WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Preliminary IPCC report predicts increased weather extremes

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:26 PM GMT on November 03, 2011

There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of human-caused releases of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, and some types of extreme weather events will increase in the coming decades as huge cost, says a preliminary draft of an international climate report leaked to the Associated Press (AP) this week. The Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, the IPCC is working on a special report detailing the evidence that extreme weather events may be increasing due to climate change, and how we might best prepare for the coming increase in these costly and dangerous events. The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX) is due to be released later this month, after a meeting in Uganda, where diplomats will recommend changes to the preliminary document leaked to AP. The IPCC requires that all countries agree unanimously on the content of the official reports, so the language of the leaked report may undergo considerable change. In the AP article, University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not among the authors, is quoted as saying that the report was written to be “so bland” that it may not matter to world leaders. With the diplomats free to make changes to the report, I think it is likely that the already bland SREX report will be further watered down. Despite all the objections one hears about the extreme and dire predictions of the IPCC, the science in these reports is actually very conservative and watered down, due to the requirement that the language must be approved by every country (including oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia.) So, it should grab our attention that the preliminary draft of the SREX report predicts that some regions of the world might suffer extremes so severe as to leave them "increasingly marginal places to live", heat waves could peak at 5°F hotter by 2050 and 9°F hotter by 2100, and intense single-day rainstorms that happen only once every twenty years now will happen up to once every five years by 2100. I'll have more on the SREX report after its official release.

Jeff Masters

Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

..Rust never Sleep's



Of course, even the heavily watered-down SREX report, which scientists will rightfully lament as practically toothless, will nevertheless be lambasted by pro-pollution types as "alarmist" propaganda.

And in the meantime, humanity will face increasingly profound climate-driven challenges... :-\

Thanks, Dr. Masters.
Complete Update

Nada... Zero... Zippo... Ziltch... happening Weatherwise...

Its going to be a GW kind of week I think.
That being said.. I am freezing up here... you can turn on the sun again anytime.

TS BUSTED FORECAST ALIBI





Thanks Dr M. Crystal clear skies here in Cayman today !
This is how it begins. Is anyone listening? Link
how cold does the gfs show for jacksonville for my birthdaY november 11th
I agree with the assessment that it may "cost" a lot of money to adapt to the shifting climate. Whole economies depend on producing certain crops and raising/harvesting livestock in specific environments. Can we anticipate the climate shift and adapt? To me, this would be the first useful output of the whole climate change debate.

So far it seems all we have had is politicians taking the output of hard working scientists and screaming "follow me since I figured out the sky if falling first and I know what to do" and countries trying to protect their own sovereignty and economy by saying, "don't mess with me, you pay the price".

Government is not going to get it done. Free market can respond much more quickly and efficiently that government ever could. If we can't grow crops and raise cotton in Texas because of the drought, where can we? We have lot's of land in the USA!

Quoting EasyRiderX:
This is how it begins. Is anyone listening? Link


From this article:
Will that create a trend that gives us our first American town to be abandoned because of climate change? (I'm still betting on Las Vegas as the first city.)

If this town is abandoned, the better question... Is this because of a permanent climate change or a period of droughty "weather"? Only time will tell. Your statement, This is how it begins, and articles like this one you posted strive to color the collective mind into doom and gloom. Let's wait and see what happens instead of making "bets." If Las Vegas disappears, won't Los Angeles and much of Southern California? (rhetorical)

Have a nice day.

(edited for clarity)
Wow, I made that sound simple didn't I? Back to the weather...
I like how they say things will happen. When was this time machine invented.

Btw, I don't deny AGW is happening but when reports come out saying things will happen in 2100 when we don't know what a single hurricane season is going to be like it like finding a needle in an Australian hay stack.


Quoting superpete:
Thanks Dr M. Crystal clear skies here in Cayman today !


Couldn't ask for a better 47th birthday :), having a few cold ones later by the beach!
@Barefootontherocks, I know right?

Would the South be as populated if it were not for Air Conditioning? Seems like I have heard of studies that say not. Or Las Vegas?

We have the Natural Gas to power electric generating plants to run our A/C's and cope, but apparently we are running out of water to run the generating plants. So drought here (and flooding elsewhere) is definitely an issue.

We have broken a lot of heat records that were set in the 1950's this year. But I notice that a lot of our cold temp records were set in the 70's. Hmmm....
Quoting stormpetrol:


Couldn't ask for a better 47th birthday :), having a few cold ones later by the beach!

Happy Birthday.

Quoting EasyRiderX:
This is how it begins. Is anyone listening? Link

From the article: Will that create a trend that gives us our first American town to be abandoned because of climate change? (I’m still betting on Las Vegas as the first city.) Will America’s first recognized climate refugees be Rick Perry’s Texans?
Simple answer: NO, on all counts, unless one's historical perspective cannot extend even to the last century. Example: the plains, especially in Western Oklahoma, are littered with ghost towns caused by the Dust Bowl.
Another Nor'easter????





Quoting AussieStorm:
I like how they say things will happen. When was this time machine invented.

Btw, I don't deny AGW is happening but when reports come out saying things will happen in 2100 when we don't know what a single hurricane season is going to be like it like finding a needle in an Australian hay stack.




Weather and climate are extremely complex, but the main variable that drives these is heat.

It's not that difficult to extrapolate that with more heat comes more severity. Heat = energy. More energy = more severe weather.

As has been the case for nearly two decades now, this discussion is NOT that complex. CO2 traps heat. More CO2, more trapped heat. More heat = more changes.
Quoting AussieStorm:

Happy Birthday.



Thanks Aussie!
16. AussieStorm

Aussie,
Please not another one,people still haven't gotten their power back up here from last weekend.
Quoting stormpetrol:


Couldn't ask for a better 47th birthday :), having a few cold ones later by the beach!

Happy Birthday!
Quoting dfwWxDude:
@Barefootontherocks, I know right?

Would the South be as populated if it were not for Air Conditioning? Seems like I have heard of studies that say not. Or Las Vegas?

We have the Natural Gas to power electric generating plants to run our A/C's and cope, but apparently we are running out of water to run the generating plants. So drought here (and flooding elsewhere) is definitely an issue.

We have broken a lot of heat records that were set in the 1950's this year. But I notice that a lot of our cold temp records were set in the 70's. Hmmm....


Exceptional drought is an issue here, too, but there are signs of improvement.

Would the South be as populated if it were not for Air Conditioning? Probably not. The south was populated before air conditioning - Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole and Chickasaw, just to name those who were relocated to Indian Territory c. 1840. Air conditioning did not exist when "pioneers" settled the Plains where you (Dallas Forth Worth area, I presume) and I (Scentral Oklahoma) live.

Sure, you can die from heat, or cold. Sure, many areas of Earth are over-populated. And that is the crux of energy and climate issues. Huge infrastructures to maintain. Few to no good options for relocation. Drought has brought down advanced civilizations in the Americas - way back. And it might again. I'm just not ready to jump on a doom and gloom wagon and bang a drum.
Quoting Neapolitan:
Of course, even the heavily watered-down SREX report, which scientists will rightfully lament as practically toothless, will nevertheless be lambasted by pro-pollution types as "alarmist" propaganda.

And in the meantime, humanity will face increasingly profound climate-driven challenges... :-\

Thanks, Dr. Masters.


Nea, you have been plused enough that your comments are no longer hidden before signing in.
Quoting stormpetrol:


Couldn't ask for a better 47th birthday :), having a few cold ones later by the beach!


Happy Birthday, Storm Petrol. Sounds like you got a good weather day going!
Thanks Jeff. There's at least a 2 in 3 chance that is your shortest entry ever...
@AussieStorm,
like finding a needle in an Australian hay stack.

You have hay in Australia???
:)

Seriously, I understand what you are saying.
Quoting stormpetrol:


Thanks Aussie!

Happy Birthday to you! Enjoy the weather in your beautiful island.
Quoting ChillinInTheKeys:


Nea, you have been plused enough that your comments are no longer hidden before signing in.


I think Dr. Masters and the site staff finally reset the plus/minus system.
Quoting dfwWxDude:
Government is not going to get it done. Free market can respond much more quickly and efficiently that government ever could. If we can't grow crops and raise cotton in Texas because of the drought, where can we? We have lot's of land in the USA!



Government could have got it done if it were not for the confusionists, denialists, and delayers. But it is nearing the point where their delays have caused the free market to start to catch up. But this isn't a good thing, because that implies we are already seeing the changes that in many cases were still supposed to be years away. It also means that we are already incurring far higher costs from reaction than we would have had if we proactive.

Quoting AussieStorm:
Btw, I don't deny AGW is happening but when reports come out saying things will happen in 2100 when we don't know what a single hurricane season is going to be like it like finding a needle in an Australian hay stack.


You are kinda trying to compare apples to oranges. A conclusion regarding an average temperature over a decade is climate, the number of hurricanes in a given year is much more closely related to weather and natural noise of the system.
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Government could have got it done if it were not for the confusionists, denialists, and delayers.

