WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Quarterback Obama's New Climate Change Game Plan

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 1:29 PM GMT on June 26, 2013

Ever since the dawn of human civilization, we've been playing a high-stakes game against Mother Nature. The game: the survival and advancement of civilization. We've done very well at this game over the past century. Humanity has seen tremendous increases in health, life expectancy, and standard of living. Much of the credit for our successful scores against Mother Nature goes to cheap energy afforded by burning Earth's abundant fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas.) But we've grown complacent against our foe. In our enthusiastic push to reduce poverty and advance standards of living, we've ignored the greater game: survival. We've ignored the rules of the game: basic physics. If one increases levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide by 42%, melts away half of the summertime sea ice in the Arctic, changes the reflectivity of the surface by replacing up to half of Earth's land area with crops and cities, puts massive clouds of sunlight-reflecting and sunlight-absorbing soot and pollution into the air, and opens up a huge ozone hole in the Antarctic--as humans have done since in recent decades--physics demands that the weather and climate must change significantly. Since civilization is adapted to the old climate, any shift to a new one will be expensive, destabilizing, and deadly.

Like a game of football, the battle for civilization's survival has Mother Nature stacking the line against us with beefy linemen. Each year that carbon dioxide increases another part per million (ppm), it's like giving Mother Nature's linemen an injection of steroids. They add another pound of bulk, get another millimeter taller, another split second faster. We blew past the "safe" level of CO2, 350 ppm, back in 1988, when Mother Nature had 350-pound linemen. Now in 2013, with 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air, the opposing linemen are 400-pound behemoths. These increasingly fearsome opponents have been blitzing our team with tremendous ferocity of late, causing huge losses. There were eleven billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. in 2012--a number surpassed only by the fourteen such disasters the year before. We had the hottest year on record in 2012, and largest drought since the 1930s Dust Bowl. The previous year, 2011, saw the greatest floods on record on America's three biggest rivers. While some of these losses could have happened if Mother Nature had had her old 280-pound linemen--like in the late 1800s--450 pound linemen are much more likely to tear into the backfield and create huge losses. Heat waves, floods, and droughts are the sort of extreme weather events that climate change can make more intense and frequent.


Figure 1. On a hot day at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama removes his jacket before speaking about climate change on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. AP Photo.

Lined up against Mother Nature's increasingly imposing linemen has been a team afraid to rise to the challenge. Our quarterback, President Obama, has merely been handing off the ball--running "safe" plays into the line that gain little or no yardage. We've had only one first down since Obama took office--a major increase in fuel efficiency for cars--and the game is already getting late into the second half. Mother Nature has been running up the score against us. A lot of the fans in the stadium have tuned out the game, focusing instead on fights in the stands or getting beer at the concession stand. Many of the commentators have not been reporting the score, or claiming that the rules are different than what they really are. But this game is deadly serious. We must limit global warming to 2°C (3.6°F)--the generally accepted threshold for "dangerous" civilization-destabilizing climate change. We're already one-third of the way there. The fact that we are seeing increasingly wild weather extremes at that level of warming is not good. We are experiencing the outer spiral bands of the coming climate change storm, and it is too late to avoid major damage. But it is not too late to avoid catastrophic damage. Our current policies have us on track to warm the planet by 5°C (9°F) by 2100, a level that would cause Category 5-level devastation to human civilization. We must do everything possible to avoid that future. The measures that Obama proposed in his speech are significant steps that will help. The directive to the EPA to move forward to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants--the source of 40% of our nation's CO2--is particularly significant. It's great to see our quarterback showing the guts to make some riskier plays, and try and make a first down. And it's great to see the team take measures to beef up our linemen against Mother Nature's bigger line, by putting money into climate resiliency and defending our coasts against higher storm surges. But if we hope to score a lot of points, win the game, and keep global warming under 2°C, much stronger action--both in the U.S. and internationally--is needed. Nature does not care about what is politically possible. All it cares about is physics. Fundamentally, what are the levels of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide? How much sunlight is arriving at the surface? We badly need all of the major carbon-polluting nations to agree on and implement very aggressive efforts to cut heat-trapping gas levels within the next 5 - 10 years, or I fear we will have to start throwing the equivalent of "Hail Mary" passes to win the game--high-risk efforts to geo-engineer the climate to slow down climate change. The cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action. The International Energy Agency says that in order to keep global warming below 2°C, "Delaying stronger climate action until 2020 would avoid $1.5 trillion in low-carbon investments up to that point, but an additional $5 trillion would then need to be invested through to 2035 to get back on track."

I am optimistic that we prevail and keep a livable climate. President Obama reminded everyone today of the tremendous power of American business and ingenuity, and I strongly believe those qualities will be instrumental in helping us meet the greatest challenge of our generation--climate change.

Links
Wunderground's climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood offers his take on Obama's speech.
The President’s Climate Action Plan
Short Fact Sheet.

