WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Oklahoma's coldest morning on record: -31°F ; storm leaves 2 feet of snow

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:13 PM GMT on February 10, 2011

Cold air pouring in behind yesterday's remarkable snowstorm over northeast Oklahoma has brought unprecedented cold to the state this morning, with a bone-chilling -31°F recorded at Nowata and -28°F at Bartlesville. These are the coldest temperatures ever measured in Oklahoma. According to Extreme Weather, the excellent weather records book by wunderground's weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, the previous coldest temperature in Oklahoma was -27°F set in nearby Watts on January 18, 1930. A personal weather station in nearby Hogshooter Valley also hit -28°F this morning (one wonders how the Valley got its colorful name!) Today's record is the second time since the year 2000 that one of the 50 states has set an all-time extreme cold temperature record. On January 16, 2009, Big Black River, Maine set a new state record with -50°F. In comparison, three states--Virginia, California, and South Dakota--have set all-time extreme heat records since 2000. Since 1990, nine states have set all-time extreme high temperature records, and eight states have set all-time extreme cold records. It was also very cold in Arkansas this morning, with a -20°F reading in Springdale. The all-time coldest temperature for Arkansas is -29°F, recorded on February 13, 1905, at Pond and Gavette. Relief is in sight, though--Tuesday's forecast calls for high temperatures in Bartlesville in the low 60s, a full 90 degrees warmer than this morning's low!


Figure 1. Record snows of 25" piled up in northeast Oklahoma near Jay on February 9, 2011. Image credit: wunderphotographer okieski.

Yesterday's major snowstorm blasted northeast Oklahoma, northwest Arkansas, and southwest Missouri with up to two feet of snow. The heaviest snows fell in northeast Oklahoma, with 25 inches reported at Jay. Siloam Springs in northwest Arkansas had 24.5", which is just 1/2" shy of the Arkansas state record for heaviest snowstorm of all-time, the 25" that fell on Corning on January 22, 1918. Yesterday's storm brought heavy snows of a foot or more to Kansas, Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming, according the the latest NOAA Storm Summary. Significant snows also hit much of the Southeast, with 4.5" recorded in Vernon, AL; 3.8" in Memphis, TN; 3.7" in Bowling Green, KY; and 1" in Asheville, NC. The snow has almost ended over the Southeast, as the storm is now centered off the North Carolina coast and is moving out to sea.

Snowiest month and year in Tulsa's history
The 6.2 inches of snow that fell in Tulsa, Oklahoma during yesterday's snowstorm gave that city its snowiest month on record, according to the National Weather Service. Tulsa has received 23" of snow this month, most of this in the February 1 blizzard. The previous record snowiest month was March 1924, when 19.7" fell. The total for the 2010 - 2011 season now stands at 26.6", a new record. The previous record was the 25.6" that fell in the winter of 1923 - 1924. Oklahoma City received 5.9" of snow, bringing their seasonal total to 19.6", still well shy of their all-time record of 25.2", set in 1947 - 1948.


Figure 2. Snowfall amounts in Western Oklahoma and Northwest Arkansas from the snowstorm of Feb 8 - 9, 2011, reached two feet (24 inches) in isolated regions. Image credit: National Weather Service, Tulsa.

Jeff Masters
NWArk Snow Event 3
NWArk Snow Event 3
My youngest kitty, 3yr old CharleyGirl, is NOT amused.
Northwest Arkansas Record Snowfall
Northwest Arkansas Record Snowfall
A record snowfall hit NW Ark. today with totals upward of 20

Winter Weather

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

weatherboy~ TRMM got a decent pass on Bingiza earlier today..





Bombshell: Bush EPA Administrator said the science necessitated action on global warming — President “overruled” EPA due to “Cheney … and Exxon Mobil”
In hearing, Upton stars as Cheney, powered by Koch Industries..more...
How strong you think Bingiza will be at landfall Skyepony?
Quoting TaylorSelseth:
See, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about, you are making accusations that scientists "assume" AGW, it is very similar to accusations by Creationists, psychics, astrologers, and etc. about "mainstream science" assuming the conclusion. It is a rhetorical tactic to sow doubt by attacking the character of scientists.


lol you didn't even read his post. Or are you throwing a tantrum because there are plenty of real scientists that aren't afraid to do what real scientists do, question a theory!

Do you have any idea how real science works? Obviously not, science is ever changing, we are always disproving the old and finding new. Its sad there are scientists out there that are arrogant enough to suggest the GW theory has some sort of supreme overlordship that can't be questioned.

However we live in a world where not everyone who is qualified to do their job, does their job correctly. There is this little but important part of college known as critical thinking. It is most heavily spoken of in the science side of college. Any scientist who thinks GW is supreme isn't suing critical thinking, and isn't practicing accurate science. That's just the use of an arrogant bias.

If the earth began cooling from here on out for the next 30 years, which I don't believe will happen. But if it did, we would have some scientists begin panicking about Global Cooling and denouncing anyone who doesn't agree with it "deniers". That would be just as bad as the way some scientists treat Global Warming. However, thank God there are still plenty scientists who aren't egomaniacs and actually aren't afraid to admit what they once knew is now been proven wrong do the nature of science.

Using the term "denier" is itself is in direct opposition to what being a scientist is always about. I'm not talking about politics or religion here, I'm talking science. To be an accurate scientist, you must step off your throne and learn to accept being proven wrong. In studying the unknown the most foolish thing one could ever do is claim a scientific theory reigns supreme and can't fail or be corrected.

When will you realize what real science is. I don't have problem with the theory of Global warming. Its the ridiculous statements of denier and facing the facts that our world is doomed because of human caused CO2. Remove the curtain of ego that blinds your vision, you are not believing in science, you are preventing yourselves from learning and progressing in understanding because of your stubbornness. Wake. Up. People.
Cloudsat through the middle of 96S..


This storm had a disturbing amount of water in it earlier today. It was mostly black & white on Rainbow.
Quoting Jedkins01:


lol you didn't even read his post. Or are you throwing a tantrum because there are plenty of real scientists that aren't afraid to do what real scientists do, question a theory!