History says otherwise. There are so many examples that governments cannot dictate economic activity/change/growth. Probably the examples with the broadest scale were the old Soviet Five Year Plans.
I can only agree with Dr.Masters on the above blog post. The "watering down," of information is and has been prevalent throughout human history and some nations even had/have ministries of propaganda for this purpose.
Thinking about the "possible," coming problems with the climate/weather, several things must be apparent:-
1,Change that occurs rapidly poses very difficult challenges for nature to adapt too.
2,Due to crowded land use there are few places for people to move into,(peacefully?)As some land becomes uninhabitable human units per given area will increase,putting more pressure on food producers to get more product from less land.
3,A Government department of "Just in Case" Contingency Plans is now becoming inevitable as the pressure to ignore things is being overwhelmed by the "Evidence" that they exist.
4, We are 7 billion and rising,(at the moment.)
In other words, we know very little about how much humankind is affecting climate changes.
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center


Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.

These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

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.



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
NASA Airborne Mission Maps Remote, Deteriorating Glaciers

PUNTA ARENAS, CHILE – NASA's airborne expedition over Antarctica this October and November has measured the change in glaciers vital to sea level rise projections and mapped others rarely traversed by humans.

Operation IceBridge, nearing completion of its third year, is the largest airborne campaign ever flown over the world's polar regions. Bridging a gap between two ice elevation mapping satellites, and breaking new scientific ground on its own, IceBridge this fall has charted the continued rapid acceleration and mass loss of Pine Island Glacier.

IceBridge has now generated three years of laser altimetry data over certain locations to continue the record from NASA's Ice Climate and Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which stopped operating in 2009. IceBridge measurements show Pine Island following its rapid deterioration that began around 2006. Combined IceBridge and ICESat data show the glacier is losing more than six times as much mass per year -- mass loss was measured at 7 gigatons a year in 2005 and about 46 gigatons a year in 2010 – making it one of the most significant climate change response trends that scientists see worldwide. For comparison, the Chesapeake Bay holds about 70 gigatons of water.

Satellites still operating, such as NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), can provide a large-scale picture of this trend. But it takes a more focused mission such as Operation IceBridge to gather higher-resolution data near the surface to piece together the dynamic interactions of ice, bedrock and ocean currents behind specific changes, and to improve the models that scientists use to predict how much an unstable ice sheet like West Antarctica will contribute to sea level rise.

Two planes make up this year's Antarctica 2011 campaign – NASA's DC-8 flying laboratory, based at Dryden Flight Research Center, Palmdale, Cal., and a Gulfstream-V (G-V) owned by the National Science Foundation and operated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The campaign also spotted and flew over a large rift developing across the Pine Island ice shelf on Oct. 14. A natural process, the crack could calve a new iceberg of about 350 square miles of surface area in the coming weeks or months. Pine Island Glacier hasn't calved a major iceberg since 2001.

On a follow-up flight on Oct. 26 to gather data around Pine Island's grounding line, the DC-8 was able to fly along the crack for about 18 miles at an altitude of 3,000 feet, making what are believed to be the first detailed airborne measurements of an active calving rift.

In flights to Slessor and Recovery glaciers, which have only been traversed by humans once and twice respectively, IceBridge made a historic and scientifically important suite of measurements. Perhaps most significantly for these rarely studied regions of East Antarctica, an ice-penetrating radar instrument onboard the DC-8 was able to measure the topography of the bedrock underneath the ice sheet. Without a better understanding of the shape and contour of the bedrock, it is impossible to know how much ice sits on top of the continent in all. Topography also greatly influences the speed and direction of a glacier's ice flow.

"At a time when glaciers and ice sheets are showing rapid changes, we need consistent data that shows how and why that change is happening," IceBridge project scientist Michael Studinger said. "With three years of IceBridge data in hand, we have successfully continued the ice sheet elevation record in key areas and broken new ground in understanding the nature of the bedrock under ice sheets and the shape of the seafloor under ice shelves."

A gravimeter aboard the DC-8 senses changes in gravity fields to map the sea floor. This bathymetry controls ocean currents, which can inject warming waters under ice shelves and accelerate their thinning, as is happening at Pine Island and other glaciers.

The G-V was outfitted with one instrument for this campaign – a laser-ranging topographic mapper called the Land, Vegetation and Ice Sensor (LVIS). The instrument is suited for measuring large swaths of the surface at high altitudes. The G-V flew at around 45,000 feet for most of its 2011 missions.

Meanwhile, the DC-8 carries multiple instruments which are better suited for low-altitude flying. Once the plane reaches its science target, it flies at about 1,500 feet, allowing the radars, gravimeter, digital cameras and the Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM), which captures higher resolution details of the ice surface than is possible from satellites. The DC-8's range and speed can also reach more remote, unstudied locations and cover more ground than smaller aircraft or ground traverses.

"This has been an excellent campaign for the science side of the mission, and it's our job to put the plane in positions to make that possible," said Mission Manager Walter Klein, based at Dryden.

One example of the flight side of the mission enabling science occurred during the second Pine Island Glacier flight, when the pilots flew the DC-8 by sight over the calving rift in the glacier's ice shelf at an altitude of 3,000 feet.

During the IceBridge Antarctica 2011 campaign, the DC-8 has flown 13 missions covering 51,600 miles, while the G-V has flown 11 science missions covering about 50,000 miles. As planned, the G-V left Punta Arenas to return to the United States on Weds., Nov. 2. The DC-8 is scheduled to remain in Punt Arenas up to mid-November, when it will return to its home base of Dryden Flight Research Center in Palmdale, Cal.

The next flight leg of IceBridge once the mission team wraps up in Punta Arenas will be based in Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere spring of 2012. IceBridge is scheduled to fly one Arctic and one Antarctic leg each year until ICESat-2 launches in 2016.


A close-up image of the crack spreading across the ice shelf of Pine Island Glacier shows the details of the boulder-like blocks of ice that fell into the rift when it split.

For most of the 18-mile stretch of the crack that NASA’s DC-8 flew over on Oct. 26, 2011, it stretched about 240 feet wide, as roughly seen here. The deepest points ranged from about 165 to 190 feet, roughly equal to the top of the ice shelf down to sea level. Scientists expect the crack to propagate and the ice shelf to calve an iceberg of more than 300 square miles in the coming months. This image was captured by the Digital Mapping System (DMS) aboard the DC-8. Credit: NASA/DMS



The National Science Foundations/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF/NCAR) Gulfstream-V flew high-attitude missions during IceBridge Antarctica 2011. Credit: NCAR




NASA's DC-8 handled the low-attitude missions and carried the bulk of the IceBridge science instruments. Credit: NASA/Tony Landis
Is long range,but GFS shows a developing system in SW Caribbean. Maybe the 2011 season has the final hurrah? But is long range so you know the drill.

Link
Quoting goodsign:
In other words, we know very little about how much humankind is affecting climate changes.

I am probably looking at different Data/Information than you are.
Climate change,GW - I'm in and out of this blog just long enough to make this post.
Quoting jrweatherman:
Climate change,GW - I'm in and out of this blog just long enough to make this post.

Thanks for your valuable contribution, anyway....

:):))

Humid and cloudy here at 11n 61w today, with occasional showers and distant thunder.
Nothing of note in the Trop. Atl or the ITCZ.
Heavy rains keep setting-up in the ITCZ between 30w and 50w, but have mostly dissipated before getting to 60w during the past couple of days.
co2now.org



389.00ppm



Atmospheric CO2 for September 2011

Quoting pottery:

I am probably looking at different Data/Information than you are.


It is interesting how much differing information is available.
Quoting goodsign:


It is interesting how much differing information is available.


I find it more interesting in how much dis-information is out there.
I want a repeat of the "Snow King"...Hi hope everybody is enjoying their day, beautiful day in sunny Tampa, FL. any Snow in the forecast for the Southeast anytime soon?

Check this out! I added some pics. and some storms that weren't in this list.

The Worst US Winter Storms

1.
The Great Blizzard of 1888 (the Great White Hurricane)
March 11 - 14, 1888
Eastern United States

Snowfall of 40 to 50 inches was recorded over New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut as sustained winds created drifts as much as 50 feet tall. Total deaths are thought to have exceeded 400. Most of the cities on the eastern seaboard were shut down for days, if not weeks.

2.
The Storm of the Century
Type Cyclonic Blizzard Nor'easter
March 11 - 15, 1993
Eastern United States

This massive cyclonic storm had arms that at one point reached from Canada to Central America. More than 300 were killed.

Alabama and Georgia were hit by as much as six inches of snow. Areas further south received up to 16 inches of rain. Tornadoes and thunderstorms broke out all over the South.

In the northeast, record low temperatures were accompanied by large amounts of snow; some affected areas received as much as 3.5 feet, while drifts piled as high as 35 feet. Storm surges as high as twelve feet were recorded.



3.
The Great Appalachian Storm of 1950
Eastern United States
November 24 - 30, 1950

Heavy winds, rain and blizzard conditions followed an extratropical cyclone as it moved through the Eastern United States. Deaths totaled 353, and US insurance companies ended up paying more for damages than for any previous storm. Record cold was recorded in Florida (24 degrees F), Georgia (3 degrees F), Kentucky (-2 degrees F) among others.

4.
The Great Lakes Storm of 1913 (The Big Blow)
Nov 7 - 10, 1913
Midwestern US and Ontario Canada

Also known as the Freshwater Fury and the White Hurricane, the Big Blow may have been the worst US winter storm on record. It killed more than 250, primarily from ships that were sink. Five of the twelve ships downed by the storm were never found.

Caused by the convergence of two storm fronts over the Great Lakes’ relatively warm waters, the storm generated 60-90 mph winds that lasted as long as 16 hours. Wind driven waves rose to 35 feet and whiteouts covered the region. The cyclonic system, with its counterclockwise winds, was, in fact, a hurricane.