Jeff Masters

Climate Change Politics

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


Quoting Patrap:
Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs almost a third of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called ocean acidification. This change in the ocean's chemistry will have profound effects on life in the ocean, and those who depend on it.

It not just CO2. Its human dumping all sort of waste into the ocean, such as mercury,plastic bottles, oil which poison the sea creatures who are the scavengers such as crabs and lobster that cleans the ocean. 
1502. will40
this blog needs something to track bad
1503. Patrap
Arctic report card 2012

What's new in 2012?

New records set for low snow extent and sea ice extent, and for widespread ice sheet melting, despite air temperatures - a key cause of melting - being unremarkable relative to the last decade.

Multiple observations provide strong evidence of widespread, sustained change driving Arctic environmental system into new state.

Published on Dec 5, 2012

Arctic Report Card: Update for 2012 - Tracking recent environmental changes, with 20 essays on different aspects of the environment, by a international team of 141 scientists from 15 different countries, with an independent peer-review organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council. More information and PDF of entire report at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard



What has happened with the models predicting a storm moving to the northern Gulf coast next week?
We may disagree on global warming specifics, but I think we all agree that we need to take better care of our environment and work towards solutions to reduce our impact.
1506. nigel20
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:
I guess the models are silent as nothing has been posted this afternoon.

Hey Tropics! I see that you've been getting quite a bit of rain there in PR.
1507. 62901IL
Quoting will40:
this blog needs something to track bad

Agreed.
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
What has happened with the models predicting a storm moving to the northern Gulf coast next week?


I am wondering the same thing
Quoting Neapolitan:
Certainly. But don't be lulled by a false sense of balance. On the one side are 97% of qualified climate scientists telling us that the earth is in peril. On the other side are fossil fuel lovers and political ideologues convinced those 97% of climatologists are liars and crooks. It's foolish, then, to believe that both points of view are equally valid in a scientific debate, and that therefore "fringe elements" exist in equal numbers on "both sides" of the discussion. IOW: the fringe is far closer on the latter side...


But fantastical claims are made on both sides, and the "examples" often used to illustrate are the worst case scenarios.

Illustrative of the "dramatization" of everyday life we face these days.

As Dr. JM points out, it is difficult to ascribe - if not impossible - specific weather events to GW. But this is done regularly here. And some of the those ascribed - increased frequency of tropical storms in a season - are contradictory to what is predicted by GW.

All I am saying is that the fringe on both sides overstate their positions, generally to be noticed by the popular media. And that is not conducive to a rational debate.
1510. 62901IL
SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PADUCAH KY
158 PM CDT THU JUN 27 2013

ILZ092-093-KYZ001>004-MOZ086-087-100-107>112-114- 280100-
ALEXANDER-PULASKI-FULTON-HICKMAN-CARLISLE-BALLARD -BOLLINGER-
CAPE GIRARDEAU-WAYNE MO-CARTER-RIPLEY-BUTLER-STODDARD-SCOTT-
MISSISSIPPI-NEW MADRID-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...CAIRO...MOUND CITY...HICKMAN...
CLINTON...BARDWELL...WICKLIFFE...MARBLE HILL...CAPE GIRARDEAU...
PIEDMONT...VAN BUREN...DONIPHAN...POPLAR BLUFF...BLOOMFIELD...
SIKESTON...CHARLESTON...NEW MADRID
158 PM CDT THU JUN 27 2013

...TRIPLE DIGIT HEAT INDEX THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING...

THE COMBINATION OF HIGH HUMIDITY AND MAXIMUM AIR TEMPERATURES IN
THE LOWER TO MIDDLE 90S WILL CREATE HEAT INDEX READINGS AROUND 100
DEGREES THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING.

THE HIGHEST HEAT INDEX WILL GENERALLY BE ALONG AND SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 60 IN SOUTHEAST MISSOURI...ESPECIALLY FROM POPLAR
BLUFF...EASTWARD TO NEW MADRID.

HERE ARE SOME MID AFTERNOON AIR TEMPERATURES AND HEAT INDICES FOR
THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS...

CAPE GIRARDEAU MO... 94 DEGREES... HEAT INDEX 96
POPLAR BLUFF MO... 97 DEGREES... HEAT INDEX 101
CAIRO IL... 95 DEGREES... HEAT INDEX 99

THESE HIGH HEAT INDICES WILL BE STAYING AROUND 100 THROUGH THE
EARLY EVENING HOURS. IF YOU MUST BE OUTSIDE...MAKE SURE YOU STAY
HYDRATED BY DRINKING PLENTY OF WATER...AND ALLOW YOURSELF FREQUENT
REST PERIODS OUT OF THE DIRECT SUN.

$$
1511. zampaz
Quoting Levi32:




Not to attack Pat at all, but this is a facet of the lunacy I speak of: the unshakable belief in the infallibility of the consensus. It's a baseless faith in the ability of cutting-edge science to be completely correct, when in reality it is an evolving body of knowledge that is always finding more correct ways of understanding how things work. That's not to say it's wrong, just incomplete. We already know this because of significant deficiencies in our climate models, indicating holes in the science that have yet to be filled. Eventually they will be.

