storm. Christened at 10 pm EST Sunday with top sustained winds of just 40 mph, Tina was downgraded to a tropical depression at 10 am EST Monday. High wind shear will continue to degrade Tina’s circulation as it decays into a remnant low by Tuesday, remaining well west of the Mexican coast.

Potential late-season tropical cyclone in the Caribbean
Long-range computer models have suggested for several days that a broad circulation over the far southwest Caribbean east of Nicaragua might evolve into a tropical cyclone over the next week or two. Sea surface temperatures remain very warm in the region: around 29 - 30°C, about 1°C above average for this time of year. In its latest Tropical Weather Outlook, issued at 7:00 am EST Monday, the National Hurricane Center gives a near-zero chance of a tropical depression forming in this area by Wednesday morning, but a 60% chance by Saturday. Ensemble model runs from 00Z Monday provide support for the idea of very gradual development, with low odds of formation on any particular day but higher collective odds over a multi-day period. About a third of members of the ECMWF ensemble produce a tropical cyclone in the 3-5 day period (Wednesday to Friday night) and about half do so in the 6-10 day period. The GFS is more bullish, with nearly all of its ensemble members developing at least a tropical depression by the coming weekend. Steering currents will be extremely weak for some time, so any tropical cyclone that does develop could pose a threat for heavy rain if it lingers near the east coast of Central America.

We’ll be back with a new post on Tuesday morning.

Bob Henson


Figure 6. Enhanced infrared satellite image of an area of disturbed weather in the southwest Caribbean Sea at 1515Z (10:15 am EST) Monday, November 14, 2016. Image credit: NASA/MSFC Earth Science Office.

Drought Winter Weather Heat Hurricane

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

Blizzard conditions possible later this week in the Dakota's and Nw Minnesota. High winds and snowfall between 1 and 2 feet expected. Here comes Winter

Thursday
11/17
43 | 28 °F
Thursday 40 % Precip. / 0.03 in
Cloudy and windy. A few showers in the afternoon. High 43F. Winds N at 20 to 30 mph. Chance of rain 40%.

Thursday Night 100 % Precip. / 5-8 in
Windy with periods of rain and snow in the evening turning to snow late. Low 28F. Winds NNE at 25 to 35 mph. Chance of precip 100%. Snow accumulating 5 to 8 inches. Winds could occasionally gust over 40 mph.

Friday
11/18
33 | 21 °F
Friday 90 % Precip. / 8-12 in
Snow along with gusty winds at times. High 33F. Winds N at 25 to 35 mph. Chance of snow 90%. 8 to 12 inches of snow expected. Winds could occasionally gust over 50 mph.

Friday Night 40 % Precip. / < 1 in
Intermittent snow showers and windy early. Breaks in the overcast later. Low 21F. Winds NNW at 25 to 35 mph. Chance of snow 40%. Snow accumulations less than one inch. Winds could occasionally gust over 50 mph.
img src="">
The Atlantic may witness a very rare Thanksgiving hurricane next week since the possible Caribbean storm may linger around for quite some time. The last time this happened I think was Karl in 1980.

952 mb...on Thanksgiving Day. Skeptical this will happen though.
Yep, here comes the first blizzard of the season in ND/MN. I hope that the protesters protecting us in North Dakota can stay warm in the upcoming wintry assault.
thanks for the lunchtime read Mr. Henson
se will remain dry for a bit yet
Thanks for the Updates.
As I suggested recently any development will have to be limited to very near the coastline of south or Central America
The climate just north of that region has been dead for weeks not much different than the dry us
We are just dry and warm everywhere
Have a look at the wv loop of the western Carib and watch it evaporate

Some Change in North-Eastern California since last weeks map..
Quoting 5. Snacker2:

Yep, here comes the first blizzard of the season in ND/MN. I hope that the protesters protecting us in North Dakota can stay warm in the upcoming wintry assault.


Protesters protecting us from what?
Quoting 14. luvtogolf:



Protesters protecting us from what?


http://www.democracynow.org/topics/dakota_access

The Dakota access pipeline. Shamefully, the entire Missouri river basin is at stake and the peaceful protesters are being shot at with less than lethal (read: permanantly disable or occasionally kill) and tear gassed. To ice the cake they're then arrested for violence they have not committed.
😀 I can hardly wait to look at the moon tonight
Thanks Mr. Henson. People cannot blame every short term anomaly in weather patterns on global warming issues but blocking patterns with the polar jet, or amplified dips, are being correlated to loss of Arctic ice/warming and these patterns just make regular weather patterns all that much noticeable and often worse or prolonged.

If this current dry pattern holds through Winter and into the Spring, we are headed for very big trouble water wise for a large chunk of the US as well as continued, and large, wildfires over several States as well between now and the Spring.

Would have been nice to get a late season TS make landfall in the Gulf and for it to have meandered up through Georgia and Alabama/TN bringing some short term drought relief.


Weather patterns change all the time...as the earth rotates around the sun different influences come into play...always have always will...although we really need to be environmentally conscious, there really is just so much we can do.
As a disclaimer, I don't litter, waste water, drive around for hours trying to burn a tank of gas or do anything else under my control that would hurt our environment. I have kids and one day hope to have grandkids. I want to keep this earth as pristine as possible, but some things are out of my control...forest fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves...Fukushima, etc
Quoting 17. weathermanwannabe:

Thanks Mr. Henson. People cannot blame every short term anomaly in weather patterns on global warming issues but blocking patterns with the polar jet, or amplified dips, are being correlated to loss of Arctic ice/warming and these patterns just make regular weather patterns all that much noticeable and often worse or prolonged.

If this current dry pattern holds through Winter and into the Spring, we are headed for very big trouble water wise for a large chunk of the US as well as continued, and large, wildfires over several States as well between now and the Spring.

Would have been nice to get a late season TS make landfall in the Gulf and for it to have meandered up through Georgia and Alabama/TN bringing some short term drought relief.



I don't see anything tropical making it to the Gulf Coast for the rest of the season. Cool high pressure will be building into the S.E. this weekend and the pattern should keep repeating itself over the next couple weeks.
The rain with no name here in August dropped 33 inches and flooded 100,000.


Meandering?


Maybe we can steer um.










Over 9 billion in losses.


Will ad ZERO ACE.


I'll b sure to send a PDF to all of them.


I'm sure they are worried over DAT stat.




Ka-Boom! 35mb drop in 24hrs. Not too likely IMO, way out in fantasy-land.

Quoting 19. ajcamsmom2:

Weather patterns change all the time...as the earth rotates around the sun different influences come into play...always have always will...although we really need to be environmentally conscious, there really is just so much we can do.
We humans are pumping roughly 4,000,000 metric tons of excess, long-lasting, heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere every single hour of every single day. On the list of "things we can do", acknowledging what's happening is a really great first step.
Quoting 19. ajcamsmom2:

Weather patterns change all the time...as the earth rotates around the sun different influences come into play...always have always will...although we really need to be environmentally conscious, there really is just so much we can do.




The thing about science is it's still TRUE whether you choose to believe it or not.
Here is the map for the locations of the current fires in the Appalachian region; correlates nicely with the drought map for that area:



<>img

U.S. Drought Monitor forMidwestU.S. Drought Monitor forSoutheast
12Z UKMET does the "Meat Cleaver"





NEW TROPICAL CYCLONE FORECAST TO DEVELOP AFTER 6 HOURS
FORECAST POSITION AT T+ 6 : 34.4N 77.2W

LEAD CENTRAL MAXIMUM WIND
VERIFYING TIME TIME POSITION PRESSURE (MB) SPEED (KNOTS)
-------------- ---- -------- ------------- -------------
0000UTC 15.11.2016 12 35.7N 76.2W 1011 29
1200UTC 15.11.2016 24 38.8N 74.7W 1008 33
0000UTC 16.11.2016 36 40.6N 74.3W 1004 31
1200UTC 16.11.2016 48 42.6N 73.1W 1004 28
0000UTC 17.11.2016 60 CEASED TRACKING

NEW TROPICAL CYCLONE FORECAST TO DEVELOP AFTER 66 HOURS
FORECAST POSITION AT T+ 66 : 12.3N 79.4W

LEAD CENTRAL MAXIMUM WIND
VERIFYING TIME TIME POSITION PRESSURE (MB) SPEED (KNOTS)
-------------- ---- -------- ------------- -------------
1200UTC 17.11.2016 72 12.6N 78.5W 1004 29
0000UTC 18.11.2016 84 13.3N 78.6W 1002 29
1200UTC 18.11.2016 96 13.6N 78.5W 1001 36
0000UTC 19.11.2016 108 14.2N 77.8W 1001 33
1200UTC 19.11.2016 120 14.5N 77.2W 1002 32
0000UTC 20.11.2016 132 15.0N 76.0W 1000 33
1200UTC 20.11.2016 144 15.2N 74.7W 999 40

NEW TROPICAL CYCLONE FORECAST TO DEVELOP AFTER 78 HOURS
FORECAST POSITION AT T+ 78 : 29.6N 64.2W

LEAD CENTRAL MAXIMUM WIND
VERIFYING TIME TIME POSITION PRESSURE (MB) SPEED (KNOTS)
-------------- ---- -------- ------------- -------------
0000UTC 18.11.2016 84 31.7N 62.2W 1004 39
1200UTC 18.11.2016 96 39.2N 59.2W 996 59
0000UTC 19.11.2016 108 40.9N 61.9W 998 40
1200UTC 19.11.2016 120 37.6N 63.7W 997 40
0000UTC 20.11.2016 132 34.7N 64.2W 996 36
1200UTC 20.11.2016 144 33.9N 61.4W 999 28
Quoting 15. Snacker2:



http://www.democracynow.org/topics/dakota_access

The Dakota access pipeline. Shamefully, the entire Missouri river basin is at stake and the peaceful protesters are being shot at with less than lethal (read: permanantly disable or occasionally kill) and tear gassed. To ice the cake they're then arrested for violence they have not committed.
From ourselves! Remember POGO... "we have met the enemy and it's..."
FOLLOW US

PBS put this out in March

"TOPICS > SCIENCE
5 years later, Fukushima radiation continues to seep into the Pacific Ocean
Ken_Buesseler_1-1
KEN BUESSELER
3713
EMAIL
BY KEN BUESSELER March 9, 2016 at 1:57 PM EST
A volunteer feeds swans in an area destroyed by the March 11, 2011 tsunami inside the exclusion zone in Okuma, near Tokyo Electric Power Co's (TEPCO) tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Photo by Toru Hanai/Reuters
A volunteer feeds swans in an area destroyed by the March 11, 2011 tsunami inside the exclusion zone in Okuma, near Tokyo Electric Power Co’s (TEPCO) tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Photo by Toru Hanai/Reuters

With the help of my colleagues in Japan and around the world, I’ve spent the past five years piecing together the impacts that radioactive releases from Fukushima have had on the ocean, marine life, and the people who live on both sides of the Pacific. In the process of sharing our insights with scientists and the public, I’ve become frustrated with both sides of the nuclear power debate for embracing either overly alarmist or dismissive attitudes toward the problem. In addition, I’ve grown concerned over the lack of oversight for radioactive contamination in U.S. waters.