Do you have any idea how real science works? Obviously not, science is ever changing, we are always disproving the old and finding new. Its sad there are scientists out there that are arrogant enough to suggest the GW theory has some sort of supreme overlordship that can't be questioned.

However we live in a world where not everyone who is qualified to do their job, does their job correctly. There is this little but important part of college known as critical thinking. It is most heavily spoken of in the science side of college. Any scientist who thinks GW is supreme isn't suing critical thinking, and isn't practicing accurate science. That's just the use of an arrogant bias.

If the earth began cooling from here on out for the next 30 years, which I don't believe will happen. But if it did, we would have some scientists begin panicking about Global Cooling and denouncing anyone who doesn't agree with it "deniers". That would be just as bad as the way some scientists treat Global Warming. However, there are still plenty scientists who aren't egomaniacs and can't bear to admit they could ever be wrong.

Using the term "denier" is itself is in direct opposition to what being a scientist is always about. I'm not talking about politics or religion here, I'm talking science. To be an accurate scientist, you must step off your throne and learn to accept being proven wrong. In studying the unknown the most foolish thing one could ever do is claim a scientific theory reigns supreme and can't fail or be corrected.

When will you realize what real science is. I don't have problem with the theory of Global warming. Its the ridiculous statements of denier and facing the facts that our world is doomed because of human caused CO2. Remove the curtain of ego that blinds your vision, you are not believing in science, you are preventing yourselves from learning and progressing in understanding because of your stubbornness. Wake. Up. People.



+1
Quoting txag91met:


I think everyone is...tired of wrapping pipes in Houston.


Actually I have a 250 W heat lamp trained on my riser to the house... doubles nightly energy consumption right now but better than burst pipes... takes energy to mine the replacement you know.

Better solution (already ordered). There is wire you can wrap the pipe with to keep it just warm enough.

Keeping pipes warm

Using water to heat the house is rocking BTW. The only freeze problem is in the riser... everything else is in the insulation zone.

60,000 BTU on a "routine" AC/heating inspection (sort of freaked the AC guy but he got over it).
And maybe the reason why our country won't come together to join for better energy technology is that normal people listen to Global Warming nuts and think hmm, as much as I don't like greedy oil hogs, why would I want to believe a bunch of madmen that think the earth is coming to end because of Co2?

Believe it or not, there are actually a lot of people like me who are 100% against the reign of oil, and 100% for developing new and improved energy technology that is better for the environment and more efficient. Yet they aren't arrogant enough to think GW has some sort of God-like status that can't be questioned. No sir, this isn't your spiritual life, this is science we are talking. You guys are secular preachers, and you're shoving your Global Warming earth worship religion down our throats. And some of us critical thinkers about dang tired of it!

You're campaign to shut out anyone who questions the authority of the GW theory is no different than the Catholic church using religious dogma to try and overlord upon people in the middle ages.

Sorry, but some of us like to think things through a little more, some of us still still understand the unknown factor about science. Some of us still question current science in attempt to learn more improved understanding of that science.
Quoting weatherboy1992:
How strong you think Bingiza will be at landfall Skyepony?


I'll say atleast 70kts. There's no cooler water between this one & land.

Jedkins~ I went to college & in Chemistry class for science & physics majors we'd do science experiments to figure out how much heat different greenhouse gases trapped. It can be worked out to a fairly finite number. Without greenhouse gases, earth would be a much colder & different place. To think we can put more of that then has been up there in 650,000 yrs & not have any impact takes a pretty big ego.

You could probably experiment with how salt water takes up excess CO2 & in turn turns acidic at home..even see how seafood fairs.
Quoting Skyepony:


I'll say atleast 70kts. There's no cooler water between this one & land.

Jedkins~ I went to college & in Chemistry class for science & physics majors we'd do science experiments to figure out how much heat different greenhouse gases trapped. It can be worked out to a fairly finite number. Without greenhouse gases, earth would be a much colder & different place. To think we can put more of that then has been up there in 650,000 yrs & not have any impact takes a pretty big ego.

You could probably experiment with how salt water takes up excess CO2 & in turn turns acidic at home..even see how seafood fairs.


I never said I questioned the effects of Green houses gasses now did I? I have also taken classes now in the same, I am working on my MET degree, which unlike some like STL and Neapolitan say, you learn a lot about Climate Change in a MET degree.

I'm not stupid, science is more complex then that. To just say the planet will continue to warm leading to devastation because of humans increasing the Co2 content in the air is a theory. However, its just not, that, simple, there is much yet to be known how things will be shaped. There is NOT an absolute authority. I will say again, that's for religion. In the world of science, things just don't work that way.


Quoting JeffMasters:


If you look at 1999 - 2011, 3 states set all-time cold lows, and 3 set all-time warm highs. The score since 1990 is 9 highs, and 8 lows.

Jeff Masters


Thanks, I had a funny feeling 1999 set at least one all-time low.
@Jedkins

How to win any argument:

14. Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your
conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.

If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW 15U
10:00 AM WST February 11 2011
============================================

At 9:00 AM WST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 19.5S 107.0E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The low is reported as moving west southwest at 15 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/2.5/D1.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 20.7S 104.3E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 21.0S 101.8E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 21.8S 97.8E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 22.4S 94.9E - 30 knots (TROPiCAL LOW)

Additional Information
======================
The tropical low has intensified overnight, with a circular area of cold cloud displaced to the west of a well-defined low-level circulation centre. Fair position fix from 2226UTC SSMI microwave image. Dvorak DT=2.0 based on shear pattern with <1.25deg separation between LLCC and cold cloud. FT based on MET and PAT=2.5. Moderate vertical wind shear forecast to decrease during next 24-48 hours as the low moves under the upper ridge axis. The low is forecast to intensify slowly, becoming a TC briefly tonight or early Saturday, then weakening later in the weekend as it moves further WSW over colder waters.