Just because you slap a NOAA sticker on something does not make it gospel. That's just not how the world works, or should work. It borders on something other than science when any scientific opinion that even slightly differs from the consensus is ridiculed with the highest level of verbal cruelty. Since when did the distribution of scientific opinions achieve a standard deviation of zero?

Science evolves through skepticism and rational argument based upon data.
I don't believe anyone has said a 97% consensus of climate scientists equals "unshakable belief in the infallibility of the consensus."

There is consensus, there is data, and there is room for rational skepticism and debate among scientists who are subject matter experts.

This is a public forum. I would guess that the majority that participate lack formal training in science.

Because the word "theory" has different connotations to a scientist and layperson a Creationist would argue that there is reasonable doubt regarding "The Theory of Natural Selection", and that supernatural forces are the only rational explanation for life, or humans, or ghosts, or....a divine intervention for a troubled atmosphere.

Of course there is room for rational skepticism regarding AGW.
The person you mentioned cites his sources to support the opinions he expresses.
We must keep in mind that there are well funded sources of deliberate misinformation (Heartland, WUWT) which distort the data to sway public opinion.

The majority of the public does not share a scientific ideology. Ideology guides decisions.

The message of the AGU Chapman Conference on "Communicating Climate Science" was clear.
We must put aside our differences and confront misinformation in communicating with the public regarding climate change. There is room for rational debate and skepticism amongst scientists. That doesn't change the finding that there is a 97% consensus regarding AGW.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature


1512. Patrap
Published on Jan 23, 2013

Leading climate and meteorological experts on what we've seen in global climate during the historic year 2012, and what to expect in 2013.

Quoting nigel20:

Hey Tropics! I see that you've been getting quite a bit of rain there in PR.


That is correct. In fact June 2013 is the 5th wettest of all time and we still have three days left.
Quoting Patrap:


United States Climate

US Temperature

The image shows the annual surface temperatures for the contiguous U.S. compared to the 20th Century (1901-2000) average. Calculated from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN version 2). More information: U.S. Surface Temperature Data, USHCN v2. Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace.



You can post those graphs all you want; it doesn't prove the conclusions are infallible.

Correlation =/= causation.

Two things can have a common cause and be otherwise unrelated. Two things can be correlated, and yet not causally related.


I'm sure methane torches have existed for about as long as the Earth has been here, and much like volcanoes, they certainly vary in number and size from time to time.

Of course, the modern,alarmist scientist finds a previously unknown methane torch, and immediately blames it on "second order" feed backs from man-made pollution, when it's most likely been there since before the invention of writing. It's only "natural" for a greenie to blame everything on humans, after all.
Quoting sar2401:

+1000. The biggest danger in the world is the idea that a theory can't be questioned because "authority" says it's true. Even the best scientific theory only needs one repeatable test to prove it wrong. I'm not in favor of people castigating science simply because they don't believe it's true, but I am 100% in favor of critically examining any theory regardless of what consensus says is true.
Yes, but.....

(1) As more and more evidence (not opinion, but data) is found to support a certain theory, we often take action based on that theory. If we were always waiting for the test that would disprove the theory, we would never make any progress. BTW that does NOT mean we stop questioning or testing the theory, but it does mean we don't sit around waiting until it passes every possible test anyone can think of.

(2) Nobody, at least on this blog, is saying CC/AGW can no longer be questioned because there is "consensus". What we're saying is "look, there is all this data, and all these scientists have examined and tested it and concluded CC/AGW is real and is having certain effects and certain possible results, so quit arguing that there is some scientific disagreement over the basic theory."

(3). Levi says people have a blind belief in the infallibility of the consensus. I haven't heard anyone on here say they accept CC/AGW because there is a consensus amng scientists that CC/AGW is real. What I do hear them say is, here's another study with EVIDENCE supporting CC/AGW, and another study with evidence, and another study with evidence....... It's the strength of the EVIDENCE, not the strength of opinion.
Quoting Levi32:
1473. Neapolitan 1:51 PM CDT on June 27, 2013

"Now, if someone comes along and makes the claim that he's skeptical of Bernoulli's principle, and furthermore believes that 747s are held aloft by invisible teams of winged ponies, would you willingly fly in an airplane he designed? "

Comparing slightly different interpretations of AGW science to that? Who was being hyperbolic again?

And:

"It's not remotely true that all differing opinions are cruelly ridiculed. If someone came along and offered an original and plausible alternative explanation for the warming we've been seeing, you can best believe he'd be listened to."