On March 11, 2011, the devastation in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami provided a stark lesson in nature’s power. But in the days that followed, another disaster unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that continues to underscore how human activities can leave a discernible imprint on something as large as the Pacific Ocean and on people and organisms thousands of miles away.

This event is unprecedented in its total release of radioactive contamination into the ocean.
Five years later, the story from the Japanese side of the Pacific is this: Overall, things are under control with the construction of an “ice wall” to prevent the continued releases of contaminated water into the ocean, and fishing has resumed in all regions except those within 10 kilometers of the reactors. However, these milestones obscure the fact that the Japanese will be wrestling with the cleanup for decades and will spend trillions of yen in the process. It also minimizes the threats posed by millions of gallons of highly contaminated water on the power plant grounds and the likelihood that storms and other natural events will continue to mobilize contaminants currently trapped in soils and ocean sediments near shore.

More than 80 percent of the radioactivity from the damaged reactors ended up in the Pacific — far more than reached the ocean from Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Of this, a small fraction is currently on the seafloor — the rest was swept up by the Kuroshio current, a western Pacific version of the Gulf Stream, and carried out to sea where it mixed with (and was diluted by) the vast volume of the North Pacific. These materials, primarily two isotopes of cesium, only recently began to appear in the eastern Pacific: In 2015 we detected signs of radioactive contamination from Fukushima along the coast near British Columbia and California.

Students walk near a geiger counter near Omika Elementary School, located 13 miles from the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. Photo by Toru Hanai/ Reuters
Students walk near a geiger counter near Omika Elementary School, located 13 miles from the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. Photo by Toru Hanai/ Reuters

Although just barely discernible by our most sophisticated instruments, these signs, and the many more signs from samples we’ve collected on both sides of the Pacific, show that releases have continued, but that at current rates, it would take 5,000 years to equal the amount of cesium released in the accident’s first few months. Despite this, the fact remains that this event is unprecedented in its total release of radioactive contamination into the ocean. Nevertheless, we often struggle to detect signals from Fukushima above the background radiation that surrounds us every day.

So what’s the middle ground? First, it is incorrect to say that Fukushima is under control when levels of radioactivity in the ocean indicate ongoing leaks, caused by groundwater flowing through the site and, we think, enhanced after storms. At the same time, it is also wrong to attribute to Fukushima events like recent die-offs of seal, whale, and starfish along the West Coast rather than see that they are far more complex and have been happening for far longer than we’d like to admit.

It is incorrect to say that Fukushima is under control when levels of radioactivity in the ocean indicate ongoing leaks, caused by groundwater flowing through the site and enhanced after storms.
Recently, I’ve begun to see a much more serious threat to U.S. waters. With our nearly 100 reactors, many on the coast or near inland waterways that drain to the ocean, you might expect a federal agency to be responsible for supporting research to improve our understanding of how radioactive contamination originating from one of these sites would affect our marine resources. Instead, the response we receive from an alphabet-soup of federal agencies is that such work “is in the national interest,” but ultimately “not our job.” As a result, we have turned to crowd funding to help us build data along the West Coast to address immediate public concerns and to keep a watchful eye out to sea.

That is no longer sufficient. As the EPA runs RadNet, which monitors radioactivity in the air we breathe, we need an OceanNet to do the same for our nation’s waters. We also need to do a better job of educating the public about radioactivity to lessen the impact of both inflammatory and dismissive rhetoric.

Fortunately, accidents on the scale of Fukushima are rare, but there is a great deal more we can and should do to prepare should something similar happen here. We can’t simply cast our lot on good fortune. Instead, we need to do everything we can to fill the knowledge gaps that have the potential to do great harm in the wake of disaster.

Watch Miles O’Brien’s piece on Fukushima radiation contamination and cleanup later this week on the PBS NewsHour."

Quoting 5. Snacker2:

Yep, here comes the first blizzard of the season in ND/MN. I hope that the protesters protecting us in North Dakota can stay warm in the upcoming wintry assault.


Tomorrow is Nation Protest Day to Stop the Dakota Pipeline
This link includes places to donate to the protester's legal and supply funds.

The local protest here is organizing in Orlando, FL
Start: November 15, 2016- 4:00 PM
End: November 15, 2016- 7:00 PM
Orlando City Hall- 400 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801


WATER IS LIFE
#NODAPL
Skyepony: A Fire Song
WAYYYYY out in time But............................................... ..........
and as of right now..all the models take whatever forms in the Caribbean into or very near Haiti..from there on.. models differ as to where it goes....still a week or two out..plenty of time to watch....one good thing..NO model today..takes it into the gulf of mexico...latest NHC discussion seems to be kinda sure something Will form down there...we'll see what happens.
So, What Can I Do?

Stolen from 999Ai2016's comment on Rood's blog.
Warmer water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico caused the worst bleaching on record in a marine sanctuary about 100 miles off the coast of Galveston

Warmer water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico caused the worst bleaching on record in a marine sanctuary about 100 miles off the coast of Galveston — paling nearly 50 percent of the corals, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Earlier this month, researchers reported that nearly 50 percent of the coral colonies in the East Flower Garden Bank were bleached or paling, which is caused by the coral’s expulsion of the algae that gives it its pigmentation, Flower Garden Banks Superintendent G.P. Schmahl said.
Scientists attributed the bleaching to warming water temperatures caused by climate change. Sea surface temperatures have been more than 86 degrees for 85 days in the past four months, according to the ocean administration.
As the water temperature cools into the winter, the algae should return, Schmahl said. Still, the long period of paling or bleaching could cause some corals to starve and die off, he said.
“In recent decades there has been a documented general increase in seawater temperatures associated with climate change and it’s putting coral reefs throughout the world under stress,” Schmahl said.
This year’s coral bleaching event could be the worst in the marine sanctuary’s history. In 2005, about 45 percent of the corals were bleached or paled during a similar event; most rebounded later, according to the administration.
The bleaching comes on the heels of a mass die-off in the Flower Garden Banks in July. Researchers are still studying what killed many coral and other sea animals, but Schmahl said the mortality event was associated with heavy rains earlier this year that sent more freshwater from the rivers flowing in the Gulf.
“It’s been an unfortunate year for the Flower Garden Banks,” Schmahl said. “We’re hoping the corals will make it, but only time will tell.”

Quoting 11. PedleyCA:


Some Change in North-Eastern California since last weeks map..

Forecast has a wet siege coming into Central California by the weekend, preceded by a wet front north of SF Bay Wednesday. Should be a bit of rain for SoCal this round.
That boring ridge on the EURO is not welcome :/ Come on it's november!
Quoting 3. HurricaneFan:

The Atlantic may witness a very rare Thanksgiving hurricane next week since the possible Caribbean storm may linger around for quite some time. The last time this happened I think was Karl in 1980.


Kate 1985 was close hitting the FL the thursday prior to thanksgiving. Went through it, never want to go through another!
42. vis0

Quoting 3. HurricaneFan:

The Atlantic may witness a very rare Thanksgiving hurricane next week since the possible Caribbean storm may linger around for quite some time. The last time this happened I think was Karl in 1980.
i see others have noticed (i just did am behind in everything)  that  pTwF the mass of clouds to the East of Barbados (Southern Latitude Antilles or Southern  Lesser Antilles)
Please don't dissipate yet! We need something to track or else we are going to tear each other's hearts out.

Quoting 44. Grothar:

Please don't dissipate yet! We need something to track or else we are going to tear each other's hearts out.




in your case, tear out hearts in between naps...
Quoting 46. indianrivguy:



in your case, tear out hearts in between naps...


:P

As a matter of fact, not a bad idea. I usually can catch the last few minutes of Murder, She Wrote, and the first few minutes of Judge Judy then I'm gone. I never do get to see who got the 7 year old refrigerator stolen by the defendant's ex-boyfriend's 3rd wife. See you guys later.
A wrong-way storm would be so fun.
Quoting 48. CaribBoy:

A wrong-way storm would be so fun.


Any storm would be fun as long as it gets to you....
Quoting 48. CaribBoy:

A wrong-way storm would be so fun.


This is the time of year to see an easterly moving system. The system won't be able to move to the north with a strong blocking high in place.
Quoting 35. LargoFl:

WAYYYYY out in time But............................................... ..........

Two questions.
What is the big system?
Which one is tropical or was once tropical
Okay maybe a third.
Which one would be otto?

Nevermind the third one, it may be redundant.
Wind shear looks favorable down in the SW Caribbean. Not so to the north and east.

850mb vorticity strung out from east to west but increasing.



Quoting 51. TROPICALCYCLONEALERT:


Two questions.
What is the big system?
Which one is tropical or was once tropical
Okay maybe a third.
Which one would be otto?

Nevermind the third one, it may be redundant.

I believe its a nor'easter while otto is the one to the southeast
Quoting 44. Grothar:

Please don't dissipate yet! We need something to track or else we are going to tear each other's hearts out.




Snowstorms, blizzards, arctic outbreaks. Season lasts till May.
?
Quoting 55. georgevandenberghe:



Snowstorms, blizzards, arctic outbreaks. Season lasts till May.
Quoting 56. 19N81W:

?

that is for us northern peeps you will likely see what you have been seeing no change
blue line is where the ice should be this time of year

XX/AOI/XX
Quoting 56. 19N81W:

?



Posting what to track in between hurricane seasons.


The top of the world has lost its cold, it has moved elsewhere, Siberia it seems. The anomalies this month, so far, are for lack of a better term, nuts.
Quoting 49. PedleyCA:



Any storm would be fun as long as it gets to you....


Correct xD lol
Quoting 64. gr8lakebreeze:



The top of the world has lost its cold, it has moved elsewhere, Siberia it seems. The anomalies this month, so far, are for lack of a better term, nuts.


There's been a large very cold region over parts of Siberia and Eastern Europe for many weeks. It's been pretty remarkable that almost everywhere else in the Northern Hemisphere has been above normal, then there's that one area that's been abnormally cold for weeks.
Link

King tides and super moon could swamp South Florida through Wednesday, forecasters warn
Quoting 57. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:




Its a cycle.

Its da sun.

Its voodoo.

We cant affect the earth.

Cats cause the warming.


Were actually cooling.


I can solve it tunnels.