The storm was of the same type—a November gale—that famously sank the Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975.

5.
The Schoolhouse Blizzard (aka The Schoolchildren’s or Children’s Blizzard)
January 12, 1888
Great Plains States

This blizzard gets its name from the many schoolchildren who died when trapped in one room school houses. More than 230 are said to have died.

The tragedy of this storm was created by its suddenness, and by the warm conditions that immediately preceded it. Lulled into complacency by a balmy day, people ventured from their houses to do chores and head to town. Many were improperly dressed. Then, an arctic front crashed into moisture laden air from the Gulf of Mexico, bringing sudden drops of temperature to as low as -40 F, as well as large amounts of snow.

This was the first of two major blizzards in 1888.

6.
Armistice Day Blizzard
Midwestern United States
November 11 - 12, 1940

The Armistice Day Blizzard was an early storm that encompassed Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Snowfall of up to 27 inches were combined with winds of 80 miles per hour, snow drifts of twenty feet and a fifty degree drop in temperature. The Blizzard surprised many hunters who were out for the beginning of duck season and had not prepared for such a storm. In Minnesota, twenty five hunters are said to have died. In all, 154 died in the storm, including 66 sailors on Lake Michigan.

7.
The Knickerbocker Storm
January 27 - 28, 1922
Upper South and Mid Atlantic States

This storm was named for the collapse of the Knickerbocker Theater in Washington, D.C., which killed 98 and injured 133. A storm cyclone which dropped as much as three feet of snow in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Knickerbocker affected 22,400 square miles of northeastern United States.

7. The Blizzards of 2010
February 5-6; February 9-10, 2010
Mid Atlantic States, Northeast

Affecting the entire eastern seaboard, these storms dumped as much as 40 inches each on the eastern United States.

8.
Blizzard of 1999
Midwestern United States
January 2 - 4, 1999

With 22 inches of snow in Chicago, the Blizzard of 1999 was rated at the time by the National Weather Service as the second worse to hit the Midwest in the 20th Century. Temperature as low as -20 degrees fahrenheit were recorded. Storm related deaths totaled 73 persons.

9.
The Great Blizzard of 1899
February 11 - 14, 1899
Continental United States

From Georgia to Maine, temperatures dropped to record temperatures. Tallahassee reached -2 F; Minden, Louisiana, -16 F; Camp Logan, Montana, -61F; Washignton, D.C., -15 F. Snowfall began in Florida and moved rapidly north. Washington, D.C. recorded 20 inches in a single day; New Jersey, 34 inches—still a record.


Taken on the steps of the Capitol Building in Tallahassee.


10.
The Great Storm of 1975
January 9 - 12, 1975
Central and Southeast US

This storm system resulted in snow in the midwest and 45 tornadoes in the southeast, together killing a total of 70 people. It began in the Pacific, crossed the Rockies, and then collided with an arctic air front and tropical moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. It produced record low barometric pressures in the midwestern United States.

Strangely, while the storm produced huge amounts of snow in the upper midwest, it also produced record high temperatures. More than a foot of snow fell from Nebraska to Minnesota, while sustained winds of 30 - 50 mph produced 20 foot snowdrifts. Meanwhile, in Chicago, Indianapols and Indiana, record high temperatures were set.

11. Rare Snowfall of 1977
Jan. 19, 1977
Tampa, FL.

snow in Tampa fell on January 19, 1977. The accumulation amounted to all of 0.2 inches (0.5 cm), but the city, unprepared for and unaccustomed to wintry weather, came to a virtual standstill for a day.




A black and white photo taken on January 19, 1977 of a woman named Yvonne Berry cleaning snow off of the windshield of her car in a parking lot in Tampa.

12. Rare Snowfall of 1989
Dec. 23, 1989
Jacksonville, FL.

The storm resulted in the first white Christmas on record from northeastern Florida to North Carolina. Snow fell in Tampa and Daytona Beach as Florida experienced its most widespread snowstorm in history and their first white Christmas in history as airports and interstates were shut down. Snow and sleet fell as far south as a Sarasota to Melbourne line. Many traffic accidents and several fatalities occurred on ice-covered roads in North Florida. Extensive crop damage including a loss of about 30% of the $1.4 billion citrus crop occured leaving tens of thousands of migrant farm workers unemployed. Winter vegetables, berries, nursery ornamentals and fish suffered heavy losses. Power blackouts hit hundreds of thousands of residents at various times during the holiday weekend.

Synoptic Charts of that historic event


Picture of a very rare Jacksonville snowfall, December 23, 1989
My local met. Dennis Phillips says the GFS has been drinking too much Eggnog...Will see if that Eggnog had rum in it :P

Thank you #41 GT. I enjoyed the info. I especially liked the 1977 pictures. I was in Scotland when it got that cold in Florida. I remember my sister writing me about having to scrap ice off her windshield here in Key West. Evidently the wind was cold enough to freeze the dew on the car. Two Decembers ago it almost got that cold here.
Quoting kwgirl:
Thank you #41 GT. I enjoyed the info. I especially liked the 1977 pictures. I was in Scotland when it got that cold in Florida. I remember my sister writing me about having to scrap ice off her windshield here in Key West. Evidently the wind was cold enough to freeze the dew on the car. Two Decembers ago it almost got that cold here.
Your welcome, that's too bad you missed it. Now I'll tell you something about the "Storm of the Century" I was 5 at the time playing outside in the porch, when suddenly my mom said it got pitch black outside, next thing you know she grabbed me and pulled me inside because things were just flying around outside, when the storm passed our neighborhood was in a mess, fences blown down, trees down, roof shingles had come off, and my uncle's gutter from the other street blew off and ended up in my street. Our street was literally impassable and blocked off, my dad was working at the same time and they wouldn't even let him into the street.
Quoting GTcooliebai:
Your welcome, that's too bad you missed it. Now I'll tell you something about the "Storm of the Century" I was 5 at the time playing outside in the porch, when suddenly my mom said it got pitch black outside, next thing you know she grabbed me and pulled me inside because things were just flying around outside, when the storm passed our neighborhood was in a mess, fences blown down, trees down, roof shingles had come off, and my uncle's gutter from the other street blew off and ended up in my street. Our street was literally impassable and blocked off, my dad was working at the same time and they wouldn't even let him into the street.
I guess you don't remember it? I should remember the reports, but I think that was in my drinking days, so there is very little I can remember clearly. LOL
Lots of rain here in C & S FL this year compared to last year.



Quoting DallasGumby:

History says otherwise. There are so many examples that governments cannot dictate economic activity/change/growth. Probably the examples with the broadest scale were the old Soviet Five Year Plans.


For starters, I'm not sure comparing the United States to Soviet Russia is particularly accurate. And it's not a matter of "dictating" activity, it's a matter of stopping subsidies for the sources of our problems and subsidizing the solutions to speed the system. It requires our leaders to actually be able to say the terms "enhanced greenhouse effect" and "global climate change" instead of just weakly alluding to them. It's a matter of reducing habitation in areas likely to experience the worst changes and building our infrastructure not with past statistics in mind, but with likely climate statistics of the next 100 years. It's also a matter of not encouraging population growth as a "strength" of our country.

There are so many ways the government could act to mitigate the harm from climate change. It is clear that it can be done, because in many ways actions are being taken, just in the opposite direction.
Nice deepening system over St. Louis right now.




Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
Nice deepening system over St. Louis right now.






A gift from the Texas Rangers?
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


A gift from the Texas Rangers?

LOL
but wait,
why would texas give them rain if they need rain themselves
._.
just sayin
Quoting Articuno:

LOL
but wait,
why would texas give them rain if they need rain themselves
._.
just sayin


I think they were looking for another rain out before now. I know. They didn't plan for that too well either. :(
NYC-sized iceberg being born on Antarctica




Part of an 18-mile-long crack in the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf is seen from a NASA jet on Oct. 26.
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
Nice deepening system over St. Louis right now.




We're actually on the backside of the low now, east of StL. East winds have shifted to north, temps holding at 50, until we lose cloud cover tonight. Slightly over an inch of precip. Is this to be the nor'easter Aussie was showing this morning?
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I think they were looking for another rain out before now. I know. They didn't plan for that too well either. :(
Very happy we had that Wed. rainout, only had to take Fri. off to attend Game 7, Carp got to pitch, and who knows what would have happened in Game 6 if played in off/on rain. Pure pandamonium after the game, but of the good kind. Hard to find a cab to get back to the hotel at closing time. Glad I went, but think I'll celebrate our 12th at home next time.
This area is interesting.
Come on Friday! Been a long busy week.
Quoting Ameister12:
This area is interesting.


That could be the wave the GFS developes in the long range also some help from MJO could fire up one more system.

YAWN...Can't wait for next year's hurricane season.
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
Nice deepening system over St. Louis right now.




this might be the weak cold front we here in florida are expecting friday..supposed to be a cool nice weekend after it passes us
Woo-hoo, we finally got some rain in Central Alabama. Not much, at .16 inches, but at least it will settle the dust. Temperature dropped from 72 to 58 in the last hour, so I guess the cold front has gone thorugh as well.

Nice posting, GT. I remember most of those storms, especially the "Storm of the Century" in '93. My nephew was hiking the Appalachian Trail and got trapped in the Smokies by about 3 feet of snow. It took the NPS about three days to find and rescue all the hikers strung out along the trail. He was well prepared, though and none the worse for wear. He finally did make it all the way to Maine and the end of the trail on October 13, 1993. Quite a feat.