Come on, Nea. You are the worst blogger here at ridiculing others, no matter how slight their differences from your views. I've been blogging here for long before you arrived, and ever since you came, not once have I seen you write a positive, thoughtful, or even polite response to anybody who does not ride on the exact bandwagon you think they should be riding. Don't talk to me about ridicule.em>

Best comment ever. Thank you Levi
Enjoy the calm period we are having right now in the Atlantic...according to all major forecasters, it will be a very different story several weeks from now and going into August...
We need a new blog this is getting old
Quoting Levi32 (#1485):
1473. Neapolitan 1:51 PM CDT on June 27, 2013

"Now, if someone comes along and makes the claim that he's skeptical of Bernoulli's principle, and furthermore believes that 747s are held aloft by invisible teams of winged ponies, would you willingly fly in an airplane he designed? "

Comparing slightly different interpretations of AGW science to that? Who was being hyperbolic again?

And:

"It's not remotely true that all differing opinions are cruelly ridiculed. If someone came along and offered an original and plausible alternative explanation for the warming we've been seeing, you can best believe he'd be listened to."

Come on, Nea. You are the worst blogger here at ridiculing others, no matter how slight their differences from your views. I've been blogging here for long before you arrived, and ever since you came, not once have I seen you write a positive, thoughtful, or even polite response to anybody who does not ride on the exact bandwagon you think they should be riding. Don't talk to me about ridicule.
Oy, vey. If you've not seen any polite comments of mine, you clearly haven't read enough. Fact is, I give everyone a chance, even the most ardent denialists. If a new person comes along and is genuinely skeptical and presents good arguments and questions, I'll chat with them forever. I'll listen to what they have to say, I'll gently point out where I believe they're wrong, and I'll do research on points they bring up for which I have no ready answer. But when a person comes along and instead immediately starts shouting "DR MASTERS IS A LIAR AND AGW IS A SOCIALIST PLOT AND THERES BEEN NO WARMING FOR 20 YEARS AND THERE WERE SUBMARINES AT THE NORTH POLE IN 1954 AND WHY WERE VIKINGS IN GREENLAND 400 YEARS AGO IF THERE WAS SO MUCH ICE AND CLIMATEGATE PROVES "SCIENTISTS" ARE CRIMINALS IN IT FOR MONEY AND THEREWERE MORE STATE HIGH TEMPERATURE RECORDS IN THE 1910S AND ITS ALL NATURAL CYCLES AND AN ICE AGE IS GONNA START NEXT YEAR AND AL GORE IS FAT!!!!!", there's absolutely no point in me or anyone else providing them a "positive, thoughtful, or even polite" response. Ignoring them is one option; ridiculing them is the other. I use both, depending on the time I have and the interest I feel.
1522. nigel20
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:


That is correct. In fact June 2013 is the 5th wettest of all time and we still have three days left.

Wow...that's quite amazing! We had quite a bit of rain from Ts Barry, but our rainfall total for June has been near normal.
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
What has happened with the models predicting a storm moving to the northern Gulf coast next week?


I think it fizzled out hence the continued AGW discussion/debate on this blog! I hate to say this but I'd welcome an Atlantic tropical feature to get this blog back to talking about the tropics again!
Quoting Patrap:
Arctic report card 2012

What's new in 2012?

New records set for low snow extent and sea ice extent, and for widespread ice sheet melting, despite air temperatures - a key cause of melting - being unremarkable relative to the last decade.

Multiple observations provide strong evidence of widespread, sustained change driving Arctic environmental system into new state.

Published on Dec 5, 2012

Arctic Report Card: Update for 2012 - Tracking recent environmental changes, with 20 essays on different aspects of the environment, by a international team of 141 scientists from 15 different countries, with an independent peer-review organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council. More information and PDF of entire report at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard



Patrap this is what I am concerned about the most is the ice melt, especially if we are getting ice melt from Antarctica that would result in sea level rises. Also once the fresh water starts mixing with the salt water it may throw off ocean currents and aid in the development of more powerful storms.
96 degrees in the Soo Cal mountains at a elevation of 3,500 feet.........I guess summer has finally arrived.
I'm going to take a step back from the models.

I mean shear should be favorable over the gulf
sst don't need to be explained because they are there
Dry air isn't that bad..

So what's missing?.They show a 1009 low off the coast of central america in three days.Perhaps a Claudette situtation.I heard models were bad with that one and that it spun up out of no where.
Quoting FLwolverine:
Yes, but.....

(1) As more and more evidence (not opinion, but data) is found to support a certain theory, we often take action based on that theory. If we were always waiting for the test that would disprove the theory, we would never make any progress. BTW that does NOT mean we stop questioning or testing the theory, but it does mean we don't sit around waiting until it passes every possible test anyone can think of.

(2) Nobody, at least on this blog, is saying CC/AGW can no longer be questioned because there is "consensus". What we're saying is "look, there is all this data, and all these scientists have examined and tested it and concluded CC/AGW is real and is having certain effects and certain possible results, so quit arguing that there is some scientific disagreement over the basic theory."