😕 😯😥😂😰





Did I miss any ?
Quoting 68. Patrap:



Did I miss any ?

put it under the carpet
put a hood over it
wait till it bites
watch for methane explosions
Quoting 67. annabatic:

Link

King tides and super moon could swamp South Florida through Wednesday, forecasters warn



Quoting 67. annabatic

King tides and super moon could swamp South Florida through Wednesday, forecasters warn



rising and rising faster and faster
Quoting 68. Patrap:

Did I miss any ?


As a staunch Pastafarian I must point out this one that I see missed on here ALL the time.

Quoting 68. Patrap:

(...)

Did I miss any ?


:-) No... Only about 200 more (and counting...).
Quoting 19. ajcamsmom2:

Weather patterns change all the time...as the earth rotates around the sun different influences come into play...always have always will...although we really need to be environmentally conscious, there really is just so much we can do.


You know what? You're cholesterol levels change all the time too. Always have, always will. But when the doctor (expert) notices an upward trend in your cholesterol and tells you that you need to do something about it, you don't turn around and say "There's only so much I can do!". You change your diet, increase your exercise, take statins, etc. You make these sacrifices to reduce the risk of keeling over from a catastrophic heart attack, terminal heart failure due to coronary artery disease, etc.

There's a difference between "only so much we can do" and "only so much we're willing to do". There are consequences to both, and the question really boils down to which consequences are going to be the least unpleasant to deal with. In the case of cholesterol, you can choose to ignore your doctor and continue to eat deep fried pizza dipped in butter, but that will most likely end in an emergency quadruple bypass with a limited quality of life after that. Or you can heed your doctors advice, order a salad, and avoid the complications brought on by heart disease and heart failure.

AGW is like the doctor telling you that you have high cholesterol. You can start taking steps now to head of considerable future problems, or you can continue on your merry way until you collapse from a severe heart attack.

The latest election seems to indicate people are more than happy to ignore the problem and continue eating triple decker 2 lbs cheese burgers with a triple order of fries. The thing is, we're already noticing that we're getting a little more winded going up the stairs, our extremities seem to tingle more often than they used to, and those occasional chest pains are getting harder to write off as simple indigestion.
Quoting 72. OKsky:



As a staunch Pastafarian I must point out this one that I see missed on here ALL the time.




Ever graphed temperature vs. the number of Pastafarians?

Seems to be the solution here is twofold. One, we need to dramatically increase the number of pirates and two, sacrifice all the Pastafarians to the greatness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Quoting 69. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:


put it under the carpet
put a hood over it
wait till it bites
watch for methane explosions



A new one:

President sez so :P
Quoting 77. Xyrus2000:



A new one:

President sez so :P
he is not my president I have a prime minister but that don't look good either unless he grows a pair
Quoting 68. Patrap:



Its a cycle.

Its da sun.

Its voodoo.

We cant affect the earth.

Cats cause the warming.


Were actually cooling.


I can solve it tunnels.


😕 😯😥😂😰





Did I miss any ?

he likely won't chicken
Quoting 80. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

he likely won't chicken


With exception of your nasty tar sands (that you do not want to refine or pipe thru your own country) , Canada has been way ahead of the USA when it comes to thinking green.
Quoting 81. SunnyDaysFla:



With exception of your nasty tar sands (that you do not want to refine or pipe thru your own country) , Canada has been way ahead of the USA when it comes to thinking green.
yeah because that was the way the US was heading was now we have to wait and see whats going to happen which I have a bad feeling about
LOL, l wish, long range, but it is getting close to that time.
Quoting 75. HurricaneFan:


Wow, a major hurricane just in time for Thanksgiving.
"AGW is like the doctor telling you that you have high cholesterol. You can start taking steps now to head of considerable future problems, or you can continue on your merry way until you collapse from a severe heart attack."

High cholesterol does not cause heart disease, new research finds...
"Co-author of the study Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an intermediate care GP, acknowledged the findings would cause controversy but defended them as “robust” and “thoroughly reviewed.

“What we found in our detailed systematic review was that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease.”

;)

Things do change in the science arena. Not saying they will or won't, just that they do.


TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
700 PM EST MON NOV 14 2016

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

1. Cloudiness and thunderstorms have increased over the southwestern
Caribbean Sea in association with a broad area of low pressure that
is gradually forming across the region. Environmental conditions
are conducive for slow development of this disturbance during the
next several days, and a tropical depression is likely to form by
late this week or over the weekend while the low drifts northward or
northeastward.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...low...10 percent
* Formation chance through 5 days...high...70 percent
Quoting 85. Barefootontherocks:

"AGW is like the doctor telling you that you have high cholesterol. You can start taking steps now to head of considerable future problems, or you can continue on your merry way until you collapse from a severe heart attack."

High cholesterol does not cause heart disease, new research finds...
"Co-author of the study Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an intermediate care GP, acknowledged the findings would cause controversy but defended them as “robust” and “thoroughly reviewed.

“What we found in our detailed systematic review was that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease.”

;)

Things do change in the science arena. Not saying they will or won't, just that they do.


From NIH:

However, there are many important limitations to this review. This includes the possibility that the search methods may have missed relevant studies, not looking at levels of other blood fats (e.g. total and HDL cholesterol), and the possibility that other health and lifestyle factors are influencing the link.

Most importantly, as the researchers acknowledge, these findings do not take account of statin use, which lowers cholesterol. People found to have high LDL cholesterol at the study's start may have subsequently been started on statins, which could have prevented deaths.


Those are some pretty big gaps, and it was just one study. So yes, science does change all the time, but it takes more than a single study with admitted deficiencies to overturn a body of work.

Regardless, the analogy itself is correct. Replace cholesterol and heart disease with any other progenitor and disease pair. You have the option to do something about it, or don't and deal with the consequences. Given that the overwhelming a majority of experts indicate that AGW will lead to problems in the future, it would be smart to listen to them.
GeoffreyWPB I've only kept track of hurricane seasons 4 years. Has there been a 0% chance in 48 hours but a red chance of 70% in 5 days before? I don't remember seeing that.
Quoting 85. Barefootontherocks:

"AGW is like the doctor telling you that you have high cholesterol. You can start taking steps now to head of considerable future problems, or you can continue on your merry way until you collapse from a severe heart attack."

High cholesterol does not cause heart disease, new research finds...
"Co-author of the study Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an intermediate care GP, acknowledged the findings would cause controversy but defended them as “robust” and “thoroughly reviewed.

“What we found in our detailed systematic review was that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease.”

;)

Things do change in the science arena. Not saying they will or won't, just that they do.


As a heart patient I would never bet my life on one study when there are thousands saying the opposite.
Finally looking like a chance of some snow here in Denver Thursday/Friday. Don't want to jinx it but this one looks like it could go far enough south to bring at least something. Hope it does snow but if anything hope for some precipitation. Before that however highs in the upper 70s which is extremely unusual for November should cool into the low 40s Thursday/Friday which is actually a temperature that is a little below average.
you don't understand - there's a remote possibility that there might, in the future, be a flaw in your analogy! ergo, it's dumb to worry about climate change.

Quoting 87. Xyrus2000:



From NIH:

However, there are many important limitations to this review. This includes the possibility that the search methods may have missed relevant studies, not looking at levels of other blood fats (e.g. total and HDL cholesterol), and the possibility that other health and lifestyle factors are influencing the link.

Most importantly, as the researchers acknowledge, these findings do not take account of statin use, which lowers cholesterol. People found to have high LDL cholesterol at the study's start may have subsequently been started on statins, which could have prevented deaths.


Those are some pretty big gaps, and it was just one study. So yes, science does change all the time, but it takes more than a single study with admitted deficiencies to overturn a body of work.

Regardless, the analogy itself is correct. Replace cholesterol and heart disease with any other progenitor and disease pair. You have the option to do something about it, or don't and deal with the consequences. Given that the overwhelming a majority of experts indicate that AGW will lead to problems in the future, it would be smart to listen to them.
Quoting 89. weathergirl2001:

GeoffreyWPB I've only kept track of hurricane seasons 4 years. Has there been a 0% chance in 48 hours but a red chance of 70% in 5 days before? I don't remember seeing that.


There's a 10% chance in the 48-hour time span. The graphic hasn't been updated.
Quoting 39. BayFog:


Forecast has a wet siege coming into Central California by the weekend, preceded by a wet front north of SF Bay Wednesday. Should be a bit a rain for SoCal this round.


Hope so :(
Quoting 87. Xyrus2000:



From NIH:

However, there are many important limitations to this review. This includes the possibility that the search methods may have missed relevant studies, not looking at levels of other blood fats (e.g. total and HDL cholesterol), and the possibility that other health and lifestyle factors are influencing the link.

Most importantly, as the researchers acknowledge, these findings do not take account of statin use, which lowers cholesterol. People found to have high LDL cholesterol at the study's start may have subsequently been started on statins, which could have prevented deaths.


Those are some pretty big gaps, and it was just one study. So yes, science does change all the time, but it takes more than a single study with admitted deficiencies to overturn a body of work.

Regardless, the analogy itself is correct. Replace cholesterol and heart disease with any other progenitor and disease pair. You have the option to do something about it, or don't and deal with the consequences. Given that the overwhelming a majority of experts indicate that AGW will lead to problems in the future, it would be smart to listen to them.
Nothing but doom and gloom here for years. Why blame this years election?
Quoting 95. Kenfa03:

Nothing but doom and gloom here for years. Why blame this years election?


What does that even mean and what does it have to do with comment #87?
Thanks Geoffrey I see that now.
Quoting 96. wartsttocs:



What does that even mean and what does it have to do with comment #87?
It means we have past the tipping point. Lets accept it and make the best of the time we have left.
Quoting 84. Climate175:

Wow, a major hurricane just in time for Thanksgiving.
the GFS as been all over the place interm of track and intensity the Euro and surprising the CMC as been consistent interms of track and intensity
Quoting 35. LargoFl:

WAYYYYY out in time But............................................... ..........

Hmm in only 150 hours (instead of the GFS 336 hrs) ECMWF is forecasting this:

@MJVentrice
Models hinting of a synoptic setup conducive for strong cyclogenesis over the Northeast this weekend,
101. ronnm
The heart attack analogy is correct in one way. The sugar industry was found to have manipulated the science of that thing so it would not reflect any contributor from sugar as a risk increaser at all. Now that found out and more science since that occurrence in the 1960's, we know simple sugar consuption does indeed influence the probability of heart problems. So it was not the science of that thing that had changed but the reporting and knowledge of existance science that was the cause.

So it continues with AGW and in about everything big oil touches. Just came from reading the industries response to all those fracking caused earthquakes in Oklahoma whose incidence is really off the charts. The response….take a minute and guess…it is of course more research is needed.