Ameister12, I guess I must be missing what you find interesting in that satellite pic. What are you seeing that drew your interest?
Quoting Patrap:
co2now.org



389.00ppm



Atmospheric CO2 for September 2011

i doubt most of the countries in your pic there, have as strict pollution control laws as we here in most of the USA have...the world world, every country had better get on the ball, if...this global warming, man made global warming is a fact and true..rush bimbaugh says its a lie..go figure
63. MTWX
Quoting GTcooliebai:
Your welcome, that's too bad you missed it. Now I'll tell you something about the "Storm of the Century" I was 5 at the time playing outside in the porch, when suddenly my mom said it got pitch black outside, next thing you know she grabbed me and pulled me inside because things were just flying around outside, when the storm passed our neighborhood was in a mess, fences blown down, trees down, roof shingles had come off, and my uncle's gutter from the other street blew off and ended up in my street. Our street was literally impassable and blocked off, my dad was working at the same time and they wouldn't even let him into the street.

I was in Plattsburgh NY for that one...

Here are a couple pictures from our yard..

Quoting ScottLincoln:


For starters, I'm not sure comparing the United States to Soviet Russia is particularly accurate. And it's not a matter of "dictating" activity, it's a matter of stopping subsidies for the sources of our problems and subsidizing the solutions to speed the system. It requires our leaders to actually be able to say the terms "enhanced greenhouse effect" and "global climate change" instead of just weakly alluding to them. It's a matter of reducing habitation in areas likely to experience the worst changes and building our infrastructure not with past statistics in mind, but with likely climate statistics of the next 100 years. It's also a matter of not encouraging population growth as a "strength" of our country.

There are so many ways the government could act to mitigate the harm from climate change. It is clear that it can be done, because in many ways actions are being taken, just in the opposite direction.


Scott, the old Soviet Union just used blunt force to attempt to succeed in their five year plans, and failed with every one of them. Stopping what you believe are subsidies for bad things and giving subsidies for what you believe are good things are a nicer way to do state planning, but it's still state planning, and it's likely to fail if a majority of the people aren't on board with the ideas. The fact that you feel leaders can't use terms like "enhanced greenhouse effects" shows the majority of the population, right or wrong, are not on board with AGW and are not willing to make forced changes in their lifestyles because a group of politicians and scientists think they should.

It's not clear to me that the government is encouraging population growth in the US. The most prosperous segments of our society have a birth rate which has already fallen below replacement levels. Prosperity tends to automatically control the levels of children couples have, so increasing the prosperity of our country and the world will accomplish the goal of slowing population growth with no government regulations.

Proponents of AGW also have to be careful about saying how accurately they can predict future changes. After the hurricane season of 2005, many AGW proponents used that horrible year as a template of the future, predicting more and larger hurricanes every year thereafter. It's now six years later and that prediction has not come true. One can dicker about the number of "named" storms over the past six years, but the fact remains that we haven't been attacked by a never ending string of killer hurricanes like we were in 2005. Thus, when AGW proponents predict, with apparently great confidence, that they actually know what the average temperature will be in 2050 or 2100, those scary predictions from 2005 come back to haunt them. It's hard to believe a person or group can be wrong for six straight years but right about what will happen 40 or 90 years from now.
Quoting ScottLincoln:


There are so many ways the government could act to mitigate the harm from climate change. It is clear that it can be done, because in many ways actions are being taken, just in the opposite direction.

It's not clear that there is anything mankind can do to affect climate change, much less that there is anything government can do "to mitigate the harm" from climate change. And, there's certainly no evidence that anything government might do wouldn't make the "harm" worse.

Historical precedents suggest that when governments try to manipulate the economy, starvation and mass unemployment often result.
Quoting StormTracker2K:


That could be the wave the GFS developes in the long range also some help from MJO could fire up one more system.



OK, if you say so. The GFS has been trying to develop every swirl in the tropics this year. I guess we'll see if they're right on this one.
EPAC Hurricane Dora report is up with peak intensity at 135kts.

Link
68. MTWX
Severe Storms on the docket for next week...

BY MON/D5...MODELS ARE IN GOOD AGREEMENT BRINGING THE UPPER TROUGH
AND LEADING EDGE OF HEIGHT FALLS ACROSS THE FOUR CORNERS STATES AND
INTO THE SRN HIGH PLAINS BY MON AFTERNOON. LOW PRESSURE IS FORECAST
TO DEEPEN OVER THE TX PANHANDLE AREA...WITH SLY FLOW INTENSIFYING
THROUGH THE DAY AND OVERNIGHT WITH A 50+ KT LLJ AND AT LEAST LOWER
60S F DEWPOINTS INTO OK. THE GFS SHOWS A WARM FRONT ALONG THE KS/OK
BORDER...BUT THE ECMWF SUGGESTS THIS FEATURE WILL BE MUCH FARTHER N
INTO NRN KS/SRN NEB. WHILE THE NRN EXTENT OF ANY SEVERE THREAT MAY
BE IN QUESTION...IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT SEVERE STORMS WILL OCCUR
OVER PORTIONS OF WRN OK AND NWRN TX NEAR THE DRYLINE. HERE...STEEP
LAPSE RATE PROFILES SHOULD EXIST. WHILE INSTABILITY WILL NOT BE
PARTICULARLY LARGE WITH ONLY NEAR 60 DEWPOINTS...SHEAR PROFILES WILL
BE QUITE FAVORABLE FOR SUPERCELLS DURING THE AFTERNOON AND EVENING.
A FEW TORNADOES ALONG WITH HAIL AND WIND WILL BE POSSIBLE.
OVERNIGHT...A COLD FRONT WILL EVENTUALLY MOVE INTO CNTRL OK AND TX.
IT IS POSSIBLE MORE CONVECTION WILL OCCUR ALONG THIS FRONT...BUT THE
PRIMARY THREAT WILL LIKELY BE WITH DIURNAL SUPERCELLS.

BY TUE/D6...MODELS START TO DIVERGE WITH THE ECMWF LIFTING THE UPPER
LOW/JET MAX NEWD MUCH QUICKER THAN MANY OF THE MREF MEMBERS. EVEN
WITH THESE DIFFERENCES...STRONG SWLY FLOW ALOFT WILL EXIST ATOP MID
TO UPPER 60S F DEWPOINTS AND FORCING ALONG THE COLD FRONT AND
DRYLINE. THUS...SOME RESIDUAL SEVERE THREAT IS LIKELY FROM E TX INTO
AR AND LA WITH THE MAIN THREAT DAMAGING WINDS AND A FEW TORNADOES.

SOME THREAT MAY LINGER INTO WED/D7 MAINLY ACROSS LA AND MS...BUT THE
MOIST AXIS WILL BEGIN TO NARROW WITH STORMS DRIVEN MAINLY BY THE
COLD FRONT AS PERHAPS THE LOW DEPARTS TOWARD THE N.
Quoting dabirds:
Very happy we had that Wed. rainout, only had to take Fri. off to attend Game 7, Carp got to pitch, and who knows what would have happened in Game 6 if played in off/on rain. Pure pandamonium after the game, but of the good kind. Hard to find a cab to get back to the hotel at closing time. Glad I went, but think I'll celebrate our 12th at home next time.


In the end, STL played a good game. Great series! Never a dull moment!
If you don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change fine... don't believe in it.

But you can't deny this:

ShellFish Article

Shellfish that have been raised for the restaurant industry in California for over 60 years cannot be raised in their natural ocean pens because the water has become too acidic.

Why is it too acidic? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

How many times do we have to bludgeon the deniers with facts before they finally give in???

"Bill Dewey, spokesman for Seattle-based Taylor Shellfish said producers who used to rely on natural recruitment have been forced to seed those areas with hatchery-raised larvae mature enough to withstand the ocean altered pH levels.

We had periods of a couple of years in the past when it was bad, but to have it for seven years in a row is unprecedented, he said.

Taylor, the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the U.S., owns Fanny Bay Oysters in Baynes Sound and several other B.C.-based shellfish farms.

Oyster production in the Pacific Northwest dropped by 60 per cent in 2008 and 80 per cent in 2009, but bounced back over the past two years, due mostly to intensive seeding, Mr. Dewey said."
Quoting sar2401:


Scott, the old Soviet Union just used blunt force to attempt to succeed in their five year plans, and failed with every one of them. Stopping what you believe are subsidies for bad things and giving subsidies for what you believe are good things are a nicer way to do state planning, but it's still state planning, and it's likely to fail if a majority of the people aren't on board with the ideas. The fact that you feel leaders can't use terms like "enhanced greenhouse effects" shows the majority of the population, right or wrong, are not on board with AGW and are not willing to make forced changes in their lifestyles because a group of politicians and scientists think they should.

It's not clear to me that the government is encouraging population growth in the US. The most prosperous segments of our society have a birth rate which has already fallen below replacement levels. Prosperity tends to automatically control the levels of children couples have, so increasing the prosperity of our country and the world will accomplish the goal of slowing population growth with no government regulations.

Proponents of AGW also have to be careful about saying how accurately they can predict future changes. After the hurricane season of 2005, many AGW proponents used that horrible year as a template of the future, predicting more and larger hurricanes every year thereafter. It's now six years later and that prediction has not come true. One can dicker about the number of "named" storms over the past six years, but the fact remains that we haven't been attacked by a never ending string of killer hurricanes like we were in 2005. Thus, when AGW proponents predict, with apparently great confidence, that they actually know what the average temperature will be in 2050 or 2100, those scary predictions from 2005 come back to haunt them. It's hard to believe a person or group can be wrong for six straight years but right about what will happen 40 or 90 years from now.