The next tropical cyclone bulletin on Tropical Low 15U will be issued at 7:00 AM UTC..
Quoting Skyepony:


I'll say atleast 70kts. There's no cooler water between this one & land.

Jedkins~ I went to college & in Chemistry class for science & physics majors we'd do science experiments to figure out how much heat different greenhouse gases trapped. It can be worked out to a fairly finite number. Without greenhouse gases, earth would be a much colder & different place. To think we can put more of that then has been up there in 650,000 yrs & not have any impact takes a pretty big ego.

You could probably experiment with how salt water takes up excess CO2 & in turn turns acidic at home..even see how seafood fairs.


The Earth is a bit more complicated than a container made of one material, and it's not far-fetched to think that there may be issues with calculating just now much CO2 will really raise the net air temperature. Does it raise it? Yes, it's a greenhouse gas. How much? That's what is still debatable.
515. JRRP
.
70 knots--not so bad. Let's hope it doesn't bring a meter of rain to the mountains.
Quoting Jedkins01:


I never said I questioned the effects of Green houses gasses now did I?

I'm not stupid, science is more complex then that. Tu just say "the planet will continue to warm leading to devastation because of humans increasing the Co2 content in the air is a theory. However, its just not, that, simple, there is much yet to be known how things will be shaped. There is NOT an absolute authority. I will say again, that's for religion. In the world of science, things just don't work that way.



It's very complex, but to stand around fighting over the details.. while most everything is melting & the same people that said smoking isn't harmful are now telling you GW isn't real? Harvard figures air pollution is to blame for ~4% of deaths in the US.. That's complex too, so is the consequences of mountaintop removal & all this frackin. The only reason I can think to keep the current energy scheme is to keep the people getting rich from it, richer. Other countries are jumping on sustainable energy that they don't have to fight to pay for, making money for their citizens. We are staying tied to a dwindling supply while we work out details? I'm soldering scrap together & making panels for way less than $1 a watt, growing most my food...I stopped paying out the nose because people say GW isn't real or there is no alternative along time ago & I'm living a better life for it. As my carbon footprint shrank my health improved & my wallet fattened.

There is a number of things that could turn the warming & greenhouse gas situation around tomorrow. Scientist warning of AGW have stated this.. We can't bank on them as we can't bank on certain AGW destruction but the AGW odds aren't good. And really it's a small piece of the complex puzzle of why you should be arguing to stop being an oil sheeple nation.
Quoting weatherboy1992:
70 knots--not so bad. Let's hope it doesn't bring a meter of rain to the mountains.


That was atleast 70.. I wouldn't be surprised by 80-85kts. Atleast it hasn't had the moisture 96S was showing..

Movement Afoot To Drop Climate Change From NASABy Keith Cowing on February 8, 2011 3:05 PM


Reps
Posey, Adams and Bishop Join Colleagues in Calling on House Leaders to
Reprioritize NASA for Human Space Flight Missions, Drop Climate Change
"We write today to assert the importance of maintaining our
nation's human spaceflight program. Our constituents spoke loudly and
clearly in the last election and sent a wave of new and reelected
Members with a mandate to reduce federal spending. Moreover, each of us
understands that our nation is on an untenable economic path and
spending must be reduced. In getting our fiscal house in order, however,
we must focus carefully on ensuring that we preserve critical
capabilities and guarantee that agencies are focused on their primary
mission. For NASA, that mission is human space exploration, and we ask that NASA funding be allocated in a way that refocuses NASA on this core mission."
Keith's note: As one reader notes: From the NASA Act of 1958 sec 102(d):

"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall
be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the
following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space; ... (3) The development and
operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment,
supplies, and living organisms through space"


Note that the FIRST item in the act is studying the Earth, atmosphere, and related space phenomena (such as space weather). Human spaceflight is a subset of the THIRD item. Earth Science, broadly defined, is not a new or strange activity for NASA."




Quoting Skyepony:


It's very complex, but to stand around fighting over the details.. while most everything is melting & the same people that said smoking isn't harmful are now telling you GW isn't real? Harvard figures air pollution is to blame for ~4% of deaths in the US.. That's complex too, so is the consequences of mountaintop removal & all this frackin. The only reason I can think to keep the current energy scheme is to keep the people getting rich from it, richer. Other countries are jumping on sustainable energy that they don't have to fight to pay for, making money for their citizens. We are staying tied to a dwindling supply while we work out details? I'm soldering scrap together & making panels for way less than $1 a watt, growing most my food...I stopped paying out the nose because people say GW isn't real or there is no alternative along time ago & I'm living a better life for it. As my carbon footprint shrank my health improved & my wallet fattened.

There is a number of things that could turn the warming & greenhouse gas situation around tomorrow. Scientist warning of AGW have stated this.. We can't bank on them as we can't bank on certain AGW destruction but the AGW odds aren't good. And really it's a small piece of the complex puzzle of why you should be arguing to stop being an oil sheeple nation.


I'm all for reforming our energy systems. AGW or not, it needs to be done. That's not really an issue of debate amongst logical people.

Things are melting because we're in an interglacial, and it's more difficult than scientists would like to admit to determine exactly how much warming can be attributed to CO2, and we likely won't really know until we are solidly heading back into the next ice age. I'm not sure exactly when that's supposed to be, but we are near the end of this interglacial.
Quoting Skyepony:
Bombshell: Bush EPA Administrator said the science necessitated action on global warming — President “overruled” EPA due to “Cheney … and Exxon Mobil”
In hearing, Upton stars as Cheney, powered by Koch Industries


Thanks for the links. Spent about 2 hours on them... nada.

So, brilliant, you republicans. You are run by the Kochs. What is their stated position on the 2008 platform?

In 2008?

Of the Cokes (proper pronounciation methinks)?
Quoting Levi32:


I'm all for reforming our energy systems. AGW or not, it needs to be done. That's not really an issue of debate amongst logical people.


So, same question I ask Nea, what are you personallly doing?

Debating requires no skin in the game.
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #9
TEMPETE TROPICALE MODEREE BINGIZA (05-20102011)
10:00 AM Reunion February 11 2011
=====================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Moderate Tropical Storm Bingiza (993 hPa) located at 14.3S 53.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 40 knots with gusts of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as quasi-stationary.