And so it goes and it goes. High tide super moon, suddenly half of coastal Florida is at threat. And they know it is and are planning for the higher tides that will in the future come. But admit to a warmer world causeing that thing nevertheless humans part in it, not on your life. Never happen. The arrogrance of the I persists. Never let the I be intruded upon by reality.
102. JRRP7
12z EURO ensembles
Quoting 72. OKsky:



As a staunch Pastafarian I must point out this one that I see missed on here ALL the time.




Finally, someone willing to speak the truth ;-)
GFS also showing trough digging into eastern seaboard at 150 hours.

Quoting 96. wartsttocs:



What does that even mean and what does it have to do with comment #87?


Perhaps he quoted the wrong post
106. ronnm
I guess comment103 would about say a bunch.
LIke where does one start? Somalia perhaps. Or maybe Iceland where the pirate poliitcal party came from nowhere to become the second or third most popular.

So even the analogy, which is supposed to say two things happening at the same time are not necessarily being, one the cause or in relationship to the other,(A favorite of those who say co2 and global warming are such things both occuring but not connected), is of course off base.
Trump now begins the process of staffing his administration, his pick to head the transition team at the EPA, Myron Ebell, offers more insight into the future of U.S. climate policy.

I put this on here to see if I'll get banned or if this will be deleted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quoting 75. HurricaneFan:



How do you get the full res?
Quoting 70. Patrap:




May God have mercy on our souls.
Was a strikingly awesome moon rise over Lake Pontchartrain tonight at 5:39 local.She rose quickly at around 078 degrees on the eastern horizon.


One kindle pic.



Quoting 109. Kenfa03:

May God have mercy on our souls.


How come?
Quoting 74. Xyrus2000:

Here's the problem that I've been having as of late with current events even though I agree on AGW and promoting awareness. We don't take everything into account. A good doctor would ask and either give further guidance on what is preventing you from living healthy or try to refer you to someone if its beyond their scope. Humans are and will always be selfish like it or not. If there is no real solution for Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary struggling in this economy as we've seen right now, you'll find yourself playing ball by yourself. This is why doctors see patients make little to no progress in most cases unless they nearly die or some significant event happens. Middle America has had their say. Insulting them and their choice does nothing. Anyways I see all sides in need of some serious soul searching to get anywhere for the future. Would have been better if Bernie were there instead.
Quoting 102. JRRP7:

12z EURO ensembles



Looks like NE Caribbean has greater chances of seeing "something" than NW Caribbean. xD
Quoting 111. luvtogolf:



How come?
Because that six headed monster is coming for us. Over and over and over.
We will continue to educate regardless of our politicians stance on the issues of Climate Change, in efforts of raising awareness, we must continue to act and do what's in our best interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect people and property from the risks of sea level rise, which also poses a threat to national security. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will help build up the infrastructure, but private groups and individual efforts will be equally if not more important in accomplishing these goals.

Climate change temperature hikes could be worse than thought
The planet appears more sensitive to greenhouse gases when it's warmer.



So long as us humans don't cut back on our use of fossil fuels, typical estimates have Earth's average temperature climbing 2.6 to 4.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. That kind of climate change would be bad enough, but new data suggests that we might be underestimating the temperature shift. Researchers studying a reconstruction of 784,000 years of climate data now suspect that the real hike could be much higher, between 4.8C and 7.4C. They noticed that the climate appeared more sensitive to greenhouse gases whenever it was warmer -- and guess which way the planet's temperature is headed right now?

Of course, it's not possible to travel back in time and verify the reconstructed temperature changes. There may be blips that we can't account for. However, Professor Michael Mann (best known for his "hockey stick" graph illustrating human-made climate change) tells the Independent that the data appears "sound," and the analysis is "quite defensible." And if it is, that suggests that the need to reduce harmful emissions is that much more urgent -- politicians can't ignore science in the name of propping up coal and oil companies. While there's no guarantee that we'll trigger an inescapable cycle that leads to Venus-like heat, higher average temperatures could spark additional flooding and desertification.

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past thousand years.
Quoting 107. trunkmonkey:

Trump now begins the process of staffing his administration, his pick to head the transition team at the EPA, Myron Ebell, offers more insight into the future of U.S. climate policy.

I put this on here to see if I'll get banned or if this will be deleted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


From Wikipedia [caveat emptor] "Ebell .... graduated from Colorado College with a B.A. in philosophy and obtained an M.Sc. in political theory from the London School of Economics. .... he became a staff member of Senator Malcolm Wallop's newly founded Frontiers of Freedom Institute,[11] which promoted property rights and criticized environmental regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act."

So this guy is a really useful pick for the Environmental Protection Agency.

IMO.... without deeply researching his background, this guy at first glance would have supported the extinction of the dodo and the North African elephant ... If I have mis-characterized Mr. Ebell, I deeply apologize.
Quoting 112. Hurricane4Lex:

Quoting 74. Xyrus2000:

Here's the problem that I've been having as of late with current events even though I agree on AGW and promoting awareness. We don't take everything into account. A good doctor would ask and either give further guidance on what is preventing you from living healthy or try to refer you to someone if its beyond their scope. Humans are and will always be selfish like it or not. If there is no real solution for Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary struggling in this economy as we've seen right now, you'll find yourself playing ball by yourself. This is why doctors see patients make little to no progress in most cases unless they nearly die or some significant event happens. Middle America has had their say. Insulting them and their choice does nothing. Anyways I see all sides in need of some serious soul searching to get anywhere for the future. Would have been better if Bernie were there instead.
If I'm being frank, unless very rich people suddenly are able to get control of alternative energy sources in such a way that they can continue to gouge the public for energy usage, I expect to see little or no progress towards clean energy production or away from fossil fuel usage in the US during the next four years. The minute the mega-rich can become the middle men in solar and wind power, we'll see massive steps. Until then, I remain yours, cynically.

It really doesn't have much to do with the manipulated masses of the US. This is, of course, MJO ....
Hopefully invest soon!
.nasa.gov Nov. 14, 2016
Extremely Warm 2015-2016 Winter Cyclone Weakened Arctic Sea Ice Pack


A large cyclone that crossed the Arctic in December 2015 brought so much heat and humidity to this otherwise frigid and dry environment that it thinned and shrunk the sea ice cover during a time of the year when the ice should have been growing thicker and stronger, a NASA study found.
ies

Extremely Warm 2015-2016 Winter Cyclone Weakened Arctic Sea Ice Pack
A large cyclone that crossed the Arctic in December 2015 brought so much heat and humidity to this otherwise frigid and dry environment that it thinned and shrunk the sea ice cover during a time of the year when the ice should have been growing thicker and stronger, a NASA study found.


A large cyclone that crossed the Arctic in December 2015 brought so much heat and humidity to this otherwise frigid environment that it thinned and shrunk the sea ice cover during a time when the ice should have been growing.

The cyclone formed on Dec. 28, 2015, in the middle of the North Atlantic, and traveled to the United Kingdom and Iceland before entering the Arctic on Dec. 30, lingering in the area for several days. During the height of the storm, the mean air temperatures in the Kara and Barents seas region, north of Russia and Norway, were 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) warmer than what the average had been for this time of the year since 2003.

The extremely warm and humid air mass associated with the cyclone caused an amount of energy equivalent to the power used in one year by half a million American homes to be transferred from the atmosphere to the surface of the sea ice in the Kara-Barents region. As a result, the areas sea ice thinned by almost 4 inches (10 centimeters) on average.

At the same time, the storm winds pushed the edges of the sea ice north, compacting the ice pack.

During the cyclone, the sea ice retreated northward, causing a loss in coverage equaling the area of the state of Florida,said Linette Boisvert, lead author of the study and a sea ice scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Boisvert and her colleagues used data from NASA's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument aboard the Aqua satellite to study the atmospheric effects of this storm on the sea ice, specifically the evolution of air temperature and humidity during the storm. They also compared the cyclone to other extreme events from past winters since 2003, the year AIRS began to collect data.

Measured against other extreme winter events that have happened in the Kara-Barents seas region over the AIRS period, this one was the warmest,Boisvert said. The AIRS time period also coincides with the warmest decade on record, so this storm being the hottest is a big deal.

The researchers also used a reanalysis of wind speeds, satellite passive microwave data of Arctic sea ice concentration and a sea ice thickness model to study how the storm impacted the sea ice cover.

Usually, during the Arctic winter the atmosphere and surface of the ice are very cold, while the exposed ocean waters are warmer, so theres a heat transfer from the ocean to atmosphere. During the cyclone, the pattern was inverted and heat traveled from the atmosphere to the surface of the ice. After the storm, the weather in the Kara-Barents seas region remained warmer than average for January, leading scientists to believe this cyclone prevented the sea ice from recovering.

During the months of January, February and March of this year, Arctic sea ice presented the lowest monthly extents in the satellite record, which were largely driven by abnormally low ice levels in the Kara and Barents seas.

Model projections of Arctic sea ice show that ice thickness will continue to decline over the next decades, making the sea ice cover even more vulnerable to winter storms.

In our study, we found that the thinnest ice was completely melted out by the storm, said Alek Petty, a co-author of the study and a sea ice researcher at Goddard. Maybe in the coming years, if we start with a thinner winter ice pack we'll see extreme events like these cause even bigger melt-outs across the Arctic.

Banner graphic: This image shows the winds and warm mass of air associated with a large cyclone that swept the Arctic in late December 2015-early January 2016, thinning and shrinking the sea ice cover. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio/Alex Kekesi, data visualizer


NASA's Earth Science News Team
Quoting 119. BahaHurican:

If I'm being frank, unless very rich people suddenly are able to get control of alternative energy sources in such a way that they can continue to gouge the public for energy usage, I expect to see little or no progress towards clean energy production or away from fossil fuel usage in the US during the next four years. The minute the mega-rich can become the middle men in solar and wind power, we'll see massive steps. Until then, I remain yours, cynically.

It really doesn't have much to do with the manipulated masses of the US. This is, of course, MJO ....
When the wind and solar susidies run out its game over. The coal miners will be back to work.
All the US coal workers could fit in the Superdome with ease.





The Annual Coal Report (ACR) provides annual data on U.S. coal production, number of mines, productive capacity, recoverable reserves, employment, productivity, consumption, stocks, and prices. All data for 2015 and prior years are final.

Highlights for 2015:

In 2015, U.S. coal production dropped 10.3% year-over-year to below 900 million short tons, the lowest annual production level since 1986.

Production in the Western Region, representing 56.6% of total U.S. coal production in 2015, totaled 507.4 million short tons (MMst), 6.5% lower than 2014.

In 2015, the productivity capacity of U.S. coal mines decreased for the fourth year in a row to 1,165 MMst, a decline of 6.3% from the 2014 levels.

The average number of employees at U.S. coal mines decreased 12.0% to 65,971 employees, the lowest on record since EIA began collecting data in 1978.

U.S. coal consumption of 798 MMst in 2015 was 13.1% lower from the 2014 levels. The electric power sector consumed about 92.5% of the total U.S. coal consumption in 2014.