Exactly right. What happened to all the big, bad hurricanes that were supposed to not only become more frequent, much larger in size, and greater in intensity? The answer is that it simply has not occurred. In fact, this year saw an unprecedented amount of weak storms that were overcome by many adverse factors. Thus, there were far more TS than hurricanes this year.

You can't put credence into that. Just like the kneejerk reaction by the same panel of scientists of whom predicted the coming of the next ice age in the wake of the brutally cold winters of the late 1970's and 1980's. You just can't make out of left field predictions like that, and expect to convince folks.
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:
EPAC Hurricane Dora report is up with peak intensity at 135kts.

Link

Just below Category 5 intensity.
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Just below Category 5 intensity.
I guess Dora was really an explorer?
Quoting Neapolitan:
Of course, even the heavily watered-down SREX report, which scientists will rightfully lament as practically toothless, will nevertheless be lambasted by pro-pollution types as "alarmist" propaganda.

And in the meantime, humanity will face increasingly profound climate-driven challenges... :-\

Thanks, Dr. Masters.


There are lots of us who understand that during the last 40 years or so that the earth has indeed gotten warmer. Some of us are just not convinced that it is all mans fault. I personally believe we own a piece of it, just how big a piece is still to be determined. I do get a little aggravated by posts such as the one above that lump anyone who doen't buy into the whole "party-line" as "pro-pollution". That doesn't advance the debate, It only riles.
Quoting chrisale:
If you don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change fine... don't believe in it

It's not an issue of belief. That's a religious concept. It's an issue of proof. Those advocating for AGW and government involvement in mitigating the alleged effects of AGW have an obligation:
1. To prove (not theorize) what the problem is AND its cause,
2. To prove the problem is actually harmful,
3. To prove their solution actually will mitigate the harm and to what extent AND will not cause more harm along the way - in other words, that it will be both effective and cost-effective.

None of those has been proven. We have a theory - a potentially valid theory, but a theory that seems to have been contradicted by the last 11 years. And, in the face of that theory, what is being asked is a wholesale upheaval of the economies of the world, at the cost of trillions of dollars, with the certainty that there will be harmful effects to many around the globe, for a result that is not shown to be significantly better than what is theorized to happen.
Quoting ITCZmike:
Troll Alert: NHCISALWAYSWRONG & dabirds
i'll go ahead and poof them.thanks for the heads up.still cleaning up over here from Irene.
Why do trolls always come up with the most catchiest,craizies,and funniest user names??
And they would be trolls, how?
Quoting Articuno:
And they would be trolls, how?


Ever seen someone with an avatar called ''NHCISALWAYSWRONG'' post a reasonable, sensible post?
Quoting ScottLincoln:


For starters, I'm not sure comparing the United States to Soviet Russia is particularly accurate. And it's not a matter of "dictating" activity, it's a matter of stopping subsidies for the sources of our problems and subsidizing the solutions to speed the system. It requires our leaders to actually be able to say the terms "enhanced greenhouse effect" and "global climate change" instead of just weakly alluding to them. It's a matter of reducing habitation in areas likely to experience the worst changes and building our infrastructure not with past statistics in mind, but with likely climate statistics of the next 100 years. It's also a matter of not encouraging population growth as a "strength" of our country.

There are so many ways the government could act to mitigate the harm from climate change. It is clear that it can be done, because in many ways actions are being taken, just in the opposite direction.


So lets see, forcibly move people from their own private property and only allow some people to have children or do like the Chineese and outlaw more than 1 child per couple? You realize its a crime to have a younger sibling in China don't you?
Quoting CybrTeddy:


Ever seen someone with an avatar called ''NHCISALWAYSWRONG'' post a reasonable, sensible post?
I think the name is funny.Lol.
Scottlincoln! Are you a marxist?
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


There are lots of us who understand that during the last 40 years or so that the earth has indeed gotten warmer. Some of us are just not convinced that it is all mans fault. I personally believe we own a piece of it, just how big a piece is still to be determined. I do get a little aggravated by posts such as the one above that lump anyone who doen't buy into the whole "party-line" as "pro-pollution". That doesn't advance the debate, It only riles.

I didn't say all "skeptics" were "pro-pollution", now did I? No; only those who will doubtlessly lambaste even the watered-down SREX report as "alarmist" propaganda. Those who are in that group know who they are, as do those who are not.
Quoting CybrTeddy:


Ever seen someone with an avatar called ''NHCISALWAYSWRONG'' post a reasonable, sensible post?

Nope.
Nobody with the name even exists...
it just says:
Error!

This user does not appear to have a WunderBlog.
Regarding the shellfish article, a commentor on this story asks exactly the same question I was going to ask:

"So lemme get this straight. A gas that comprises less than 1% of the atmosphere has caused 80% of earth's surface, with a volume 10 times the size of all visible land masses, to turn so acidic, it is killing sea life?

There is no doubt the oceans have their acidic cycles. To link it to AGW is a quantum leap of unbelievable proportion."


Given the little I know about chemistry and physics, it seems totally unbelievable to me that man-made CO2 could be causing the rise in acidity that's being seen off this relatively small section of the coast of British Columbia. Unless the laws of dilution and the way concentration calculations are done have changed since I went to college, it's literally impossible for man to produce enough CO2 to cause a rise in acidity in the entire ocean. I would be looking for another, more local cause, rather than world-wide AGW.
Quoting Articuno:

Nope.
Nobody with the name even exists...
it just says:
Error!

This user does not appear to have a WunderBlog.

NHCISALWAYSWRONG made posts earlier today but they have been deleted by admin. And dabirds posts are still out there...some of them anyway.
Quoting DallasGumby:

It's not clear that there is anything mankind can do to affect climate change, much less that there is anything government can do "to mitigate the harm" from climate change. And, there's certainly no evidence that anything government might do wouldn't make the "harm" worse.

Historical precedents suggest that when governments try to manipulate the economy, starvation and mass unemployment often result.


Perhaps control isn't the right procedure here. Both the economy and the climate are vastly complex and partly self-regulating phenomena that can only be nudged, not fully controlled.
Quoting capelookout:

NHCISALWAYSWRONG made posts earlier today but they have been deleted by admin. And dabirds posts are still out there...some of them anyway.
Hmmmm dabirds you say?.Hey if memory serves me correctly wasn't there a Teenage girl last summer on the blog by the name of BaltimoreBirds that annouced her whole name on the blog with her middle name being something like Deseray?.I'm just making an observation maybe it could be them trying to come back?.You know just like how JFV makes it obvious it's him with his user names.
Quoting chrisale:
If you don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change fine... don't believe in it.

That's fine--so long as they aren't teaching our children, or running for political office.
Quoting Neapolitan:

I didn't say all "skeptics" were "pro-pollution", now did I? No; only those who will doubtlessly lambaste even the watered-down SREX report as "alarmist" propaganda. Those who are in that group know who they are, as do those who are not.


It appears that all accusations and labels only serve to exponentially amplify the level of mutual rhetoric so that everybody's ears remain closed.
Quoting capelookout:

NHCISALWAYSWRONG made posts earlier today but they have been deleted by admin. And dabirds posts are still out there...some of them anyway.

If the user was banned wouldn't it say banned instead of the error just listed?
Quoting sar2401:
Regarding the shellfish article, a commentor on this story asks exactly the same question I was going to ask:

"So lemme get this straight. A gas that comprises less than 1% of the atmosphere has caused 80% of earth's surface, with a volume 10 times the size of all visible land masses, to turn so acidic, it is killing sea life?

There is no doubt the oceans have their acidic cycles. To link it to AGW is a quantum leap of unbelievable proportion."


Given the little I know about chemistry and physics, it seems totally unbelievable to me that man-made CO2 could be causing the rise in acidity that's being seen off this relatively small section of the coast of British Columbia. Unless the laws of dilution and the way concentration calculations are done have changed since I went to college, it's literally impossible for man to produce enough CO2 to cause a rise in acidity in the entire ocean. I would be looking for another, more local cause, rather than world-wide AGW.


Humans have contributed several hundred billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and other feedbacks like peat bog fires and melting permafrost have contributed more. Acidity has changed by about 0.1 on the pH scale IIRC, and projections involving current concentrations suggest it may decline to the 7.0-7.9 range within the next two hundred years. What else can be responsible for ocean acidification, for example do volcanoes emit enough carbon into the oceans to change the global acidity on a trend-line basis?

PS. Maybe the acidification is only occurring at the surface, as the carbon dioxide isn't required to mix evenly throughout all ocean layers. Some species of jellyfish respond dramatically to slight changes in ocean temperature, acidity, salinity, turbidity, nutrients etc. by reproducing in the bilions, and exactly that is occurring in various areas worldwide.

Both global environmental change and localized dead zones in the ocean have caused large disruption to its ecosystem, and I've heard of one study claiming the oceans will be 'depleted' by 2048.
One more storm...
Quoting reedzone:
One more storm...