Gale Force Winds
===============
40 NM from the center extending up to 50 NM in the northern semi-circle

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
60 NM from the center extending up to 85 NM in the western semi-circle and up to 80 NM in the southeastern quadrant

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/3.0/W0.5/24 HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 14.7S 53.9E - 40 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
24 HRS: 14.8S 53.8E - 40 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
48 HRS: 15.1S 52.9E - 50 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 16.0S 50.8E - 70 knots (CYCLONE Tropical)

Additional Information
======================

Basically the pattern is slightly less defined compared to 24 hours ago, specially on infrared imagery. Latest visible imagery show a curved band of 0.5-0.6 wrapping around the center in the northern part of the circulation.

Movement remains quasi-stationary with poorly defined steering flow. Under the influence of a near equatorial ridge to the northeast as slow south to southeastward motion is likely for the next 24 hours. Up to Saturday, system should slightly intensify with the persistent upper level shear. Energetic oceanic potential should weaken too with the slow movement of the system. Beyond 36 hours, All dynamical guidance are now in better agreement for the rebuilding ridge to the south (although it does not appear very strong) and a more west southwestward to southwestward track towards the eastern coast of Madagascar with a landfall likely on Monday between Antalaha and Mahanoro.

In the same time, system should intensify more rapidly with weaker shear and a second outflow poleward channel that build progressively south of the system Sunday. Present intensity forecast are roughly in line with the latest STIP output.

THE TREAT IS GETTING STRONGER FOR THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR AND UNHABITANTS OF THIS REGION SHOULD CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 12:30 PM UTC..
Quoting EnergyMoron:


So, same question I ask Nea, what are you personallly doing?

Debating requires no skin in the game.


I'm not exactly in college for an engineering degree to go build solar panels and windmills, sorry to disappoint you.

I am, however, in college for a degree in physics and meteorology in order to better understand the atmosphere and how our weather and climate work.
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW 15U
4:00 PM WST February 11 2011
============================================

At 3:00 PM WST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 20.3S 104.8E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The low is reported as moving west southwest at 17 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/2.5/D1.0/24HR

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 21.0S 101.8E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 21.5S 99.5E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 22.3S 96.1E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 23.1S 93.1E - 30 knots (TROPiCAL LOW)

Additional Information
======================

Deep convection remains persistent in the last 12 to 24 hrs. Outflow good to the north, restricted elsewhere. Position fair based on MTSAT IR/VIS imagery with animation. Dvorak DT=2.5 based on shear pattern with <.75deg separation between LLCC and cold cloud. FT based on MET and PAT=2.5.

Moderate vertical wind shear forecast to decrease during next 24-48 hours as the low moves under the upper ridge axis. The low is forecast to intensify slowly, becoming a TC early Saturday, then weakening later in the weekend as it moves further WSW over colder waters.

The next tropical cyclone bulletin on Tropical Low 15U will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..
Skyepony, you got time to run for President?
528. Xeloi
Quoting HadesGodWyvern:
THE TREAT IS GETTING STRONGER FOR THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR AND UNHABITANTS OF THIS REGION SHOULD CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.



The treat.... LOL. Nice typo.
The big warm-up appears to be underway: Fargo, ND, is 36 degrees warmer than it was 24 hours ago, and Bartlesville, OK, is 44 degrees warmer. In fact, Bartlesville is forecast to rise into the low 70s next Thursday, a >100-degree swing in just one week. Tuesday will be the first of at least six consecutive days in Bartlesville at or above 60--which should pretty much do away with whatever snow cover remains across the central Plains.
So Levi32 says logical people should see that energy needs to become renewable.

Problem is, who is going to push that through a government that is lobbied by oil companies? Especially if the planet does cool due to solar variations / orbital mechanics.

Btw. the reason "lists" of scientists is hard to come by is taught in research ethics 101. When doing a survey or poll, it's not ethical to force people to sign their names, because people have a right to decide what their name is used for. There are inherent problems in all qualitative science, and one of the big ones is that you have to analyse polls reliability on factors like whether the same results repeat elsewhere, not with lying machines.

Hard concept I know, but maybe this analogy will help: You don't do a survey of kids in high school asking them if they are gay, and then publish a list of names to prove your survey was valid...No doubt the straight kids would be happy to have their names published, but to protect the gay kids it's better if it's anonymous (also increases the likelyhood of them telling the truth).

I think anyone not believing that the majority of scientists agree with the principle of more CO2 warmer earth, need to dig into the papers published on atmospheric science for a better grasp of what scientists are working on.



Quoting FFtrombi:
So Levi32 says logical people should see that energy needs to become renewable.

Problem is, who is going to push that through a government that is lobbied by oil companies? Especially if the planet does cool due to solar variations / orbital mechanics.

Btw. the reason "lists" of scientists is hard to come by is taught in research ethics 101. When doing a survey or poll, it's not ethical to force people to sign their names, because people have a right to decide what their name is used for. There are inherent problems in all qualitative science, and one of the big ones is that you have to analyse polls reliability on factors like whether the same results repeat elsewhere, not with lying machines.

Hard concept I know, but maybe this analogy will help: You don't do a survey of kids in high school asking them if they are gay, and then publish a list of names to prove your survey was valid...No doubt the straight kids would be happy to have their names published, but to protect the gay kids it's better if it's anonymous (also increases the likelyhood of them telling the truth).

I think anyone not believing that the majority of scientists agree with the principle of more CO2 warmer earth, need to dig into the papers published on atmospheric science for a better grasp of what scientists are working on.





For what it is worth, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a list which also includes economists (economic impact).

Link
The thing i don't understand about the what is science debate is that the scientific establishment itself, e.g., Popper, the scientific method, repeatability of results, peer review, etc. is well aware of the problems of stating something is a fact... so this idea that any theory is up for debate is not news to scientists.