Average sales price of coal from U.S. mines was $31.83 per short ton in 2015, 8.6% lower than the prior year.

Total U.S. coal stocks ended at 238.8 MMst, 20.6% higher than at the same time in 2014. Electric power coal stocks increased from 151.8 MMst at the end of 2014 to 195.9 MMst at the end of 2015, the highest year-ending stocks on record.

😯
Quoting 123. Patrap:

All the US coal workers could fit in the Superdome with ease.





The Annual Coal Report (ACR) provides annual data on U.S. coal production, number of mines, productive capacity, recoverable reserves, employment, productivity, consumption, stocks, and prices. All data for 2015 and prior years are final.

Highlights for 2015:

In 2015, U.S. coal production dropped 10.3% year-over-year to below 900 million short tons, the lowest annual production level since 1986.

Production in the Western Region, representing 56.6% of total U.S. coal production in 2015, totaled 507.4 million short tons (MMst), 6.5% lower than 2014.

In 2015, the productivity capacity of U.S. coal mines decreased for the fourth year in a row to 1,165 MMst, a decline of 6.3% from the 2014 levels.

The average number of employees at U.S. coal mines decreased 12.0% to 65,971 employees, the lowest on record since EIA began collecting data in 1978.

U.S. coal consumption of 798 MMst in 2015 was 13.1% lower from the 2014 levels. The electric power sector consumed about 92.5% of the total U.S. coal consumption in 2014.

Average sales price of coal from U.S. mines was $31.83 per short ton in 2015, 8.6% lower than the prior year.

Total U.S. coal stocks ended at 238.8 MMst, 20.6% higher than at the same time in 2014. Electric power coal stocks increased from 151.8 MMst at the end of 2014 to 195.9 MMst at the end of 2015, the highest year-ending stocks on record.

😯
Pre Trump.
At least there seems to be something worth tracking in the caribbean this upcoming week as to give us a break from the political talk.
Quoting 126. washingtonian115:

At least there seems to be something worth tracking in the caribbean this upcoming week s to give us a break from the political talk.


I think a massive meteor strike would be better. From what I read on here it's over for us all anyway.
128. ronnm
Regarding this, quote "When the wind and solar susidies run out its game over. The coal miners will be back to work."

Coal is a global commodity. Peabody for instance was a major coal company that just went bankrupt. They also are/were a global producer of coal and as well a exporter of coal. Through export of US coal and partnership mines in China and owned mines Australia. They market for coal globally just is not there. Vast amounts are still used yearly but the trend globally is clearly downward.

Aside the fact the industry is subsidized by various means but in the main by not requireing that they not pollute the lands they mine in and lands adjacent to those mined. Society ends up suffering the disabilities of those who contract things like black lung when the company who created that goes bankrupt or reorganizes. To mention but a few.
Full moon super moon... about 8p.m. Monday

130. JRRP7

We will see INVEST soon
This from Arctic Oscillation and Polar Vortex Analysis and Forecasts

"But the big story of late has been the rapidly cooling SSTs across the mid-latitudes of the North Pacific. These cool waters seem to be a result of the very cold temperatures that developed across Siberia this October. The cold air across Siberia both being advected out across the North Pacific and strengthening the westerlies across the North Pacific have dramatically cooled SSTs in the North Pacific. This seems analogous to the winters of 2013/14 and 2014/15 when cold temperatures in Canada cooled North Atlantic SSTS and strengthened the Jet Stream to record speeds as it headed towards Europe. This dramtaic cooling of SSTs demonstrates we are more confident that the atmosphere forces SSTs than SSTs force the atmospehre in the mid-latiudes. Warmer than normal SSTs to the north near Alaska and colder than normal SSTs across the mid-latitudes, could favor a southward shift the in the Jet Stream across the North Pacific this winter. The cool waters across the mid-latitudes could help strengthen the Aleutians low further south opposite to what might be expected during La Nina."

In my nullschool mashup graphic below, you can see how winds from yesterday's Aleutian low push colder air/water and hence SST anomalies south while pulling up warmer air/waters along the west coast US - thus bumping up the PDO signal when it should be dropping now. Interesting to see how south the Aleutians low go, that mid-latitude of the North Pacific sure is anomalously cold.



Seems like changes in NH upper latitudes are creating a dominant weather forcing mechanism that is more and more consistently drowning out the ENSO signal.
Quoting 122. Kenfa03:

When the wind and solar susidies run out its game over. The coal miners will be back to work.

If wind and solar subsidies run out it's only fair to cut coal and the other fossil fuels off. That would be some real relief to the debt and environmental issues...

The research examined the subsidies given to coal production in the US’s largest coal field, the Powder River Basin, and found they totalled $2.9bn (£1.9bn) a year. This equates to $8 per tonne, almost 25% of the sale price.

Ending the subsidies would lead to cuts in coal use equivalent to shutting up to 32 coal-fired power stations, the researchers found, leading to a large reduction in carbon emissions.


A recent study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took into account not just direct subsidies but also the cost to nations of the damage caused by air pollution and global warming. It estimated coal, oil and gas were being subsidised by $5.3trn a year, more than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. Much of the cost is due to the illness and death caused by air pollution.

“Eliminating coal subsidies in the Powder River Basin and throughout the world, is an obvious, no-regrets climate strategy,” said Doug Koplow, of Earth Track and another member of the research team.
135. ronnm
As to renewable subsidy, a bill passed in 2015 which provides to quote,
"Under the legislation, the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar will be extended for another three years. It will then ramp down incrementally through 2021, and remain at 10 percent permanently beginning in 2022.

The 2.3-cent Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind will also be extended through next year. Projects that begin construction in 2017 will see a 20 percent reduction in the incentive. The PTC will then drop 20 percent each year through 2020."

I believe that bill passed intact.
The notion that a president takes office and then takes over is perhaps a vistage of our aristocratic heritage. No such thing happens.

Things like solar and wind investments are long term. A year by year subsidy renewance by congress would serve no purpose and not incite investment. So these things are provided longer term so one if one wants may know the environment one is investing into.

Can things be changed certainly. But this particular was the result of republicans and democrats and won the favorance of both the house and senate. It replaced a similiar bill which had also long time effects, and it just happened a year ago. It went down to the wire, and was the subject of much negotiation.

Will Trump be able to change this, highly unlikley, `1% chance. Many peoples depend on jobs to install rooftop solar and such things and this directly translates to those jobs. Hundreds of thousands I would venture. Far more than coal.
A immediate removal of the tax break would result in a almost immediate stoppage of all rooftop installation applications. HUndreds of thousands of jobs lost in one fell swoop would spell instant recession in all probability, with places such as California hit especially hard.
Trumps views may be different than mine but clearly the man is no idiot. Only a idiot would attempt that clear result.
Here was today's smokey image & the latest on some of the fires, mostly Nantahala & Lake Lure. NOC was saved. In the comments is the latest where the entire Nantahala National Forest Cheoah Ranger District was closed due to the Maple Springs Wildfire.

Quoting 134. Skyepony:


If wind and solar subsidies run out it's only fair to cut coal and the other fossil fuels off. That would be some real relief to the debt and environmental issues...

The research examined the subsidies given to coal production in the US’s largest coal field, the Powder River Basin, and found they totalled $2.9bn (£1.9bn) a year. This equates to $8 per tonne, almost 25% of the sale price.

Ending the subsidies would lead to cuts in coal use equivalent to shutting up to 32 coal-fired power stations, the researchers found, leading to a large reduction in carbon emissions.


A recent study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took into account not just direct subsidies but also the cost to nations of the damage caused by air pollution and global warming. It estimated coal, oil and gas were being subsidised by $5.3trn a year, more than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. Much of the cost is due to the illness and death caused by air pollution.

“Eliminating coal subsidies in the Powder River Basin and throughout the world, is an obvious, no-regrets climate strategy,” said Doug Koplow, of Earth Track and another member of the research team.

And then what? Wasn't it Kerry that said we could live with out air conditioning? He saw the handwriting on the wall.
Quoting 137. Kenfa03:

And then what?

We could pay the real price of electricity as we use it & let economics work out the rest.

More than 5 million people are dying prematurely every year from air pollution, most of which is directly tied to fossil fuel. How much more taking our tax money to pay corporations to help get fossil fuels into the atmosphere can we live with?

"In the US, we know that for every dollar spent on air pollution improvements, we can get between a $4-$30 benefit in terms of reduced health impacts.

Seems like subsidizing solar and wind would save us big on healthcare..

Quoting 95. Kenfa03:

Nothing but doom and gloom here for years. Why blame this years election?


No one is blaming this election. AGW is a problem that has been going on since the start of the industrial revolution. However, Trumps rumored pick for the EPA would do a lot more than dismiss AGW. He'd role back environmental regulations back to the stone age. Hope you like coal flavored air and lead tainted water.
140. ronnm
Just for general informational purposes.

This from Moody's, via OIL price dot com.

"Low natural gas prices have devastated most of the US merchant power sector because gas-fired power plants often serve as the marginal plant during times of peak power demand," Moody's said. "Lower natural gas prices have effectively driven down wholesale power prices for all generators, regardless of whether they are using natural gas, coal, nuclear power or renewable resources to generate their electricity."

The low price producer defines the market not the high price producer in unregulated markets. Coal has been underpriced by nat gas which is the why of the end of coal, with the additions of additional environmental regulations. But it is not the principal of regulation it is the primary principal of low nat gas priceing due to fracking technology, that has ended coal.
Nat gas still produces gross amounts of co2 just still half that of a equilivent of coal.

As fracking technology translates to a global scene and our fracked gas becomes more available due to export and liquification terminals, one just completed in Baltimore, the global price of nat gas and LNG will continue to trend down, with only minor blips up. Coal will remain depressed as nat gas is its competition.

Renewables are not the replacement for coal fueled power plants in the US, nat gas largly is, with some minor exceptions. Which buys us some time AGW wise but does not solve the riddle.

Trump in this regard is being a politician nothing is bringing those jobs back. There will be a temporary blip upward in production next year but that is minor and due to other factors than political, mainly inventory. My guess is he claims that as his own. But the EIA already stated that about half a year ago.

To my guess the environmental industry is claiming coal as a great victory, their victory. Truth is coal's environmental regulations are just the iceing on the cake. The cake that doomed coal is low nat gas price due to fracking technology. The only thing stopping a complete devolvement of price is the nat gas industry voluntarily stopping production.
Here is a clue. AS they lied the general media about AGW for years and years, they lie about most things. In this specific it is nat gas pricing not environmental regulations that killed king coal. But if one can so seldom call a thing a victory any handy thing may be so called one.