(3). Levi says people have a blind belief in the infallibility of the consensus. I haven't heard anyone on here say they accept CC/AGW because there is a consensus amng scientists that CC/AGW is real. What I do hear them say is, here's another study with EVIDENCE supporting CC/AGW, and another study with evidence, and another study with evidence....... It's the strength of the EVIDENCE, not the strength of opinion.


Well said Anne! +++++
No1der...been avoiding the blog today, but you had an interesting comment a while back regarding ice age and co2. I am a wetland scientist so my background is in biogeochemistry and ecology, not atmospheric sciences...but I have always concluded that the outcome of global warming is rapid onset of ice age.

Granted it was 20 years ago, but my advisor (a chemical oceanographer) and I discussed this frequently. The ice age cycles are dependant on the "global conveyor" of deep ocean currents that bring warm (e.g. 4 degrees) water to the surface. Global warming liberates solid water effectively shutting off the global conveyor by throwing a lens of less dense fresh water over the surface of the ocean. The result (presumably regardless of atmospheric composition) is precipitous drop in global temps resulting in a glacial accretive period. Atmospheric chemistry is no match for the thermal mass of the ocean...
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
What has happened with the models predicting a storm moving to the northern Gulf coast next week?


False Positive - A result that indicates that a given condition is present when it is not.
leftovers of a tropical wave are now moving over the windward passage after passing over hispanola. bit of spin associated with it still but its weak. i dont see it developing as it moves further west. watching the central atlantic too. storm fury will discuss that one im sure tomorrow morning.
1531. barbamz
Quoting Dakster:


Education...

You know, Pink Floyd -'We don't need no edjmacation..."


Thanks, I just tried to look it up in case I've missed that term by now, lol.
Quoting FLwolverine:
Y(3). Levi says people have a blind belief in the infallibility of the consensus. I haven't heard anyone on here say they accept CC/AGW because there is a consensus amng scientists that CC/AGW is real. What I do hear them say is, here's another study with EVIDENCE supporting CC/AGW, and another study with evidence, and another study with evidence....... It's the strength of the EVIDENCE, not the strength of opinion.
i gotta say.. the recent study released about the overall scientific consensus on AGW kinda pissed me off.. i though, "oh great, now any denialist can write the whole thing off as a popularity contest"
..and so the seeds have been sown
Back to the tropics........while you smart fellers continue your GW theories.

Cough, cough - may I just point out that making Nea the lightening rod for all things AGW allows people to avoid discussing the points that were originally raised?

Carry on.
1535. 62901IL
Quoting HurricaneHunterJoe:
Back to the tropics........while you smart fellers continue your GW theories.


How bout you get on tropics talk if u really wanna talk about the tropics.
Someone got owwwwned!.(slaps knee) lol.
Quoting washingtonian115:
I'm going to take a step back from the models.

I mean shear should be favorable over the gulf
sst don't need to be explained because they are there
Dry air isn't that bad..

So what's missing?.They show a 1009 low off the coast of central america in three days.Perhaps a Claudette situtation.I heard models were bad with that one and that it spun up out of no where.
That is true Claudette spin up out of nowhere while I was work I overheard a co-worker that morning that she formed saying did you hear about the Tropical Storm in the GOM, I was like what Tropical Storm, went home and there she was right to the West of Tampa.
18z Best Track for 96E.

EP, 96, 2013062718, , BEST, 0, 100N, 1030W, 20, 1009, DB
Quoting indianrivguy:


Well said Anne! +++++
Darn it, IRG, you just blew my cover! :-)

How is your river? It hasn't sounded so healthy lately.
And now for something completely different;

This is what a Master's Thesis Paper, from the Met Program at CSU, looks like. You will like the title:

A STATISTICAL PREDICTION MODEL FOR EAST PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC TROPICAL CYCLONE GENESIS
Submitted by
Stephanie A. Slade
Department of Atmospheric Science
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the Degree of Master of Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Spring 2012


Link


This paper was reworked and is in article form in the current June 2013 AMS Journal. Good Stuff for this time of the year when were are in the overlapping E-Pac/Atlantic Basin season waiting on the MJO to spruce things up.

Very Nice Work Ms. Slade.
Quoting Levi32:


Comparing our level of understanding of the behavior of gravity to our level of understanding of the behavior of Earth's climate is misleading.


That is not true. The Theory of Gravity completely breaks down when we get down to the atomic level and even smaller. Quantum mechanics has to brought into the equations in order to help explain what might be going on the very small scale.
1542. Patrap
Quoting GTcooliebai:
Patrap this is what I am concerned about the most is the ice melt, especially if we are getting ice melt from Antarctica that would result in sea level rises. Also once the fresh water starts mixing with the salt water it may throw off ocean currents and aid in the development of more powerful storms.