Please..
One more storm...


enso as of today. Mondays nino 3.4 was reported to be -1.1C which is a moderate la nina. same like last years at the time only a little weaker. Question is by the time june 2012 comes will we miss ANOTHER el nino for the 3rd year in a row... el nino forms every 2 to 7 years and june 2009 was the time the last one began and april 2010 was the last time an el nino ended. will 2012 be the lucky year in which el nino forms? we will have to find out. Starting December, Ill start making Pre-season tropical updates and once the season begins actual tropical updates :P
Quoting reedzone:
One more storm...


One more comment...
Quoting Neapolitan:

That's fine--so long as they aren't teaching our children, or running for political office.


OK, I'm confused, Neapolitan. Are saying that only teachers who believe in AGW (or ACC, I guess) should be teach our kids or only teachers that don't believe in it should be teaching our kids? Assuming that teachers of science are teaching settled issues of science as fact, and unsettled issues as theory, are you suggesting some kind of litmus test for teachers that depends on their beliefs rather than how and what they teach?
Quoting wunderweatherman123:


enso as of today. Mondays nino 3.4 was reported to be -1.1C which is a moderate la nina. same like last years at the time only a little weaker. Question is by the time june 2012 comes will we miss ANOTHER el nino for the 3rd year in a row... el nino forms every 2 to 7 years and june 2009 was the time the last one began and april 2010 was the last time an el nino ended. will 2012 be the lucky year in which el nino forms? we will have to find out. Starting December, Ill start making Pre-season tropical updates and once the season begins actual tropical updates :P


The northern Cold PDO shows up nicely, except for a warm extention of the Kuroshio Current that is cutting it off via warm water. However the anomaly suggests strong Alaska and Pacific storms this winter.

As of yet, it will be difficult to tell whether 2012 is more likely to be a La Nina or El Nino year for the tropics.
Quoting sar2401:
Regarding the shellfish article, a commentor on this story asks exactly the same question I was going to ask:

"So lemme get this straight. A gas that comprises less than 1% of the atmosphere has caused 80% of earth's surface, with a volume 10 times the size of all visible land masses, to turn so acidic, it is killing sea life?

There is no doubt the oceans have their acidic cycles. To link it to AGW is a quantum leap of unbelievable proportion."


Given the little I know about chemistry and physics, it seems totally unbelievable to me that man-made CO2 could be causing the rise in acidity that's being seen off this relatively small section of the coast of British Columbia. Unless the laws of dilution and the way concentration calculations are done have changed since I went to college, it's literally impossible for man to produce enough CO2 to cause a rise in acidity in the entire ocean. I would be looking for another, more local cause, rather than world-wide AGW.

Every 24 hours, our burning of fossil fuels pumps at least 40 trillion liters of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's caused atmospheric CO2 to climb to its highest level in 15 to 20 million years, and that has upset the natural balance that has long existed. And that CO2 doesn't simply vanish; it's accumulating, and roughly 40% of it goes into the oceans. In a year's time, then, we humans in effect pump 12 gigatons of CO2 into the ocean. Now, there is a lot of water on the planet--but that's a lot of carbon dioxide for sensitive fish and corals to dfeal with.
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


The northern Cold PDO shows up nicely, except for a warm extention of the Kuroshio Current that is cutting it off via warm water. However the anomaly suggests strong Alaska and Pacific storms this winter.
it will be hard for el nino to form if the PDO is cold and negative. this summer it tried and failed. we shall see this spring but climatology favor el nino to form in 2013 but anything can change and enso is very unpredictable
ScienceShot: Diamond Planet Orbits a Pulsar



As reported in Science, an international astronomy team led by Swinburne University’s Matthew Bailes, has discovered a low-mass but dense object in orbit around a rapidly-rotating neutron star.

Shortly after the discovery Matthew Bailes wrote the article: Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method.
Quoting Xandra:
ScienceShot: Diamond Planet Orbits a Pulsar



As reported in Science, an international astronomy team led by Swinburne University’s Matthew Bailes, has discovered a low-mass but dense object in orbit around a rapidly-rotating neutron star.

Shortly after the discovery Matthew Bailes wrote the article: Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method.

That is an amazing discovery! Thanks.
Quoting sar2401:


OK, I'm confused, Neapolitan. Are saying that only teachers who believe in AGW (or ACC, I guess) should be teach our kids or only teachers that don't believe in it should be teaching our kids? Assuming that teachers of science are teaching settled issues of science as fact, and unsettled issues as theory, are you suggesting some kind of litmus test for teachers that depends on their beliefs rather than how and what they teach?

As someone else stated on here earlier, supporting the theory of climate change isn't a matter of "believing"; it's a matter of looking at all the science available from reputable, credible sources, and making an intelligent and unbiased determination. Now, just as I don't wish for a science teacher to push the psuedo-science of astrology to my kids over the science of astronomy, I don't want a teacher of my kids to ignore the realities of anthropogenic climate change while pushing the fallacy that it's not happening. That's all...
Quoting wunderweatherman123:
it will be hard for el nino to form if the PDO is cold and negative. this summer it tried and failed. we shall see this spring but climatology favor el nino to form in 2013 but anything can change and enso is very unpredictable


Let's examine the previous cold PDO. We'll look at the period 1946-1976, ignoring the brief warm period 1958-1961.



We see that from 1950 onwards during cold PDO, there were seven La Ninas and five El Ninos during a 23-year period (ignoring the brief warm period). La Nina lasted a total of 12 years and El Nino a total of 7 years, with three periods of strong La Nina and one period of strong El Nino (more than 1.5C deviation from normal).

From 1976 to 2007 was the warm PDO. There were nine El Ninos and five La Ninas during a 31-year period. El Nino lasted a total of 15 years and La Nina a total of 6 years, with five periods of strong El Nino and one period of strong La Nina.



It appears that PDO has a significant effect on ENSO, but it does not prevent the opposite type of oscillation from forming. A recent shift seems to have occurred toward Central Pacific El Ninos, and possibly La Ninas.

It will be interesting to see the total effect of PDO on Atlantic hurricane activity.
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


Let's examine the previous cold PDO. We'll look at the period 1946-1976, ignoring the brief warm period 1958-1961.



We see that from 1950 onwards during cold PDO, there were seven La Ninas and five El Ninos during a 23-year period (ignoring the brief warm period). La Nina lasted a total of 12 years and El Nino a total of 7 years, with three periods of strong La Nina and one period of strong El Nino (more than 1.5C deviation from normal).

From 1976 to 2007 was the warm PDO. There were nine El Ninos and five La Ninas during a 31-year period. El Nino lasted a total of 15 years and La Nina a total of 6 years, with five periods of strong El Nino and one period of strong La Nina.



It appears that PDO has a significant effect on ENSO, but it does not prevent the opposite type of oscillation from forming. A recent shift seems to have occurred toward Central Pacific El Ninos, and possibly La Ninas.

It will be interesting to see the total effect of PDO on Atlantic hurricane activity.

based on all of that what do you think is the earliest for another el nino to form?
Quoting Neapolitan:

Every 24 hours, our burning of fossil fuels pumps at least 40 trillion liters of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's caused atmospheric CO2 to climb to its highest level in 15 to 20 million years, and that has upset the natural balance that has long existed. And that CO2 doesn't simply vanish; it's accumulating, and roughly 40% of it goes into the oceans. In a year's time, then, we humans in effect pump 12 gigatons of CO2 into the ocean. Now, there is a lot of water on the planet--but that's a lot of carbon dioxide for sensitive fish and corals to dfeal with.


I would be very interested in links that show the amount of CO2 man's activities emits into the atmosphere per day compared to the total amount of CO2 emitted from all sources combined. I'd also be interested in a link that shows how the calculations were made that our atmosphere now has more CO2 than any time in the past 15 to 20 million years. Assuming that those calculations are correct then, by implication, some time more than 15 to 20 million years ago, there was even more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. What was the source of that huge amount of CO2?
Quoting Neapolitan:

As someone else stated on here earlier, supporting the theory of climate change isn't a matter of "believing"; it's a matter of looking at all the science available from reputable, credible sources, and making an intelligent and unbiased determination. Now, just as I don't wish for a science teacher to push the psuedo-science of astrology to my kids over the science of astronomy, I don't want a teacher of my kids to ignore the realities of anthropogenic climate change while pushing the fallacy that it's not happening. That's all...


Indeed. I would hope that all teachers would stick to facts that are settled science while still presenting theories of what may be changing in science. I'm all in favor of teaching students the theories of AGW as long as it's not presented as settled science and we try to avoid the "We're all going to die" type of hysteria I've seen with some AGW proponents. :)
Quoting DallasGumby:

It's not an issue of belief. That's a religious concept. It's an issue of proof. Those advocating for AGW and government involvement in mitigating the alleged effects of AGW have an obligation:
1. To prove (not theorize) what the problem is AND its cause,
2. To prove the problem is actually harmful,
3. To prove their solution actually will mitigate the harm and to what extent AND will not cause more harm along the way - in other words, that it will be both effective and cost-effective.

None of those has been proven. We have a theory - a potentially valid theory, but a theory that seems to have been contradicted by the last 11 years. And, in the face of that theory, what is being asked is a wholesale upheaval of the economies of the world, at the cost of trillions of dollars, with the certainty that there will be harmful effects to many around the globe, for a result that is not shown to be significantly better than what is theorized to happen.