This is all tied into the EU and Russia and a bunch of other things but that would be off point. Suffice it to say Obama is a nat gas man. Environmental man, no. The coal industry simply does not have the pull it once did. Pull enough to define a presidency. They are done finished stick a fork in them. I would not however discount the ability of the oil industry to define a presidency. By my guess the first and easiest targets will be cafe standards and possibly concurrent with lack of renewal of any EV purchase stimulus incentive. Which will define the Trump presidency by my guess.
Quoting 98. Kenfa03:

It means we have past the tipping point. Lets accept it and make the best of the time we have left.

We may well have passed some tipping points but there are others we have not passed. Anthropogenic global warming is not an either/or thing. The more greenhouse gasses we dump in the atmosphere the more warming there will be. The more warming the more drastic the effects will be. To throw up your hands and say it's too late to do anything so we should just give up is to condemn our children and grandchildren to worse conditions than we have to.

Also you said once subsidies for solar and wind power run out that coal will come back. But unless there is a massive increase in the cost of natural gas coal will not come back. And even then the cost of solar and wind keep dropping as well. I don't see coal becoming cost competitive ever again.
142. ackee
So model still showing possibility Of a storm to track in the SW Carrb , but it does seem steering current will be weak could be long slow erratic moving system the Euro and the CMC GFS all show diffrent solutions let see
Quoting 138. Skyepony:


We could pay the real price of electricity as we use it & let economics work out the rest.

More than 5 million people are dying prematurely every year from air pollution, most of which is directly tied to fossil fuel. How much more taking our tax money to pay corporations to help get fossil fuels into the atmosphere can we live with?

"In the US, we know that for every dollar spent on air pollution improvements, we can get between a $4-$30 benefit in terms of reduced health impacts.

Seems like subsidizing solar and wind would save us big on healthcare..




I'm against subsidizing any form of energy! period, I'm a free market kind of guy, I believe if you have a product the market will dictate it's success. I once had a Ford Granada 6 cylinder, I was hoping to get 18-22 MPH, it only got 12 MPH, today the average mini van gets 22 MPH, so if I were to purchase a vehicle today, it would be the van. I love solar energy, I don't think it's the Governments place to subsidize the production and profits of that company, let the market control it, if its' good, it will sell, if not, it wasn't good enough to be on the market! I don't want the Government funding pipelines, or port export facilities either, this should come from the private sector investment, not Government or my tax monies, we need to put my money on America, i.e. inner city school systems, infrastructure, water projects like Flint etc! basics first my friends!
vibraint.t.w.
Quoting 143. trunkmonkey:



I'm against subsidizing any form of energy! period, I'm a free market kind of guy, I believe if you have a product the market will dictate it's success. I once had a Ford Granada 6 cylinder, I was hoping to get 18-22 MPH, it only got 12 MPH, today the average mini van gets 22 MPH, so if I were to purchase a vehicle today, it would be the van. I love solar energy, I don't think it's the Governments place to subsidize the production and profits of that company, let the market control it, if its' good, it will sell, if not, it wasn't good enough to be on the market! I don't want the Government funding pipelines, or port export facilities either, this should come from the private sector investment, not Government or my tax monies, we need to put my money on America, i.e. inner city school systems, infrastructure, water projects like Flint etc! basics first my friends!

This is so Friedman/Rand.
146. ackee
ZCZC MIATWOAT ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
700 AM EST TUE NOV 15 2016

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

1. A large area cloudiness and thunderstorms is associated with a
broad low pressure system located over the southwestern Caribbean
Sea. Environmental conditions are expected to be conducive for slow
development of this disturbance during the next several days, and a
tropical depression is likely to form by late this week or over the
weekend while the low drifts northward or northeastward.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...low...10 percent
* Formation chance through 5 days...high...80 percent

Forecaster Stewart
GFS struggling to consolidate the potential Caribbean storm as a result of the trough to the north. Two separate lows on the 06z.

Quoting 143. trunkmonkey:



I'm against subsidizing any form of energy! period, I'm a free market kind of guy, I believe if you have a product the market will dictate it's success. I once had a Ford Granada 6 cylinder, I was hoping to get 18-22 MPH, it only got 12 MPH, today the average mini van gets 22 MPH, so if I were to purchase a vehicle today, it would be the van. I love solar energy, I don't think it's the Governments place to subsidize the production and profits of that company, let the market control it, if its' good, it will sell, if not, it wasn't good enough to be on the market! I don't want the Government funding pipelines, or port export facilities either, this should come from the private sector investment, not Government or my tax monies, we need to put my money on America, i.e. inner city school systems, infrastructure, water projects like Flint etc! basics first my friends!


I think the free market can combat climate change if given the right incentives. I favor a revenue-neutral carbon tax, such as is place in British Columbia, Canada. The idea is very simple-all the money raised from the carbon tax is rebated to the people in the form of an income tax credit (for those whose income puts them below the threshold to owe income tax, they get a check). The people can then make their own decision on how to spend that money-if they want to buy a gas-guzzling SUV, that is their choice. If they want to use it to educate their kids, for example, that is up to them.

Economists on all sides seem to agree that it hasn't had a negative effect on the provincial economy. The numbers seem to range from no effect to a mild positive effect. There are no additional regulations and no additional bureaucracy-the tax is collected along with sales and gas taxes and the credits are handled as a simple line on income tax returns.

It stuns me that so-called conservatives would object to this. There is nothing particularly conservative about taxing labor and capital, which is what we do now, vs shifting some of the burden to carbon emissions.
AL, 90, 2016111512, , BEST, 0, 115N, 775W, 20, 1009, LO, 34, NEQ, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1012, 200, 100, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST
150. ackee
Quoting 147. CybrTeddy:

GFS struggling to consolidate the potential Caribbean storm as a result of the trough to the north. Two separate lows on the 06z.

agree the CMC and Euro seem have a better handle on the potential system to me
151. ackee
Quoting 149. CybrTeddy:

AL, 90, 2016111512, , BEST, 0, 115N, 775W, 20, 1009, LO, 34, NEQ, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1012, 200, 100, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST
glad we have invest let see what the model do
cmc has 90l now stationary through to 180hrs.
http://www.pancanal.com/eng/eie/radar/movie.html
If you want to stop Global warming then stop having children.




GENESIS036 (90L)...

Good Morning Folks; always interesting to see a late season Invest in the Atlantic and to see whether it can find some breathing room as shear continues to increase this time of the year. Impressive burst of convection but a dry and high-shear environment to the North as it moves in that direction. Too early to tell whether it will develop or not in the long-term: if it does not organize really well over the next 72, certain death (in terms of a tropical storm) might be in store if the mid-level shear does not allow it to stack up on the way North..............Might be a very titled system for the duration of the run.


Quoting 155. Trumpisboss:

If you want to stop Global warming then stop having children.







Most ignorant statement I have seen on here in a long time.....................................
160. elioe
Quoting 134. Skyepony:

A recent study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took into account not just direct subsidies but also the cost to nations of the damage caused by air pollution and global warming. It estimated coal, oil and gas were being subsidised by $5.3trn a year, more than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. Much of the cost is due to the illness and death caused by air pollution.


If I understand correctly, what that says... for fossil fuel usage within one country, it considers air pollution and global warming resulting from that usage, both inside and outside country borders as "subsidies". The world economy simply doesn't work that way.

The correct formula for national economical impacts (therefore the impact, that steers decision-making by default):
Always count domestic global warming effects and air pollution resulting from only domestic fossil fuel usage.
Count external global warming effects and air pollution resulting from domestic fossil fuel usage, if and only if foreign countries will find it viable for them to begin a war against your country to extract compensation due to those effects.
Count domestic global warming effects and air pollution resulting from fossil fuel usage by other nations, if and only if it is viable for your country to begin a war against those nations to extract compensation from them.

When I tried to make a realistic assessment of the Realpolitik governing the workings of international stage a few days ago, it was labelled "hate speech". Please delete this, if this is also deemed as such.
Alternatively, and in spite of the shear bands to the North of 90L, and dry air, the favorable part of the synoptic environment to the North is a Tutt free zone at the moment all the way to the North of the Greater Antilles and warm SSTs....................If the shear relaxes to the North, and it can self-sustain healthy convection, it could stand a chance at designation in the longer term (hence the long-term 80% from NHC).





r u sure? statements of ignorance in light of a very strong correlation would require more than just "Most ignorant statement I have seen on here in a long time"
Quoting 158. weathermanwannabe:



Most ignorant statement I have seen on here in a long time.....................................
Quoting 160. elioe:



If I understand correctly, what that says... for fossil fuel usage within one country, it considers air pollution and global warming resulting from that usage, both inside and outside country borders as "subsidies". The world economy simply doesn't work that way.

The correct formula for national economical impacts (therefore the impact, that steers decision-making by default):
Always count domestic global warming effects and air pollution resulting from only domestic fossil fuel usage.
Count external global warming effects and air pollution resulting from domestic fossil fuel usage, if and only if foreign countries will find it viable for them to begin a war against your country to extract compensation due to those effects.
Count domestic global warming effects and air pollution resulting from fossil fuel usage by other nations, if and only if it is viable for your country to begin a war against those nations to extract compensation from them.

When I tried to make a realistic assessment of the Realpolitik governing the workings of international stage a few days ago, it was labelled "hate speech". Please delete this, if this is also deemed as such.

It's analysis of a reality and I welcome it. Not that I welcome that reality.
Washington Post 54 min ago


Trump’s denial of catastrophic climate change is a clear danger




Trump’s denial of catastrophic climate change is a clear danger



By Katrina vanden Heuvel November 15 at 8:00 AM

Donald Trump’s stunning victory has left millions in dread and moved thousands into the streets. Fear has spread among immigrants and Muslims. The 20 million who have received health insurance under Obamacare worry about Trump’s vow to repeal it. The media speculates about what he might do: Will he really tear up the Iran nuclear deal or order the CIA to start torturing people again? But it is Trump’s denial of catastrophic climate change — he has repeatedly said he considers it a “hoax” — and his vow to reverse all of the progress made under President Obama to address it that pose some of the most chilling and potentially irreversible threats.

Voters heard little about climate change in the endless election campaign. The contrast between the two candidates was night and day, with Hillary Clinton promising to expand on Obama’s climate initiatives and Trump vowing to repeal them. Yet not one question was posed about climate change in the presidential debates. The media gave more airtime to the size of Trump’s hands than to the scope of his climate delusion.

Yet the stakes are huge. Climate change isn’t a distant concern; it is a clear and present danger. Mr. Trump may not believe that, but the generals in the Pentagon have no doubts. A Pentagon report says that climate change is an “urgent and growing threat to our national security.” In January, Pentagon officials were instructed to include climate change in every decision, from readying troops for battle to testing weapons.