But anyone who can understand that theories are just theories deeply should also be able to grasp the way that decisions are made in a complex and uncertain world. Toyota has to decide, for example, what kind of car to put out next year, what color, what features, etc.. They do testing and gather data from consumer groups, etc.. but they don't kid themselves it is even a theory. Rather, they just do the best they can: run the figures, play with alternative scenarios, listen to their intuition and so on. It's the same with any other decision making body.

So if you guys want to debate the 'science' of AGW because it is of scientific interest, fine. But I get the impression that everyone (me included) debates AGW as policy instead. IF you are debating AGW as policy the standard for decision making is much different and much more concerned with risk/reward and outcomes. If AGW is just un 'unproven' theory, then so is ~AGW.

What is the worst outcome of the decisions that we make? What are the costs?

AGW is true worst outcome: End of human life.
AGW is not true worst outcome: a global conspiracy of liberal scientists take of the world and the only show on TV is Star Trek.

Or you can pick your own worst outcome for AGW is not true: 'we all go live in the stone age', 'All governments become socialist' (which they will anyway, either benevolent or not), etc..

Either way, the idea AGW has to be right before action is taken is not logical and not scientific.

diet sodas=increases chances of a stroke acc/ cnn they want to take my smokes now they want my diet coke
Quoting greentortuloni:
The thing i don't understand about the what is science debate is that the scientific establishment itself, e.g., Popper, the scientific method, repeatability of results, peer review, etc. is well aware of the problems of stating something is a fact... so this idea that any theory is up for debate is not news to scientists.

But anyone who can understand that theories are just theories deeply should also be able to grasp the way that decisions are made in a complex and uncertain world. Toyota has to decide, for example, what kind of car to put out next year, what color, what features, etc.. They do testing and gather data from consumer groups, etc.. but they don't kid themselves it is even a theory. Rather, they just do the best they can: run the figures, play with alternative scenarios, listen to their intuition and so on. It's the same with any other decision making body.

So if you guys want to debate the 'science' of AGW because it is of scientific interest, fine. But I get the impression that everyone (me included) debates AGW as policy instead. IF you are debating AGW as policy the standard for decision making is much different and much more concerned with risk/reward and outcomes. If AGW is just un 'unproven' theory, then so is ~AGW.

What is the worst outcome of the decisions that we make? What are the costs?

AGW is true worst outcome: End of human life.
AGW is not true worst outcome: a global conspiracy of liberal scientists take of the world and the only show on TV is Star Trek.

Or you can pick your own worst outcome for AGW is not true: 'we all go live in the stone age', 'All governments become socialist' (which they will anyway, either benevolent or not), etc..

Either way, the idea AGW has to be right before action is taken is not logical and not scientific.


You're exactly right.

It's ultimately up to the individual to decide what he or she thinks and then act accordingly.
65 foggy degrees down at the beach at Vanderbilt just north of Pelican Bay, FL.

Red Flag Warnings issued for a good portion of the Sunshine State from Lake Okeechobee on northward.
Quoting Patrap:
Hurricane Preparation 2011




Nice. You got it Pat.
538. IKE
Bye-bye snow on the ground in the eastern USA....


Quoting IKE:
Bye-bye snow on the ground in the eastern USA....



Just better hope it's not too rapid of a warm up for many of those folks, especially in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic States, and Eastern Seaboard with that very deep snowpack. Despite the slush and excess water ponding, you can bet the vast majority of residents there will be welcoming a long over-due pattern change.

Looking increasingly likely that fire conditions with the dry southerly flow setting up next week in the Plains will be more a concern than potential flash flooding associated with the 80-90 temperature rebound for areas affected in NE Oklahoma and NW Arkansas with the recent heavy snow event.
540. IKE
My forecast......:)

Monday: Sunny, with a high near 67.

Monday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 35.

Tuesday: Sunny, with a high near 70.

Tuesday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 37.

Wednesday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 68.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 47.

Thursday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 73.
Quoting Jedkins01:


I never said I questioned the effects of Green houses gasses now did I? I have also taken classes now in the same, I am working on my MET degree, which unlike some like STL and Neapolitan say, you learn a lot about Climate Change in a MET degree.

I'm not stupid, science is more complex then that. To just say the planet will continue to warm leading to devastation because of humans increasing the Co2 content in the air is a theory. However, its just not, that, simple, there is much yet to be known how things will be shaped. There is NOT an absolute authority. I will say again, that's for religion. In the world of science, things just don't work that way.



Nicely put, Chief.
Quoting IKE:
My forecast......:)

Monday: Sunny, with a high near 67.

Monday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 35.

Tuesday: Sunny, with a high near 70.

Tuesday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 37.

Wednesday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 68.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 47.

Thursday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 73.

Well that's something nice to finally look fwd to. It seems like ages before that would happen again.
543. IKE

Quoting cat5hurricane:

Well that's something nice to finally look fwd to. It seems like ages before that would happen again.
I'm tired of cold weather. Ready for spring.....my low this morning 31.3.
Quoting Jedkins01:


I never said I questioned the effects of Green houses gasses now did I? I have also taken classes now in the same, I am working on my MET degree, which unlike some like STL and Neapolitan say, you learn a lot about Climate Change in a MET degree.

I'm not stupid, science is more complex then that. To just say the planet will continue to warm leading to devastation because of humans increasing the Co2 content in the air is a theory. However, its just not, that, simple, there is much yet to be known how things will be shaped. There is NOT an absolute authority. I will say again, that's for religion. In the world of science, things just don't work that way.

I can't speak for MichaelSTL, but I never said a met didn't learn about climate; what I have said--and what I stick by--is that the mission of a meteorologist is quite different from that of a climatologist. The former looks at the short term; the latter is concerned with the long term. Here's a good analogy I've heard recently: a meteorologist is like someone who studies the ocean and can tell you how high the next six waves are likely to be, while a climatologist can tell you when and how big next Wednesday afternoon's high tide will be.