Also to be considered, is the "Thermal Expansion" which lags behind warming that adds to sea level rise as well.

The NHC needs to get that wave that is near South America an invest # so we can track it,it has been very impressive,look at Alex in 2010 from an NHC archive,to this storm.
Wave
Look by SOUTH AMERICA to it's NE.
Education...

You know, Pink Floyd -'We don't need no edjmacation..."

Thanks Dak : )
Quoting GTcooliebai:
That is true Claudette spin up out of nowhere while I was work I overheard a co-worker that morning that she formed saying did you hear about the Tropical Storm in the GOM, I was like what Tropical Storm, went home and there she was right to the West of Tampa.
Perhaps a Barry situation is also another plausable situation.Only the GFS really caught on to the storm.There must be something in the way in order for the models to not be seeing something but I'm going to use human common scene for this one.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
12z CMC has a a weak system making landfall in the Florida Panhandle in 136hrs.



Not much support from other models tho. The GFS has a lot of precipitation over Florida and the East Coast.
Link



8N/53W has a decent spin to might become an invest soon.
1550. nigel20
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:
18z Best Track for 96E.

EP, 96, 2013062718, , BEST, 0, 100N, 1030W, 20, 1009, DB

Do you think this will be the next storm (Dalila) in the epac ?
Tornado watch in my area (SE PA), going to make the smartphone is fully charged before I leave work today. It's one thing to get soaking wet by a severe storm, it's another thing entirely to be going full Dorothy. The Wunderground Android app is great, but it does hoover the battery to run radar loops.
A NEW POST EVERYONE

Link
Quoting StormPro:

Best comment ever. Thank you Levi


1,000% agree.

I've turned cynical on this blog for being ridiculed by others (you know who) as Levi stated. Based on my comments people would think that I am a "denialist". Whatever that means. When I first came on here I was ill informed about Global Warming. I found what I thought was a very well written article contradicting AGW and posted it and made a comment that it was very interesting. Nothing more than that. I got ridiculed, put down, called a denialist and made to feel like a uneducated pion. So ever since then I've been cynical. Not for what I believe in but for the way I was treated.
Quoting Minnemike:
i gotta say.. the recent study released about the overall scientific consensus on AGW kinda pissed me off.. i though, "oh great, now any denialist can write the whole thing off as a popularity contest"
..and so the seeds have been sown
I think you're conflating a couple of issues. What happens is that denialists will cry out that 30,000 people signed the Oregon Petition, and that proves scientists are deeply divided on the matter. Adherents to and supporters of AGW theory will respond by saying, "Well, no, actually 97% of climate scientists do indeed believe the planet is warming due to mankind's activities." Then those same denialists will claim that consensus doesn't matter.

Frankly, I wish they'd make up their minds.

And to the best of my knowledge, no one here has ever claimed that consensus means no skeptical views are allowed. The oft-used analogy is that if you went to a hospital for an undiagnosed pain you felt and had 100 qualified doctors examine you, and 97 of those doctors told you it was cancer that would eat your whole body if you didn't operate immediately, one told you the pain was imaginary, one told you the cancer would go away on its own, and one told you that the 97 doctors who want to operate were just trying to get rich off of you, what would you do? Now, a crazy person might say, "Suppose I don't have cancer? Or suppose it really will go away on its own? Or suppose those doctors really are just trying to make money off of me?" But most people aren't crazy. So, again, what would you do?
Quoting Levi32:




Not to attack Pat at all, but this is a facet of the lunacy I speak of: the unshakable belief in the infallibility of the consensus. It's a baseless faith in the ability of cutting-edge science to be completely correct, when in reality it is an evolving body of knowledge that is always finding more correct ways of understanding how things work. That's not to say it's wrong, just incomplete. We already know this because of significant deficiencies in our climate models, indicating holes in the science that have yet to be filled. Eventually they will be.

Just because you slap a NOAA sticker on something does not make it gospel. That's just not how the world works, or should work. It borders on something other than science when any scientific opinion that even slightly differs from the consensus is ridiculed with the highest level of verbal cruelty. Since when did the distribution of scientific opinions achieve a standard deviation of zero?

You are mistaken. The consensus is not on the cutting edge science. The consensus is on the basics:
- The Earth is warming
- We are primarily responsible
- The burning of fossil fuels is the cause of rising atmospheric CO2
- A warming of more than 2C will produce severe problems
- and a few more.

None of that is cutting edge in any way. It's well established through many lines of inquiry.
Quoting Patrap:
Published on Jan 23, 2013

Leading climate and meteorological experts on what we've seen in global climate during the historic year 2012, and what to expect in 2013.



How do you know for certain that the Earth wasn't already headed for a massive melt anyway?

Excluding volcanic winters, such as the Little Ice Age, the ice has been continually melting in the N. Hemisphere for many thousands of years, going back to Taupo, or Toba most likely.