As environmentalist Bill McKibben pointed out last week, climate change is already here. The world’s global warming — and the melting of the Arctic ice caps — are now occurring at a much faster rate than scientists previously predicted. Most of the summer sea ice in the Arctic has melted. That’s enough heat, McKibben reports, that record-warm water swept across the Pacific this spring, killing “vast swaths of coral.” That’s enough heat to already cause steady increases in droughts and shocking downpours and floods in wet areas. It has already begun to raise the levels of the ocean. Scientists now suggest that, even with the Paris climate talks, we are on a trajectory to increase the Earth’s temperature 3.5 degrees Celsius or more. If we do that, many cities around the world will be underwater.

Under Obama, the United States played a leading role in getting China — and eventually India — to join the 2015 Paris agreement, with countries pledging carbon reduction commitments needed to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius. Many scientists believe that goal is not enough, but meeting even that level will require dramatic and immediate action. One-hundred-and-nine countries responsible for nearly eighty percent of greenhouse-gas emissions have now ratified the agreement, enacting it into international law. The United States represents about 20 percent of the pledged reductions of world greenhouse-gas emissions. Much of this will come from Obama’s Clean Power Plan, designed to enforce Environmental Protection Agency standards on carbon emissions, calling on the states to reduce power plant emissions by 32 percent by 2030.


In the campaign, Trump announced that he would seek to repeal the Clean Power Plan and withdraw from the Paris agreement. He has also pledged to go forward with the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, to slash investment in climate research and development in renewable energy and efficiency innovation, to open up leasing of oil, gas and coal on federal lands onshore and offshore and to revive coal. He has named Myron Ebell, a notorious climate-change denier and head of a think tank funded in part by the coal industry, to head his EPA and energy transition team. Conservative Republicans who dominate the majority in Congress have railed against Obama’s plans. Oil and coal barons — think the Koch Brothers, among the richest people in the world — wield big money and deep pockets on the Republican right.

There are limits on what Trump can do. The stock price of bankrupt Peabody Energy coal company rose upon Trump’s election, but coal is virtually dead, unable to compete in price with natural gas, production of which Trump plans to expand. More dangerous are reports that he’ll move to loosen regulation of gas pipelines. Methane leaks from pipelines are a far more potent contributor to global warming than even carbon emissions.

Elections do have consequences — often ones not intended by voters. Americans elected George W. Bush, who called for a more modest U.S. role in the world and got the president who drove the disastrous invasion of Iraq. A minority of Americans voted for Trump, largely because they wanted change — but few had any idea of the calamitous consequences that will follow if he carries through his know- nothing stance on climate change.

Trump’s efforts will be and must be resisted. 2014 saw the People’s Climate March — billed as the largest demonstration on climate ever in New York City. Another protest is being planned for Washington next spring. Civil disobedience helped stall the building of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and those protests will surely ramp up. The divestment campaign has removed trillions from oil industry investments and will continue to spread. Other countries will invest in renewable energy and efficiency innovations, winning global markets and jobs that the United States will forfeit. In this country, California and New York and other states will continue to push toward renewable energy and require higher efficiency and mileage stands, forcing manufacturers to respond. Democrats in the Senate and House will fight a long, rearguard action to limit the damage.

But time is not on our side, or on the side of civilization. McKibben noted that the real contest isn’t between Democrats and Republicans or Clinton and Trump, but between “human beings and physics,” and physics “is not prone to compromise.” If we don’t move quickly, very quickly, then any progress will be too late. We can’t afford to drift for four or eight years; we can’t afford to stall what little momentum has been created. Trump may think that it will be easy to reverse Obama’s climate measures. He is about to find out that millions of concerned citizens here and abroad will use every nonviolent means possible to stop him from accelerating the worst crisis humans have ever faced. That isn’t about politics; it is about survival.


😯
Quoting 160. elioe:


The IMF statement is more like a "thought experiment" than a wartime strategy.
wow its dry in the Caymans........took a drive to North Side and its bone dry
I'm loosing the battle again :( Boring...
Quoting 166. 19N81W:

wow its dry in the Caymans........took a drive to North Side and its bone dry


WKC said the island was very wet though. LOL!
58 days without measurable rain in SW Alabama where I hunt. Pond is down about 3' and creek is dry with just patches of pooled water caused by beaver dams. There is a chance we'll see some rain there today, there is a small batch of thunderstorms and rain moving into SW Alabama from the NW and looks like it will move over the area where our hunting camp is, hopefully it will hold together long enough to give the property a good soaking rain. I was there this past weekend and there was dust everywhere, very dry.
And of course it's been very dry here too.. The rain only goes to the same places :/
Quoting 122. Kenfa03:

When the wind and solar susidies run out its game over. The coal miners will be back to work.


no they won't. It isn't Obama that killed coal jobs, it wasn't wind and solar subsidies that killed coal jobs, it was natural gas. It's cheaper, it's cleaner, it's plentiful, the days of thermal coal mining is dead. If steel prices go back up, metallurgical coal mining could come back, but that's it.
Sorry folks,

Late fall and winter is cancelled.




Please,check out the wu gift shop for a souvenir.

Quoting 171. pipelines:



no they won't. It isn't Obama that killed coal jobs, it wasn't wind and solar subsidies that killed coal jobs, it was natural gas. It's cheaper, it's cleaner, it's plentiful, the days of thermal coal mining is dead. If steel prices go back up, metallurgical coal mining could come back, but that's it.


You are correct with respect to the United States, where nat gas is plentiful and inexpensive. That cannot be said for most of the emerging world, where coal is the cheapest alternative.
Quoting 127. luvtogolf:



I think a massive meteor strike would be better. From what I read on here it's over for us all anyway.


It is.

But it is going to be one hell of a meteorlogical roller coaster ride, though; quite the show.
Quoting 158. weathermanwannabe:



Most ignorant statement I have seen on here in a long time.....................................

Although he very well may not realize it, the author of that statement is acknowledging, in a backhand way, that AGW is real.
Quoting 160. elioe:



If I understand correctly, what that says...

I don't think you understand it or you are trying to confuse the issue for others by making this somehow about external and internal pollution for various countries...because those are different topics and has nothing to do with the total cost globally other than the cost of war fossil fuels bring. 5.3trillon dollars is the total global cost to all of us after actual purchase price (not including fossil wars). The sale price of fossil fuels include roughly a 25% subsidy upfront and then after the fact in environmental clean-up, caring for and burying the additional 5 million people fossil fuel use kills (there is no cost of human life potential added here) & health cost for the many more that live with conditions brought on by fossil fuel use.

Solar can be bought easily for less than $0.80 a watt. That includes the majority of real cost it creates plus the benefits of lower health costs due to less pollution. Could easily include a benefit you pointed out- a reduction of wars of limited fossil fuels and the hate caused by some countries polluting and killing off people in other countries so they can enjoy the things electricity allows.

Many of our largest costs as a society like healthcare and military in ways are due to the crutch of burning fossil fuels or using them as fertilizer.

Germany was expected to make 2 billion selling solar and wind energy to their neighbors without killing them with so much pollution, as they begin weaning themselves off nuclear and fossil fuel energy. They also tanked energy prices at one point this past summer producing so much solar and wind derived electricity, helping drive down the overall cost of fuels. Don't you think that might be a better path for the rest of us to follow?
Quoting 173. Greg01:



You are correct with respect to the United States, where nat gas is plentiful and inexpensive. That cannot be said for most of the emerging world, where coal is the cheapest alternative.


However, the demand for coal in the world market was not enough to keep Peabody Coal Co. from bankruptcy.
Quoting 138. Skyepony:


We could pay the real price of electricity as we use it & let economics work out the rest.

More than 5 million people are dying prematurely every year from air pollution, most of which is directly tied to fossil fuel. How much more taking our tax money to pay corporations to help get fossil fuels into the atmosphere can we live with?

"In the US, we know that for every dollar spent on air pollution improvements, we can get between a $4-$30 benefit in terms of reduced health impacts.

Seems like subsidizing solar and wind would save us big on healthcare..




The problem is that we believe that capitalism and the market can always efficiently allocate resources, maximise benefit and minimize costs producing an optimal economic outcome as described in the happy land of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"

Sadly this is not correct because there is NO way for capitalism or the market to properly handle externalities, either negative ones such as pollution, or positive ones such as mass education or business formation.

None!

Externalities must be either tolerated to produce a suboptimal outcome (improperly priced .. way too low, carbon use" or mitigated with actions outside of the market e.g. a carbon tax. The latter would be a really good idea but what level to set it at cannot be determined by market forces and this is a valid concern for the discipline of Economics. The setting is done by Government and this will send howls of protest from those who want to just drown gov't in the bathtub (Adam Smith BTW acknowledged the need for a strong effective government].


And I am a meteorologist/HPC specialist, not an economist so I certainly don't have a solution.
New post on robertscribbler


For The Arctic Ocean Above 80 North, It’s Still Summer in November

(Link button appears to be missing this morning)

https://www.hushmail.com/preview/hushmail/skhelen a@hushmail.com/#message/Inbox/64761?show_images=1

The link and other controls are Fine.

Clear your browser cache.



For The Arctic Ocean Above 80 North, It’s Still Summer in November



It’s going to be the hottest year on record — by a long shot. Just ask Gavin Schmidt at a NASA that the climate change denying Trump Administration has now imperiled. But in one region — the Arctic — the rate of heat accumulation has been outrageously extreme. And it is there that this new record warmth could inflict some of the worst damage to an increasingly fragile Earth System.

Summer Heat During Fall Above 80 North

For in the Arctic Ocean above the 80 degree north latitude line which encircles the crest of our world, temperatures today are around 17 degrees Celsius above average. These are the warmest temperatures for this region ever recorded. And they include numerous locations in which temperatures spike to well above 20 C (36 F) warmer than average.

More:.....

Quoting 158. weathermanwannabe:



Most ignorant statement I have seen on here in a long time.....................................
Ok, then give me a counter argument. It s obvious that the increased numbers of humans are contributing to increase of Co2. Heck we continue to contributing by just "breathing". Larger human population also consumes more food (more cattles, pigs etc.) with cows being avid methane producers thanks to their 4 stomaches. More cars on the streets, more trees knocked down etc., care to explain what s ignorant with this logic considering the statements above and the general consensus that the global warming is man made?


So... the S windwards haven't got enough rain lately :/
Breathing produces no new CO2.

Anyone with even cursory knowledge knows that simple science.

FACTSAREBOSS.COM

How much does human breathing contribute to climate change?

Asked by: Peter Thatcher, Lancaster

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn't sound much until you take into account the fact that the worlds population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we're breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we're not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.


Ignorance on ANY subject is a personal choice.