If I want to know how hot it was here last Tuesday or the chances for rain here next Monday, I'll ask a meteorologist. On the other hand, if I want to know how cool it was here 12,000 years ago or how wet it's likely to be in 200 years, I will ask a climatologist. That's not disparaging either profession; that's simply stating a fact.
Quoting cat5hurricane:

You're exactly right.

It's ultimately up to the individual to decide what he or she thinks and then act accordingly.


Thanks, nice to have someone agree. : ) Oc oruse, that's only as long as everyone does it within the limits of rational decision making, i.e. the course taken is that which minimizes percent chance times loss. Otherwise what you said is just a truism.

But either way, the discussion shouldn't be AGW yes/no but something like:

Likelyhood AGW (-1,-.75,-.5,-.25,0,.25,.5,.75,1)
Seriousness of AGW in degrees C (-20, -10, -5, -2, 0, 2, 5...)
Cost of Damage (plus moral value) for each value of C.
Cost of course of possible courses of action

Put those togather that could be one way to decide how much money to devote to AGW.

For me, I think the only cost to green technolgy is loss of state sponsered terrorism so it is an easy choice: win/win for going green.


Good Morning all. Woke up to a dreary day here in the Keys. Lots of cloud cover, but it still does not look like rain. 73 degrees right now and it is forecast to clear. I looked at the radar and the rain is traveling west to east just north of the keys in the bay. If we get any rain, it won't be much.
547. MTWX
Quoting IKE:

I'm tired of cold weather. Ready for spring.....my low this morning 31.3.

It's 14 right now here!! So ready for this spring warm-up these next couple of weeks!!
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


There is a difference between criticism and tough testing of a hypothesis, according to the great philosopher of science Karl Popper Science is all about attempts to falsify hypotheses, and what I call "pseudo-skepticism", a perverse kind of nihilistic postmodernism that denies all objectivity and instead engages in personal attacks on scientists, calling them liars and dogmatics.


Wow.

Am I impressed.

You have thoroughly read and comprehended the AGW Talking Points Handbook. Perfect execution to boot.

A for you.

How exciting!!!


Quoting Neapolitan:

I can't speak for MichaelSTL, but I never said a met didn't learn about climate; what I have said--and what I stick by--is that the mission of a meteorologist is quite different from the mission of a climatologist is quite another. The former looks at the short term; the latter is concerned with the long term. Here's a good analogy I've heard recently: a meteorologist is like someone who studies the ocean and can tell you how high the next six waves are likely to be, while a climatologist can tell you when and how big next Wednesday afternoon's high tide will be.

If I want to know how hot it was here last Tuesday or the chances for rain here next Monday, I'll ask a meteorologist. On the other hand, if I want to know how cool it was here 12,000 years ago or how wet it's likely to be in 200 years, I will ask a climatologist. That's not disparaging either profession; that's simply stating a fact.

Ahhh. Ok, Neo. You might be on to something here.

Meteorologist vs. a Climatologist?

So, is this kinda like when one chooses to access the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) database in an effort to look at crime statistics as opposed to eagerly tuning into NPR itching to hear Al Sharpton's latest segment on the problems (and lack of problems) with crime in this country.

Kinda like that? Is that a fair analogy?
Fascinating rebuttal.

LOL
Good Morning,
Awoke to forecast of partly cloudy and temps in the 40s... it is now sleeting on the Carolina Coast !!!!!!!
Quoting Patrap:
Fascinating rebuttal.

LOL

Pat! Been waitin' for ya buddy. Where those climate change pieces at today? Don't want you to fall behind.

I see you finally meet your daily quota of the big 15 times for posting them last night. I got a little worried, there because it took so long and my anticipation was so intense. But deep down knew you would come through.

Pat on the back for you, Pal. A job well done.
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #10
TEMPETE TROPICALE MODEREE BINGIZA (05-20102011)
16:00 PM Reunion February 11 2011
=====================================

At 12:00 PM UTC, Moderate Tropical Storm Bingiza (993 hPa) located at 14.7S 53.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 40 knots with gusts of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south at 4 knots.

Gale Force Winds
===============
40 NM from the center

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
70 NM from the center extending up to 100 NM in the western semi-circle

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/3.0/W0.5/24 HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 14.8S 53.7E - 40 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
24 HRS: 15.1S 53.8E - 45 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
48 HRS: 15.3S 52.8E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 15.9S 50.6E - 80 knots (CYCLONE Tropical)

Additional Information
======================

BINGIZA is located about 380 NM north northwest of Réunion and 250 NM east northeast of Sainte-Marie Island, Madagascar. Cloud pattern remains the same than previously but vigorous convection has started near the center recently. A slow southeastward then southward at 4-5 knots has been observed today. System still remains in a weak steering flow environment with a barometric col to it south and a mid level equatorial ridge to its northeast. This synoptic pattern should continue tomorrow and so for the expected motion of the system.

Saturday, all dynamical guidances from 0:00z are still in rather good agreement for a rebuilding ridge to the south (although it does not appear very strong) and a more west southwestward to southwestward track towards the eastern coast of Madagascar with a landfall likely on Monday or Monday night between Antalaha and Mahanoro. In fact, at present time, the threat seams higher for the areas between Cao Masoala and Toamasina.

Due to southeasterly shear and potential of cooler sea surface temperatures, BINGIZA has slightly weakened. This appears to be very temporarily as latest guidance suggest a weaker wind shear tomorrow and good upper level divergence polewards Sunday. Present intensity forecast shows a gradual re-intensification up to 24 hours and then steady intensification until landfall. It is worth noting that all guidance show a strong and potentially dangerous system by that time.

THE THREAT IS GETTING STRONGER FOR THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR AND IT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT FOR UNHABITANTS OF THIS REGION TO CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 18:30 PM UTC..
Im on Vacation today,,and the new entry will be up Momentarily.


Have you learned anything from the NOAA info?
And does yer spouse know you have this Love fer me?

LOL






Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW 15U
10:00 PM WST February 11 2011
============================================

At 9:00 PM WST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 20.5S 103.5E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The low is reported as moving west at 12 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/2.5/D1.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 21.1S 100.6E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 21.6S 98.4E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 22.0S 94.9E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 22.0S 91.9E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)

Additional Information
======================

Position based on animated VIS/near IR, aided by a tc_ssmis microwave image at 11:00 UTC.