I think if we had video evidence going back for the past 30,000 to 100,000 years, you'd probably draw quite different conclusions about the significance of present day changes, and as well the portion you want to blame on humans.

it's already known that catastrophic floods, apparently caused by catastrophic melting, definitely happened in the 8,000 year range, and also somewhere around the 40,000 year range (I think), so there weren't enough humans making enough pollution to cause that, but the planet and Sun did that on their own. It was apparently far worse than any climate or geological event that's happened since then.


It makes a lot more sense to propose that it's the same thing happening again, rather than to propose a new theory (man made CO2,) about what melts global ice caps.
1559. VR46L
Quoting bigwes6844:


Wes New Blog ....
Quoting GTcooliebai:
Patrap this is what I am concerned about the most is the ice melt, especially if we are getting ice melt from Antarctica that would result in sea level rises. Also once the fresh water starts mixing with the salt water it may throw off ocean currents and aid in the development of more powerful storms.

I *think* we're okay in Antarctica...for a while at least. Greenland is where we'll probably first see any appreciable sea-level rise.
nice wave!
Quoting Birthmark:

You are mistaken. The consensus is not on the cutting edge science. The consensus is on the basics:
- The Earth is warming
- We are primarily responsible
- The burning of fossil fuels is the cause of rising atmospheric CO2
- A warming of more than 2C will produce severe problems
- and a few more.

None of that is cutting edge in any way. It's well established through many lines of inquiry.


Based on physical evidence of past time periods, I am confident that the "we are responsible" part is conjecture at best,and is not supported by past geologic and historical evidence, even in the past few thousand years.
Quoting VR46L:


Wes New Blog ....
Really? He did one already'?
NEW BLOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
Quoting weathermanwannabe:
And now for something completely different;

This is what a Master's Thesis Paper, from the Met Program at CSU, looks like. You will like the title:

A STATISTICAL PREDICTION MODEL FOR EAST PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC TROPICAL CYCLONE GENESIS
Submitted by
Stephanie A. Slade
Department of Atmospheric Science
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the Degree of Master of Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Spring 2012


Link


This paper was reworked and is in article form in the current June 2013 AMS Journal. Good Stuff for this time of the year when were are in the overlapping E-Pac/Atlantic Basin season waiting on the MJO to spruce things up.

Very Nice Work Ms. Slade.


Thanks for sharing! I've downloaded the thesis and look forward to reading it. However, I can't seem to find the article in my June issue of BAMS. Is it under the same title?
Quoting RTSplayer:


How do you know for certain that the Earth wasn't already headed for a massive melt anyway?

Excluding volcanic winters, such as the Little Ice Age, the ice has been continually melting in the N. Hemisphere for many thousands of years, going back to Taupo, or Toba most likely.


I think if we had video evidence going back for the past 30,000 to 100,000 years, you'd probably draw quite different conclusions about the significance of present day changes, and as well the portion you want to blame on humans.

it's already known that catastrophic floods, apparently caused by catastrophic melting, definitely happened in the 8,000 year range, and also somewhere around the 40,000 year range (I think), so there weren't enough humans making enough pollution to cause that, but the planet and Sun did that on their own. It was apparently far worse than any climate or geological event that's happened since then.


It makes a lot more sense to propose that it's the same thing happening again, rather than to propose a new theory (man made CO2,) about what melts global ice caps.


To ignore this "new theory" you have to simultaneously ignore old theories such as the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and its efficacy as a greenhouse gas. That's a red herring.

Just because natural forces, including volcanoes and insolation, caused climate change in Earth's past doesn't mean that anthropogenic processes are unable to cause climate change, too.

Quoting NewBerlinTX:


Thanks for sharing! I've downloaded the thesis and look forward to reading it. However, I can't seem to find the article in my June issue of BAMS. Is it under the same title?


The title was changed for the Journal:

An Intraseasonal Prediction Model of Atlantic and East Pacific Tropical Cyclone Genesis
Stephanie A. Slade and Eric D. Maloney


Here is the link to the abstract:

Link
Quoting 62901IL:

DUDE! We have had over 500 comments this entire day!!!


I wish, really wish for a tropical system to take away the heat from this blog!
Quoting weathermanwannabe:


The title was changed for the Journal:

An Intraseasonal Prediction Model of Atlantic and East Pacific Tropical Cyclone Genesis
Stephanie A. Slade and Eric D. Maloney


Here is the link to the abstract:

Link


Oh, I see. It's in AMS' Monthly Weather Review Journal, not the AMS' BAMS. Shucks. Well, I'll enjoy the thesis nonetheless. Thanks again for sharing.
Quoting RTSplayer:


Based on physical evidence of past time periods, I am confident that the "we are responsible" part is conjecture at best,and is not supported by past geologic and historical evidence, even in the past few thousand years.


Well, people died of cancer before cigarettes were invented, so I guess smoking doesn't cause cancer! Leave RJR alone, people!!