There is no level of evidence that most deniers would ever accept when it comes to the evidence in support of AGW. Scientists are under no obligation to come up with specific public policy positions when it comes to dealing with the issue of climate change. That is the distinction between science and public policy. We can and are choosing as a species to stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the science behind AGW because it does require us to make difficult choices as individuals and as a society. Just because the science is inconvenient in terms of our political, economic or religious beliefs does not mean the problem will go away. It just means that as one of the most selfish societies we will kick the problem down the road to future generations. And why not? We have already undertaken massive intergenerational financial theft . Why not extend that to running down our environmental (capital) until it is completely exhausted? After all it is what the economy demands.
This has turned into a GW blog.Getting out of hear.God bless yall.
.
Quoting sar2401:


I would be very interested in links that show the amount of CO2 man's activities emits into the atmosphere per day compared to the total amount of CO2 emitted from all sources combined. I'd also be interested in a link that shows how the calculations were made that our atmosphere now has more CO2 than any time in the past 15 to 20 million years. Assuming that those calculations are correct then, by implication, some time more than 15 to 20 million years ago, there was even more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. What was the source of that huge amount of CO2?


The natural cycles are capable of injecting and removing CO2, though usually over very long timescales of thousands to millions of years. CO2 can also be released or absorbed from the ocean in response to temperature changes in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels were higher than 760 ppm, Antactica froze and temperatures were 4C warmer than today, meaning that we could easily reach that kind of climate.
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


Let's examine the previous cold PDO. We'll look at the period 1946-1976, ignoring the brief warm period 1958-1961.



We see that from 1950 onwards during cold PDO, there were seven La Ninas and five El Ninos during a 23-year period (ignoring the brief warm period). La Nina lasted a total of 12 years and El Nino a total of 7 years, with three periods of strong La Nina and one period of strong El Nino (more than 1.5C deviation from normal).

From 1976 to 2007 was the warm PDO. There were nine El Ninos and five La Ninas during a 31-year period. El Nino lasted a total of 15 years and La Nina a total of 6 years, with five periods of strong El Nino and one period of strong La Nina.



It appears that PDO has a significant effect on ENSO, but it does not prevent the opposite type of oscillation from forming. A recent shift seems to have occurred toward Central Pacific El Ninos, and possibly La Ninas.

It will be interesting to see the total effect of PDO on Atlantic hurricane activity.


Very nice.
Thank you.
Thats good food for climate thought.

came to pop in tropics all quiet, Okay this is one of the earliest start to winter ive expirienced. For example, as far back as i can remember, halloween has been HOT like mid 80's and this year it was in the 40's... hope all is well with everyone stay safe
Great...global warming again....oh well, back to Hockey. And I hate hockey.
I am considering closing my account and leaving this blog for awhile.

A winter of endless arguments in this circular fashion about a global warming theory does not appeal to me any more than what to do about the endangered Desert Snailtoad (The DST).

The topic has been beaten to death and there is NOTHING new to discuss. Those who feel that this is just a natural process are not being swayed by the GREENS. And we all still line up weekly at the Church of High Octane.

So keep up the hypocritical talk. It beats chopping wood.
*Crickets Chirp....*
Quoting WxGeekVA:
*Crickets Chirp....*

HOWZAT!!!!!!!!
Quoting FrankZapper:
I am considering closing my account and leaving this blog for awhile.

A winter of endless arguments in this circular fashion about a global warming theory does not appeal to me any more than what to do about the endangered Desert Snailtoad (The DST).

The topic has been beaten to death and there is NOTHING new to discuss. Those who feel that this is just a natural process are not being swayed by the GREENS. And we all still line up weekly at the Church of High Octane.

So keep up the hypocritical talk. It beats chopping wood.

Well, you could always go to my blog once our Cyclone season starts down here.
Quoting AussieStorm:

HOWZAT!!!!!!!!


OK awake now...... LOL
Quoting WxGeekVA:


OK awake now...... LOL

Not Out. lol
USGS study reveals it's Raining Roundup. The herbicide Roundup that is used on the Genetically Modified crops that is the majority of today's foods in the US, is being used in such abundance it is being found in the air, rain & water over all the Mississippi basin during growing season. The components it degrades to is being found year round in the rain.
Quoting Skyepony:
USGS study reveals it's Raining Roundup. The herbicide Roundup that is used on the Genetically Modified crops that is the majority of today's foods in the US, is being used in such abundance it is being found in the air, rain & water over all the Mississippi basin during growing season. The components it degrades to is being found year round in the rain.

Forget the roundup.. how about the genes they put into the crops themselves.. ugh.. talk about a pandora's box
Been a member for a long time on Wunderground. Still am. Just noticed, though, the category is now officially changed on this blog to Climate Change. What a let down. Guess there are no more weather discussions allowed until Hurricane Season begins again. (Even if then?) What a shame.
Quoting DallasGumby:

It's not an issue of belief. That's a religious concept. It's an issue of proof. Those advocating for AGW and government involvement in mitigating the alleged effects of AGW have an obligation:
1. To prove (not theorize) what the problem is AND its cause,
2. To prove the problem is actually harmful,
3. To prove their solution actually will mitigate the harm and to what extent AND will not cause more harm along the way - in other words, that it will be both effective and cost-effective.

None of those has been proven. We have a theory - a potentially valid theory, but a theory that seems to have been contradicted by the last 11 years. And, in the face of that theory, what is being asked is a wholesale upheaval of the economies of the world, at the cost of trillions of dollars, with the certainty that there will be harmful effects to many around the globe, for a result that is not shown to be significantly better than what is theorized to happen.


While I agree with you that belief has no place in science (and I've stated this often before), I've got to take issue with your view of science. One of the big problems science comes across in trying to get its ideas across to politicians, the media, and the general public, comes down to the way the process is portrayed, and the way we're taught science at school.

One of the basic tenants of the way science works, at least from my training in Physics and Astronomy, is that you can never prove a theory. That just isn't how it works. Instead, you put forward a theory that is testable. It makes predictions - if this happens, then this will be the result. Each time the predictions made by your theory come true, then you become more confident that the theory is a true representation of how the world works.

However, it only takes one measurement to disprove a theory. That's why you do the tests. If the theory is disproved, then you go away and either come up with a whole new theory, or work out what was wrong in your original one.

For that reason, it is absolutely impossible to prove that AGW is happening, and that we're entirely to blame. However, to the best of my knowledge, it is the only theory available that explains all the observations to date, and makes predictions that are verified on a daily/yearly basis.

I'm an astronomer - and as such, I know that the ideas that are put forth by those who some on here would label "deniers" are often simply unfounded - they're easily disproven. Not all of them, of course - I'm not qualified to judge on those. I am qualified to comment on the allegations that the climate change is being driven by the Milankovic cycles (it clearly isn't -- it's happening much too fast, among other things). It isn't being driven by variations in the Sun's output either - that just simply doesn't work.

I've said this a few times - but my thinking is that acting to moderate the things we're doing to drive climate change is much like taking out fire insurance on an old wooden house. Sure, you're not going to set fire to your house, but there's a chance that it'll catch fire in the coming year, so you take out insurance such that, if it does, you'll be covered. If you take no insurance, and it doesn't burn down, you save a tiny bit of money, but if you take no insurance and it does, you're in deep trouble.

With climate change then, two possibilities, and two routes.

Possibility 1: The climate is changing as a result of our actions (the only theory that currently explains all the observations, and makes worthwhile predictions that keep being verified).
Possibility 2:The climate may be changing, but we're not contributing.

Route 1: We do nothing
Route 2: We do something

------

So - Scenario 1: Combine Possibility 2 (no AGW) and Route 2 (We do something). Here, there'll be some economic pain, as petrol prices go up, taxes go up, and people change their ways. However, on the flip side, loads of jobs and new technologies are created as we drive to find alternative energy sources and clean up our ways, so long term, the economy benefits, even though there's short term pain. At the same time, our environment becomes more pleasant as we cut down the pollution. What is there not to like? I suspect, as an aside, that industry in London in the 1950s argued against the clean air act, since it wasn't proven that their pollution was causing the evil smog...

Scenario 2: Possibility 2 (no AGW, Route 1 (We don't act): Things just carry on as they are. At some point, we'll run out of oil and coal and gas, and have to change, but that's someone elses concern. No short term pain, but little growth in new technology areas and jobs, since there's no point finding alternatives to the stuff we already use.

Scenario 3: Possibilty 1 (AGW), Route 2 (We do something): Here, we get all the benefits discussed for Scenario 1, PLUS we do something to either avert or prevent what could turn out to be a hellish future. If the worst case scenarios that have been predicted come true, then things will be awful for our children, and their children, into the future. This way, we might be able to act before it is too late AND we get plenty of other benefits

Scenario 4: Possibililty 1 (AGW), Route 1 (We do nothing): Here, the world our children and grandchildren grow up in will be hellish, and we'll be responsible. They'll look back and wonder why we did nothing, as they scrabble to stay alive, and fight wars over food, and over water, and deal with millions being displaced by the weather.

---------

So - in short, taking action is a bit like insurance - if we take action and it turns out the planet wasn't warming because of us, then we'll be somewhat out of pocket, but have a nicer living environment because of it, and have loads of new technology and new jobs too, which long term benefits the economy and standard of living. If we don't take action, and AGW is really happening (and remember, all the evidence points that way), then the future is hellish, and we're dooming our children to a terrible future.

Or, in the case of the house - if we think the house might catch fire, and take out insurance, we're covered, and slightly out of pocket. But if we deny that it might, and ignore the insurance, then we may be slightly better off in the short term, but if the house burns down, all is lost.