Deep convection remains persistent to the northwest of the LLCC in a strongly sheared environment [CIMSS estimate at 12:00 UTC 30-40 kt]. However weaker shear exists just southwards of the system under the upper level ridge axis. Outflow remains good to the north. Recent satellite imagery suggest outflow could be improving to the south.

Dvorak DT=2.5 based on shear pattern with <.75deg separation between LLCC and cold cloud. FT=2.5 [MET=2.0 adjusted +0.5 by PAT].

Forecast track based on a consensus of models steering the system to the west southwest under the influence of a mid-level ridge to the south of the system. This moves the system closer to the upper level ridge, so shear is forecast to decrease during the next 24 hours. The low is forecast to intensify slowly, becoming a TC early Saturday, before weakening later during the weekend as it moves further WSW over colder waters [west of about 100E].

The next tropical cyclone bulletin on Tropical Low 15U will be issued at 19:00 PM UTC..
2011 National Hurricane Conference

April 18-22|Hyatt Regency Atlanta|Atlanta, GA

The nation's forum for education and professional training in hurricane and disaster preparedness!





Purpose of the Conference

The primary goal of the National Hurricane Conference is to improve hurricane preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation in order to save lives and property in the United States and the tropical islands of the Caribbean and Pacific. In addition, the conference serves as a national forum for federal, state and local officials to exchange ideas and recommend new policies to improve Emergency Management.

To accomplish these goals, the annual conference emphasizes:



* Lessons Learned from Hurricane Strikes.

* State of the art programs worthy of emulation.

* New ideas being tested or considered.

* Information about new or ongoing assistance programs.

* The ABC's of hurricane preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation -- in recognition of the fact that there is a continual turnover of emergency management leadership and staff.



Complete Update





Quoting cat5hurricane:

Ahhh. Ok, Neo. You might be on to something here.

Meteorologist vs. a Climatologist?

So, is this kinda like when one chooses to access the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) database in an effort to look at crime statistics as opposed to eagerly tuning into NPR itching to hear Al Sharpton's latest segment on the problems (and lack of problems) with crime in this country.

Kinda like that? Is that a fair analogy?

No. Not even close. In fact, to use your own analogy, relying on a meteorologist for long-term climate predictions would be like insisting the FBI look at crime statistics for just a single day, then use that to predict crime ten years from now.

I'll say this again: long-term trends are what's important. A cold day, week, or even month doesn't disprove AGW any more than a hot day, week, or month proves it.
Quoting Neapolitan:

No. Not even close. In fact, to use your own analogy, relying on a meteorologist for long-term climate predictions would be like insisting the FBI look at crime statistics for just a single day, then use that to predict crime ten years from now.

I'll say this again: long-term trends are what's important. A cold day, week, or even month doesn't disprove AGW any more than a hot day, week, or month proves it.



Define long term trend then....

Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?

That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.

Somewhere a Boatswain's Whistle goes "tweeeeet..



How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?


A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
Quoting Neapolitan:

No. Not even close. In fact, to use your own analogy, relying on a meteorologist for long-term climate predictions would be like insisting the FBI look at crime statistics for just a single day, then use that to predict crime ten years from now.

I'll say this again: long-term trends are what's important. A cold day, week, or even month doesn't disprove AGW any more than a hot day, week, or month proves it.

So you're now actually admitting it's long term.

Someone must of really used the dark roast blend to be exceptionally sharp this morning.

So, where does this put January 2011 if we go back to the year 1000 AD, or even 1400 AD. Do we know this? I guess didn't get the memo or see it on the bulletin board.

Wait! We don't know since we don't have accurate data from before 1880. Thats right, climate change began in 1880, sorry forgot. So, we are all aware long term does not come before the period when modern data instruments and observations (similar to the ones we use today) started appearing.

Gotcha.


Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.


Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.

Funny the alarmistas were singing a different tune when L.A. hit 113 a few months back and how surely that was proof of AGW even though SoCal had just had its coolest summer on record.
Quoting Levi32:


I'm all for reforming our energy systems. AGW or not, it needs to be done. That's not really an issue of debate amongst logical people.

Things are melting because we're in an interglacial, and it's more difficult than scientists would like to admit to determine exactly how much warming can be attributed to CO2, and we likely won't really know until we are solidly heading back into the next ice age. I'm not sure exactly when that's supposed to be, but we are near the end of this interglacial.


Technically we were already sliding back into a cold period until industrialization went into full force. We should be heading into a glacial period right now if past natural cycles hold true.

Scientists admit fully that the system is complex. However, the bulk of the research according to our best science shows that the planet is warming and that we are contributing to it. These results are provided with a high confidence level.

To date, NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS SCIENCE. This is the fundamental problem with stating that there is no AGW. Without someone providing peer reviewed science for your point of view, it's just personal speculation.

It would honestly be awesome if one or more scientists could show all this warming was just some flight of fancy. It really would. It wouldn't absolve us from preparing for the consequences of the warming, but we could rest easier knowing that at least we weren't making it worse. But other than crank sites and idle blog posts, no scientist or group of scientists has managed to muster any reviewed research indicating that the current research and thinking is wrong.

You seem 100% convinced that there is no AGW. You also seem to be an intelligent individual and motivated. My recommendation to you would be to write a paper and get it peer reviewed. You don't need to be a Ph. D to do this. You could get one of your professors to back you in an independent study. Get your paper published and you could very well win a Nobel for your work.
Quoting Orcasystems:



Define long term trend then....

Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?

That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.


No. That's a very false equivalence due to the fact that long-term climate trends are visible over yearly and decadal scales.
Quoting jwh250:
Funny the alarmistas were singing a different tune when L.A. hit 113 a few months back and how surely that was proof of AGW even though SoCal had just had its coolest summer on record.

Really? Can you please provide references and citations of any AGWT scientists who said last year's all-time LA heat record was "proof of AGW"?
Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.



Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.
Quoting Patrap:
Somewhere a Boatswain's Whistle goes "tweeeeet..



How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?


A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.


GIGO
Quoting cat5hurricane:

So you're now actually admitting it's long term.

Someone must of really used the dark roast blend to be exceptionally sharp this morning.

So, where does this put January 2011 if we go back to the year 1000 AD, or even 1400 AD. Do we know this? I guess didn't get the memo or see it on the bulletin board.

Wait! We don't know since we don't have accurate data from before 1880. Thats right, climate change began in 1880, sorry forgot. So, we are all aware long term does not come before the period when modern data instruments and observations (similar to the ones we use today) started appearing.

Gotcha.

Ever heard of proxy data? And before you dismiss it, I'd ask you whether you believe dinosaurs ever existed. After all, no one ever saw a dinosaur; all paleontologists have are fossils and a scattering of footprints.

Gotcha. ;-)
Quoting Neapolitan:

Ever heard of proxy data? And before you dismiss it, I'd ask you whether you believe dinosaurs ever existed. After all, no one ever saw a dinosaur; all paleontologists have are fossils and a scattering of footprints.

Gotcha. ;-)

Accurate instruments (as in the ones we use today) is the key word, Neo.

Yes, Tyrannosaurus Rex nailed one of those spiffy thermometers (the cute ones with the sunflowers and daisies) on his garage next to his flower garden. Afterall, we all know T-Rex had at least one of them back then to compare to his local NWS's readings.
Quoting Neapolitan:

No. That's a very false equivalence due to the fact that long-term climate trends are visible over yearly and decadal scales.


Then you tell me the periods your using then. If you don't like my numbers, what numbers should I look at?

I gave you two examples, which one is it.

I just gave you an example of 100 years of the last 2011. You tell me what I should be comparing the last 100 years to... or the last 50, 10 or 1?

Your the one trying to tell us the last 100 shows global warming.. in comparison to what??

Quoting Orcasystems:



Define long term trend then....

Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?

That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.



For the first 1800 or so years of that 2000 year period, humans were not altering the planet in any noticeable way. We were not increasing GHG concentrations, nor clear cutting millions of acres of forest land, nor spewing billions of tons of other chemical into the atmosphere and the environment.

Your statements about the statistical significance of relative time periods are entirely incorrect. You may want to review a book or two on statistics and probability theory to see why from a mathematical stand point.

However, even without the mathematical issues, a month is not climatologically significant. Even a decade is too short as there is still too much noise induced by meteorological variation. Any good undergraduate text on climatology can give you a thorough explanation on the topic.
Maybe if wasn't so cold we could cut down on some of carbon being put into air,buy not burning so much wood,natural gas,oil to heat our homes. Bring on the global warming!


Coldest January since 1994
The average temperature in January 2011 was 30.0 F. This was -0.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 37th coolest January in 117 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

1.48 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.74 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 9th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.

Quoting Xyrus2000:


For the first 1800 or so years of that 2000 year period, humans were not altering the planet in any noticeable way. We were not increasing GHG concentrations, nor clear cutting millions of acres of forest land, nor spewing billions of tons of other chemical into the atmosphere and the environment.
Then, in science and experimental terms, we would actually have the control group that exhibits the monthly, yearly, and decadal variability that exists, but we have no measurement of. We have no control group...thus, the experimental group's measurements cannot be well quantified.
Garbage is in the Ears, eyes and nose of a collector.



Try this one then.

It covers your er,,lack of reasoning.


But I bet you can tie a Hell ofva a Knot when in a pinch.


The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

* By Brandon Keim Email Author
* December 9, 2009



Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.

“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”

Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC’s predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.

Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.

Wired.com: Why don’t people seem to care?

Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.

That’s extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It’s been about people who believe in science, who aren’t out to question whether science has a place in society.

Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What’s their response?

Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.

For relatively privileged people like myself, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.

Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?

Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we’re constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.

If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.




Well,,Im going to go get dat sack o' eyrsters and start shucking um.

Oyster Po-boys and Oyster Rockefeller is on da menu in da Big Easy today and tonight.

ENjoy the next entry.


Ciao

Quoting AussieStorm:


Coldest January since 1994
The average temperature in January 2011 was 30.0 F. This was -0.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 37th coolest January in 117 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

1.48 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.74 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 9th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.


In the United States, yes. But January 2011 was tied for the 11th warmest globally January since 1880. They don't call it "Global Warming" for nothin'... ;-)
Quoting Neapolitan:

In the United States, yes. But January 2011 was tied for the 11th warmest January since 1880. They don't call it "Global Warming" for nothin'... ;-)


OK, your own math again

130 years.... tied for the 11th warmest...

I wonder what it would be out of the last 2011 years?

Would it still be the 11th, or would it be lucky to make it into the top 50? WE DON'T KNOW. We have semi reliable data for 130 years...so you use that as the base line.




Quoting Orcasystems:
These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
Quoting Patrap:

Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.

800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.


If we actually reach that 900ppm level by the year 2100, I'll personally apologize to everyone here. Of course, I'll be 148 years old, but hey, that's only a blink of an eye compared to the last 800,000 years.

We're seeing one of the ways the "scare" is induced - show drastic scenarios, but make the projections so far in the future that nobody currently alive will be able to verify it.
"...Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record..."

Like to see that, myself.

Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.

Whre did the other 300ppm come from?
Quoting hcubed:
"...Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record..."

Like to see that, myself.

Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.

Whre did the other 300ppm come from?

Perhaps we should call you guys oscillationists, believers in the ying and yang of the cosmos. Cold, wet vs. hot, dry. Male vs. female. Etc.
Quoting hcubed:
"...Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record..."

Like to see that, myself.

Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.

Whre did the other 300ppm come from?

The other 300 ppm is more or less a baseline amount created by the carbon cycle. It includes the sequestration of carbon dioxide in rock and the expulsion of carbon dioxide by volcanoes.

The graph posted by Patrap illustrates the situation.



Weren't you listening earlier? Shame on you for not listening.