Always
The largest cause of the current accelerated warming rate is correlated to industrialized fossil fuel burning from the major industrial Countries which to a large degree are Europe, the United States, China/Industrialized Asia in the Northern Hemisphere with other nations in the Southern playing catch-up. This, from a scientific point, is much more complex than just more people. Further, and I am reading between the lines as to your comment, the suggestion of "who" is having more children. If you are implying that people in the less developed countries, who have more children per family at present than in the industrialized nations are responsible for AGW, or that more people automatically equals global warming, your argument is the most ignorant one I have seen on here in a long time.....................Try reading Future World from Alvin Toffler (70's book) that addresses the global population issue minus an AGW slant; more people cause more stress on the limited global natural resources but un-responsible and unbridled fossil fuel burning is the main cause (of AGW); modern science, including vaccines and preventive medical measures, and fossil fuel based fertilizers increasing ag production to feed more people, might explain the population increase that just happens to cooincide with AGW. That's my counter-argument.
sadly Americans voted him in.......
Quoting 180. Patrap:

The link and other controls are Fine.

Clear your browser cache.



For The Arctic Ocean Above 80 North, It’s Still Summer in November



It’s going to be the hottest year on record — by a long shot. Just ask Gavin Schmidt at a NASA that the climate change denying Trump Administration has now imperiled. But in one region — the Arctic — the rate of heat accumulation has been outrageously extreme. And it is there that this new record warmth could inflict some of the worst damage to an increasingly fragile Earth System.

Summer Heat During Fall Above 80 North

For in the Arctic Ocean above the 80 degree north latitude line which encircles the crest of our world, temperatures today are around 17 degrees Celsius above average. These are the warmest temperatures for this region ever recorded. And they include numerous locations in which temperatures spike to well above 20 C (36 F) warmer than average.

More:.....
if you have irrigation....
Quoting 168. CaribBoy:



WKC said the island was very wet though. LOL!
187. elioe
Quoting 176. Skyepony:


I don't think you understand it or you are trying to confuse the issue for others by making this somehow about external and internal pollution for various countries...because those are different topics and has nothing to do with the total cost globally other than the cost of war fossil fuels bring. 5.3trillon dollars is the total global cost to all of us after actual purchase price (not including fossil wars).


Then, I understood it correctly. I'm not disputing the result that the study arrived into. I'm just pointing, that the result has no practical meaning, due to workings of real-life international politics.

Quoting 176. Skyepony:
Solar can be bought easily for less than $0.80 a watt.


Price per unit capacity means nothing. Price per total production, combined with the correlation of the production with regional electricity demand, is what matters. Or, you can forget the correlation, if you make your own investment in energy storage, so that your solar production and storage change can always match your own demand. Needless to say, the real feasibility depends greatly on where you live. Approximately one week ago there was lots of discussion here about solar power in Florida, and from that I deduce, that many Floridians are willing to produce solar power, and currently demand peaks so strongly during sunny days, that no energy storage is needed. But if solar becomes so prevalent, that actually sunny-day-production exceeds the extra sunny-day-demand, solar-producing people would like their utility to make the energy storage investment.

And my comment only discussed warfare as pollution mitigation tactics (over fossil fuel consumption sites), not discussing wars fought over fossil fuel production sites. That's a too U.S.-specific issue for me to discuss.

Quoting 176. Skyepony:
Germany was expected to make 2 billion selling solar and wind energy to their neighbors without killing them with so much pollution, as they begin weaning themselves off nuclear and fossil fuel energy. They also tanked energy prices at one point this past summer producing so much solar and wind derived electricity, helping drive down the overall cost of fuels. Don't you think that might be a better path for the rest of us to follow?


You just pointed out the biggest problems with solar and wind. Even Finland could make $2 billion by selling solar power, if we covered the entire country in solar panels and invested $20000 billion in that. Putting that $2 billion alone is misleading. What your another link showed, is that German solar and wind power producers, at one point, made no other revenue than subsidies. Subsidies themselves being completely a financial loss for government, and therefore, to the nation as whole. Then, the coal and nuclear power producers can continue to make profit from calm weather and nighttime production as usual.

For some people with extraordinary circumstances, a big shift to solar and wind may be a better path. But not for overwhelming majority of people on this planet.

Quoting 183. Patrap:

Breathing produces no new CO2.

Anyone with even cursory knowledge knows that simple science.

FACTSAREBOSS.COM

How much does human breathing contribute to climate change?

Asked by: Peter Thatcher, Lancaster

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn't sound much until you take into account the fact that the worlds population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we're breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we're not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.


Ignorance on ANY subject is a personal choice.


Always

Humans have been abusing the so called "natural harmony" thanks to sheer numbers and their ability to transform natural habitat. There is nothing natural about the population of over 7 billions humans which continues to thrive, the Earth has a budget as to how many people living on Earth is still "manageable"  which is close to 6 billions. We have surpassed this landmark and are sliding toward big problems in the future not just considering the food and water resources as human population continues to rise and therefore needs more to sustain itself, Patrick.

Then comes the 1038mb high...
Quoting 173. Greg01:



You are correct with respect to the United States, where nat gas is plentiful and inexpensive. That cannot be said for most of the emerging world, where coal is the cheapest alternative.


As of right now yes, but that has nothing to do with domestic green energy subsidies, which was the comment I was responding to.

Irregardless, increased short term demand of coal in 3rd world countries doesn't even come close to make up for the decline in thermal coal use in the rest of the world.
Quoting 183. Patrap:

Breathing produces no new CO2.

Anyone with even cursory knowledge knows that simple science.

FACTSAREBOSS.COM

How much does human breathing contribute to climate change?

Asked by: Peter Thatcher, Lancaster

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn't sound much until you take into account the fact that the worlds population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we're breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we're not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.


Ignorance on ANY subject is a personal choice.


Always

I shortcut that one years ago by inquiring whether people eat coal.
Quoting 181. Trumpisboss:


Ok, then give me a counter argument. It s obvious that the increased numbers of humans are contributing to increase of Co2. Heck we continue to contributing by just "breathing". Larger human population also consumes more food (more cattles, pigs etc.) with cows being avid methane producers thanks to their 4 stomaches. More cars on the streets, more trees knocked down etc., care to explain what s ignorant with this logic considering the statements above and the general consensus that the global warming is man made?



That is total mis-info there Trumpisboss. It's the type of farming that are making cows and animal farming significant AGW contributors. With a small farm grassfed approach animals become greenhouse gas producing negatives (sequesters) when including the added carbon and methane sent back to the soil, instead of gassing it to the atmosphere in septic pits from their manure. Of course that isn't the case if you knocked down a rainforest to make their pasture. When they are grazed on natural grassland areas that aren't fertile enough for vegetable or fruit farming and the pastures are fertilized by their own manure or composted manure, they become neutral or even beneficial, plus increase food security.

There is also technology like From Poop To Power: Colorado Explores New Sources Of Renewable Energy

Even better look to the other side of the world...
Philippines Pig Farms Earn Carbon Credits for Capturing Methane from Manure

Overall I agree that population increase doesn't help but it was proven a long time ago that a small percent of the overall world population can be an overwhelmingly huge pollution contributor and greenhouse gas emitter.
In all fairness to the current argument as to humans and Co2 production, more people does mean more people to feed and more power production to help provide heat and electricity to the masses (as well as transportation) in a global fossil fuel based economic model of growth...........However, now that the science is clear, we need to focus on renewable energy and the industrialized nations have to take the lead..................Like an Inuit Chief said a few years ago with regard to the Industrial Nations forgetting about their impacts on the Arctic and the indigenous people of that region and destruction of their natural habitat................Ignorance, and especially in light of the science, is no longer an option.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
I'm against subsidizing any form of energy!

When you don't charge for fossil fuel pollution that is causing climate change you are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. The proposals for a fossil fuel use fee, advocated by many including this writer, would correct this deficiency, especially if it was coupled to a fossil fuel use fee dividend where 95% of the monies collected were given back to the citizenry as a dividend. That would use known economic forces to limit the use of fossil fuels.

As it stands we also gift the fossil fuel corporations with many write-offs which a true free-marketer would condemn.

A 22 mpg van holds nothing on my 42 mpg '99 Geo Metro. Very simple auto. Why they still aren't being made is beyond me.
Quoting 187. elioe:

For some people with extraordinary circumstances, a big shift to solar and wind may be a better path. But not for overwhelming majority of people on this planet.

The 5 million people dying a year due to the pollution of burning fossil fuels wouldn't agree..That isn't including those with long term illness due too, or their water source and property values ruined by & such.

@184- I don't think you can ignore population as a factor in emission levels. It is a component of the big picture.

You could distinguish different systems ("undeveloped" vs developed) from each other, but you still see regional net emissions that result from a population of people living the regional lifestyle.

Long term, it's almost pointless to divide the global population into developed/undeveloped, because the developing world is trying to change into the developed world, with air conditioning, cars, etc.

We should be looking at a combination of approaches: improved technology, smaller individual footprints, and birth control freely available to anyone in the world who wants it - including within the US.
Quoting 70. Patrap:






I think you need to change the graphic to reflect Trump heads. May be more applicable.
Quoting 148. science101:



I think the free market can combat climate change if given the right incentives. I favor a revenue-neutral carbon tax, such as is place in British Columbia, Canada. The idea is very simple-all the money raised from the carbon tax is rebated to the people in the form of an income tax credit (for those whose income puts them below the threshold to owe income tax, they get a check). The people can then make their own decision on how to spend that money-if they want to buy a gas-guzzling SUV, that is their choice. If they want to use it to educate their kids, for example, that is up to them.

Economists on all sides seem to agree that it hasn't had a negative effect on the provincial economy. The numbers seem to range from no effect to a mild positive effect. There are no additional regulations and no additional bureaucracy-the tax is collected along with sales and gas taxes and the credits are handled as a simple line on income tax returns.

It stuns me that so-called conservatives would object to this. There is nothing particularly conservative about taxing labor and capital, which is what we do now, vs shifting some of the burden to carbon emissions.


Part of the issue with that is that it implies that you are meddling with the free market. If you proposed an "energy usage fee" and combined it with an income tax credit (which is basically the same thing) there would be more chance of getting it implemented.
Quoting 198. VAstorms:


I think you need to change the graphic to reflect Trump heads. May be more applicable.


no no NO I can barely swallow some of the talk here, I do NOT need to see the seven heads of Satan
Trump
It appears, using the figures from https://www.co2.earth/, that there was a 40.6% increase in the rate of this last year's CO2 accumulation over the year before's. (Such English!)

Oct. 2014 395.95 ppm
Oct. 2015 398.29
Oct. 2016 401.57

Increase in 2015 over 2014 = 2.34
Increase in 2016 over 2015 = 3.29
Quoting 155. Trumpisboss:

If you want to stop Global warming then stop having children.





This is what's causing climate change, along with the natural cycles. I have been saying for months on here, stop water, air and overpopulation and you will slow down climate change, as their are thing that cause climate change that humans have no control over.