Personally, I find it hugely depressing that there's still so much misinformation and bad media being thrown around on this topic. I mentioned the other week that the situation here in Australia has become so caustic and anti-science (in large part thanks to advertising campaigns trying to drive home that climate change isn't happening) that a female colleague of mine, an infra-red astronomer, not a climate scientist, has been verbally abused on a number of occasions in public places by people she's met who found out that she is part of the evil scientist conspiracy that's trying to destroy our jobs and our livelihoods.

It sickens me :(

To finish, and perhaps illustrate my point better than I could myself, here's a wonderful article from TheConversation.edu.au, written by Matthew Bailes, the guy who discovered the diamond planet mentioned earlier. He's talking about the difference between the media reception he got for his work, and the way it would have been if he had been a climate researcher rather than astronomer, and makes for sobering reading, I think.
What a rant? Redneck Joe draining his oil in the back yard. Trash just threw out of the car window. Every parking spot covered with some type of fluid. Throw it away, it's broke. Why should I care, everyone does it! We, as humans, are the biggest pigs/slobs on the earth. Put the crap in the dumpster and it goes away. One of the biggest things you all miss on climate change, is that all the crap ends up somewhere, and releases methane gas (cow farts), which is up there higher than CO2. Plus the our area looks better with all the trash laying around. Don't forget about about the contamination of the drinkable water also. If we make it another 50 years with our current habits, I would be shocked!!
Quoting FrankZapper:
I am considering closing my account and leaving this blog for awhile.

A winter of endless arguments in this circular fashion about a global warming theory does not appeal to me any more than what to do about the endangered Desert Snailtoad (The DST).

The topic has been beaten to death and there is NOTHING new to discuss. Those who feel that this is just a natural process are not being swayed by the GREENS. And we all still line up weekly at the Church of High Octane.

So keep up the hypocritical talk. It beats chopping wood.


Frank, that would be an excellent idea. Come back when you have a better attitude and something positive to contribute.
Perhaps you've had an excellent way of contributing all these 7 years. Lurking. Now back into that mode!
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


The natural cycles are capable of injecting and removing CO2, though usually over very long timescales of thousands to millions of years. CO2 can also be released or absorbed from the ocean in response to temperature changes in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels were higher than 760 ppm, Antactica froze and temperatures were 4C warmer than today, meaning that we could easily reach that kind of climate.


Wait, you lost me on that one. Are you saying that when the CO2 levels were higher than 760 PPM, Antarctica froze but the temperatures (somewhere?) were 4 degrees centigrade warmer than they are (somewhere?) today? Something seems backwards about that.
He lost me too there. But it goes to show you, if it is true, that there are a lot more natural feedback mechanisms than the GWers would have you believe.
You've reported me tonight? For what? Who insulted who 1st?

I contribute all the time. It's just that you don't like my style. Why else do you think this blog is dying. Intolerance.

And no son, I rarely REPORT others. I want to hear what people THINK.
138. bio4
An extreme rain event is taking place in southern France now. Please see: Link
thats the only thing thats wrong with this site is the believe and propaganda of humans causing global warming and extreme weather
Quoting FrankZapper:
You've reported me tonight? For what? Who insulted who 1st?

I contribute all the time. It's just that you don't like my style. Why else do you think this blog is dying. Intolerance.

And no son, I rarely REPORT others. I want to hear what people THINK.


This is what I think...

Change is happening, it always will happen.
A warmer earth will have mixed results - some places will get better, some will get worse, as it always does.
Doesn't really matter in the long run.

Personally I don't think humans are the main cause, but we contribute. It would be good for us to change the way we do things but it shouldn't be as political as it is now - no point. It's just a 'follow the money trail' issue now, too late to keep it simple.

If I had money I'd buy land around the arctic, and mining stock, and grow trees where you couldn't before, and watch the cities flood and people adapt and change to suit. Evolve like we're suppose to I guess :)
India Meteorological Department
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #21
LOW PRESSURE AREA, FORMER KEILA (ARB02-2011)
11:30 AM IST November 4 2011
=========================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, The depression over west central Arabian Sea close to Oman coast weakened into a low pressure area. Low Pressure Area, Former Keila will weaken further and become less marked during the next 24 hours.

At this current status, this will be the final tropical cyclone advisory on this system.
looks like rainy season in latin america has finally faded away dec is usually a great time of the yr to visit
I'm just a dumb lurker in here, I watch weather, and global natural issues including earthquakes and volcano's, I see all the global warming issues being posted in here, almost daily, and all the post are aimed at human caused.
I read about volcano's and the amount of gasses of different types being emitted into the atmosphere.
We are having a very active volcano period. Here is a link to all the world's current active volcano's.
You be the judge!

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoe s.html
Quoting trunkmonkey:
I'm just a dumb lurker in here, I watch weather, and global natural issues including earthquakes and volcano's, I see all the global warming issues being posted in here, almost daily, and all the post are aimed at human caused.
I read about volcano's and the amount of gasses of different types being emitted into the atmosphere.
We are having a very active volcano period. Here is a link to all the world's current active volcano's.
You be the judge!

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoe s.html

Here's what the USGS--the scientific body charged with monitoring volcanoes and earthquakes and such--has to say about that:

"Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, "No." Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010, release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world's degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes."

"The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year."

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 3,500
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism: 2.7


Armed with that, now you can be the judge.

Here's what the USGS--the scientific body charged with monitoring volcanoes and earthquakes and such--has to say about that:

"Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, "No." Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010, release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world's degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes."

"The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year."

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 3,500
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism: 2.7

Armed with that, now you can be the judge.



That was last year, my point this year, is the volcano activity is more active, so the results will be different, since there are so many active volcano's this year!
Quoting Skyepony:
USGS study reveals it's Raining Roundup. The herbicide Roundup that is used on the Genetically Modified crops that is the majority of today's foods in the US, is being used in such abundance it is being found in the air, rain & water over all the Mississippi basin during growing season. The components it degrades to is being found year round in the rain.

This is Dread News.
But not unexpected.
As you know, Roundup has been shown to interfere with the reproductive abilities in mammals (we are mammals).

Roundup in our food, and in the air we breathe and in the water we drink, is a very good way to control the population......

From my own observations and the observations of other people in the river valleys of the northern range of mountains here in Trinidad, we are seeing fewer and fewer crayfish, crabs, frogs etc in the rivers and streams where Roundup has been recently introduced with the planting of Christophene, a vegetable that needs to grow in very damp conditions.
The effects are noticed far downriver from the gardens.....
The rivers and streams end up in the sea. Obviously.

It's pretty awful.
Quoting trunkmonkey:
That was last year, my point this year, is the volcano activity is more active, so the results will be different, since there are so many active volcano's this year!

As the article states, we would have to see roughly two Mt. Pinatubo eruptions, or ten Mount St. Helens eruptions, every day of the year for volcanic CO2 emissions to equal what we humans emit. There's obviously nothing even remotely close to that going on, and the fact remains that anthropogenic CO2 emissions absolutely dwarf man-made ones.
This would scare the heck out of me. Although it is awesome.

Quoting Neapolitan:

As the article states, we would have to see roughly two Mt. Pinatubo eruptions, or ten Mount St. Helens eruptions, every day of the year for volcanic CO2 emissions to equal what we humans emit. There's obviously nothing even remotely close to that going on, and the fact remains that anthropogenic CO2 emissions absolutely dwarf man-made ones.


Thanks for the heads up!
38 Patrap "co2now.org 389.00ppm Atmospheric CO2 for September 2011"

People pumped ~512million more (metric) tonnes of carbon into the air in 2010 than they did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That extra pollution exceeds the individual emissions of all but 3 countries...

...China (2,248megatonnes), the UnitedStates (1,498megatonnes), and India (564megatonnes).
Simply put, it's all India's fault. Reducing India's carbon emissions to 52megatonnes would eliminate the increase.

Extra emissions from China and the U.S. account for more than half of the increase last year... hrrrm... May hafta eliminate Russia's contribution to make up for 2011.

The carbon emissions for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change four years ago...
...which led to a projected global temperature increase of 4to11degreesFahrenheit with the best estimate at 7.5degrees by the end of the century.

The IPCC's worst case scenario was about in the middle of what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated to be likely scenarios.

The good news is, the developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels.

The U.S. did not ratify the agreement, and that lack of commitment shows.
Quoting wunderweatherman123:

based on all of that what do you think is the earliest for another el nino to form?

I could understand this better if I knew what PDO is?
I find it incredibly ironic, telling, and sad.... that the same people who flock to this website to hear Dr. Jeff Masters forecasts and analysis on Hurricanes, and trust them thoroughly due, I presume, to a trust in his knowledge as a climate scientist do not also trust his judgement when it comes to climate change and it's veracity.

You can't pick and choose what 'science' you believe in. It's all connected. If you don't 'believe' what comes out of Jeff Masters mouth when he utters the word 'global warming', then I would suggest leaving this website because you have invalidated his opinion on any other climate or meteorological event as well.

You don't think the "Heat Content" in the ocean that powers hurricanes doesn't rely on the same science that proves the greenhouse effect and a warming world?

It's time to Buck Up.

The science proves that global warming is happening.
The science proves that it is changing our climate in both predictable and unpredictable ways
The science proves that the only known process able to create that change is Greenhouse Gases
The *numbers* proves that the only Greenhouse gas rising enough to create that Greenhouse Effect are CO2 and Methane emitted by human activity.

Dr. Jeff Masters is simply relaying this information to you. He is showing you the proof everyday.