Natural processes causing changes before doesn't mean humans can't do it now. That's a silly argument.
Quoting RTSplayer:


Based on physical evidence of past time periods, I am confident that the "we are responsible" part is conjecture at best,and is not supported by past geologic and historical evidence, even in the past few thousand years.

That's a preposterous claim based on nothing. Climate may be complicated, but it's not magic. There is a top of atmosphere energy imbalance. That has a cause. It happens to be (primarily) CO2 this time...as has happened before. That CO2 was put there by us.

You have no reliable to evidence with which to counter those facts.

Endy story.
1572. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
I think you're conflating a couple of issues. What happens is that denialists will cry out that 30,000 people signed the Oregon Petition, and that proves scientists are deeply divided on the matter. Adherents to and supporters of AGW theory will respond by saying, "Well, no, actually 97% of climate scientists do indeed believe the planet is warming due to mankind's activities." Then those same denialists will claim that consensus doesn't matter.

Frankly, I wish they'd make up their minds.

And to the best of my knowledge, no one here has ever claimed that consensus means no skeptical views are allowed. The oft-used analogy is that if you went to a hospital for an undiagnosed pain you felt and had 100 qualified doctors examine you, and 97 of those doctors told you it was cancer that would eat your whole body if you didn't operate immediately, one told you the pain was imaginary, one told you the cancer would go away on its own, and one told you that the 97 doctors who want to operate were just trying to get rich off of you, what would you do? Now, a crazy person might say, "Suppose I don't have cancer? Or suppose it really will go away on its own? Or suppose those doctors really are just trying to make money off of me?" But most people aren't crazy. So, again, what would you do?




If 1 of the 3 was the worlds best cancer surgeon I probably would listen to him.......
Quoting luvtogolf:


1,000% agree.

I've turned cynical on this blog for being ridiculed by others (you know who) as Levi stated. Based on my comments people would think that I am a "denialist". Whatever that means. When I first came on here I was ill informed about Global Warming. I found what I thought was a very well written article contradicting AGW and posted it and made a comment that it was very interesting. Nothing more than that. I got ridiculed, put down, called a denialist and made to feel like a uneducated pion. So ever since then I've been cynical. Not for what I believe in but for the way I was treated.
So because someone offended you, you've decided to reject a proven scientific theory? I have to say, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I mean, my next door neighbor in California was an elevator repairman, and he used to really get under my skin. Yet I still believe in the theory of gravity.
1574. RTLSNK
Dr. Masters has posted a new blog. :)
Quoting bigwes6844:
Getting toasty.
Quoting RTLSNK:
Dr. Masters has posted a new blog. :)
I know. I'm just clearing up a few loose ends here...
1577. no1der
Great post - have responded in the subsequent blog.

Quoting EcoLogic:
No1der...been avoiding the blog today, but you had an interesting comment a while back regarding ice age and co2. I am a wetland scientist so my background is in biogeochemistry and ecology, not atmospheric sciences...but I have always concluded that the outcome of global warming is rapid onset of ice age.

Granted it was 20 years ago, but my advisor (a chemical oceanographer) and I discussed this frequently. The ice age cycles are dependant on the "global conveyor" of deep ocean currents that bring warm (e.g. 4 degrees) water to the surface. Global warming liberates solid water effectively shutting off the global conveyor by throwing a lens of less dense fresh water over the surface of the ocean. The result (presumably regardless of atmospheric composition) is precipitous drop in global temps resulting in a glacial accretive period. Atmospheric chemistry is no match for the thermal mass of the ocean...

Quoting 1573. Neapolitan:
So because someone offended you, you've decided to reject a proven scientific theory? I have to say, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I mean, my next door neighbor in California was an elevator repairman, and he used to really get under my skin. Yet I still believe in the theory of gravity.


AGW - always gullible warmist?
durrr
Crazy weather in State College, PA with a reported tornado and flooding downtown






1581. bappit
Quoting 1555. Birthmark:

You are mistaken. The consensus is not on the cutting edge science. The consensus is on the basics:
- The Earth is warming
- We are primarily responsible
- The burning of fossil fuels is the cause of rising atmospheric CO2
- A warming of more than 2C will produce severe problems
- and a few more.

None of that is cutting edge in any way. It's well established through many lines of inquiry.

Just lunacy to think that the issue is still cutting edge.
Due you guys realize there is a new blog?
Hail Storm in State College, PA todayLink
I just saw this report on the heat in Death Valley:-

"A heatwave in the United States is sending temperatures near the highest ever recorded on Earth.

Parts of Death Valley in California are hitting 54C: tantalisingly close to the record of 56.7C set in the same area of the US almost exactly 100 years ago on 10 July 1913."

Here's the link to copy and paste:-


http://news.uk.msn.com/trending-blog/death-valley -nears-highest-temperature-ever-recorded-on-earth/