Second-Warmest Year in U.S. Weather History, and Among the Wettest

By: Bob Henson , 5:33 PM GMT on January 10, 2017

Only 2012 ranks ahead of 2016 for average global temperature across the 48 contiguous states, said NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information on Monday in its yearly U.S. climate report. The second-place showing follows a third-place ranking in 2015 (see Figure 1), which means that the last five years (2012 - 2016) have produced the three warmest years in U.S. records extending back to 1895. This national-scale warmth is a reflection of global-scale trends consistent with a climate being warmed by human-produced greenhouse gases. It’s virtually certain that 2016 will be certified this month as the warmest year on record globally, which would make it the third such record-setter in a row.

The average 48-state reading of 54.91°F in 2016 was 2.89°F ahead of the 20th-century average and 0.37°F shy of the 2012 record. Geographically, the nation’s warmth in 2016 was astoundingly uniform, with every contiguous U.S. state having at least its seventh warmest year (see Figure 2). Georgia had its warmest year on record, as did Alaska, which isn’t part of the contiguous U.S. database.


Figure 1. Year-by-year ranking of average temperature for the 48 contiguous U.S. states from 1895 to 2016. The three warmest years have all occurred since 2012. The current U.S. climate is roughly 1.5°F warmer than it was a century ago, with much of that warming observed since the 1980s. Image credit: NOAA/NCEI.


Figure 2. Statewide rankings for average temperature in 2016 as compared to each calendar year since 1895. Darker shades of orange indicate higher rankings for warmth, with 1 denoting the coldest year on record and 122 the warmest. Image credit: NOAA/NCEI.


Figure 3. Month-by-month rankings for U.S. temperature and precipitation in 2016, including the average temperature, daily maximum and minimum temperature (each calculated locally before being averaged nationally), and precipitation. Higher numbers denote a warmer or wetter placement among the 122 years in the NOAA database, which extends back to 1895. Data credit: NOAA/NCEI.


Warmest nights on record
Sultry summer nights--and mild winter nights--did more than their share to put 2016 near the top of the U.S. temperature heap. Averaged across the nation and year, the daily minimum temperature was the warmest in U.S. history, at 3.09°F above the long-term mean (beating out 2012). The average daily maximum temperature came in at 2.69°F above the 20th-century average, placing third behind 2012 and 1934. Relative to average, lows were warmer than highs for every month in 2016 except February and March, as shown in Figure 3.

The year’s U.S. warmth was well distributed across the calendar, with two noteworthy exceptions evident in Figure 3 above: May and December.

Record highs outdid record lows by an unprecedented ratio
What’s not obvious in the maps and figures above is how seldom U.S. towns and cities set or tied daily record lows in 2016, thanks in large part to the mild nights noted above. The preliminary total of daily record lows for the year was 5188--barely half of the total recorded in any other year since 30-year climatologies became established in the 1920s, according to independent meteorologist Guy Walton, who has compiled and tracked NOAA records data for more than a decade. Meanwhile, there were 29,729 daily record highs, a large but not unusual number for recent years. Juxtaposed, the ratio of daily highs to daily lows was around 5.7 to 1, the largest for any year in the post-1920s database, according to Walton. Overall for the 2010s (defined as 2010 - 2016), we’ve seen more than double the number of daily record highs versus lows, with the ratio of 2.1 to 1 just above the 1.9-to-1 ratio observed in the 2000s.

A wet year overall, but with plenty of variability
Wild spatial and temporal swings were the order of the year in 2016 when it comes to precipitation. Averaged by month, June was the 14th driest on record for the contiguous U.S., while August was the 3rd wettest, as shown in Figure 3. The tendency toward drought east of the Mississippi, and the very moist conditions that prevailed in the upper Midwest (as well as flood-hammered Louisiana), is evident in the state-by-state precipitation map (Figure 5 below). The year as a whole was the 24th wettest on record. Three states had a top-ten driest year--Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts--while Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin saw top-ten wet years.

Averaged linearly and nationally, the contiguous U.S. has seen annual precipitation climb from about 29” in the 1890s to about 31” in the 2010s. Of course, that overall rise masks the hugely important swings observed from region to region and year to year.


Figure 4. Year-by-year ranking of average precipitation for the 48 contiguous U.S. states from 1895 to 2016. Image credit: NOAA/NCEI.


Figure 5. Statewide rankings for average precipitation in 2016, as compared to each year since 1895. Darker shades of green indicate higher rankings for moisture, with 1 denoting the driest year on record and 122 the wettest. Image credit: NOAA/NCEI.

A less-crazy December
The parade of midlatitude storms marching across the U.S. in December, a feature characteristic of La Niña winters, led to a fairly unremarkable monthly temperature outcome. It was the 54th coldest and 34th wettest out of the 122 Decembers on record. The La Niña tendency toward cooler-than-average readings toward the northwest and warmer-than-average readings toward the southeast is evident in Figure 6. Florida was the only state with a top-ten temperature result, as it sweated its way through the fourth warmest December on record. Four states--Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming--saw a top-ten wettest December (see Figure 7). Moisture has been plentiful across the West apart from the Northern Rockies, and the widespread snowpack now building up (see Figure 8) will be much appreciated by skiers and boarders this winter and by farmers and ranchers next summer.

Jeff Masters and I will have more next week on the natural disasters of 2016, both national and global, as well as how 2016 stacked up in terms of global temperature. We’ll be back with our next post by Wednesday afternoon.

Bob Henson


Figure 6. Statewide rankings for average temperature during December 2016, as compared to each December since 1895. Darker shades of orange indicate higher rankings for warmth, with 1 denoting the coldest December on record and 122 the warmest. Image credit: NOAA/NCEI.


Figure 7. Statewide rankings for average precipitation during December 2016, as compared to each December since 1895. Darker shades of green indicate higher rankings for moisture, with 1 denoting the driest December on record and 122 the wettest. Image credit: NOAA/NCEI.


Figure 8. The amount of water held in snowpack as of January 10, 2017, relative to the average for this date for the period 1981-2010. Image credit: USDA/NRCS and National Water and Climate Center.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 334 - 284

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

334. EmsiNasklug
9:52 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 326. elioe:


In environmentalism, natural state has a great (edit)intrinsic value. For general public to "buy" the action favored by environmentalists, disruptions to "natural state" like geoengineering have to be portrayed in a manner, which gets the public to think, that such schemes have mainly negative consequences for humans. So, if a study was to show, that a certain geoengineering scheme would have primarily positive consequences, it wouldn't fit the environmentalist way of communication.


"Mainly" and "primarily" is good enough for engineers, but not for nature - the consequences of side effects are possibly too heavy. Engineering can't provide for those little wing-clapping butterflies that may or may not cause a lot of trouble. Engineering doesn't take the complexity of natural systems into account.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
333. vanderwaalselectrics
9:51 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 323. daddyjames:



Um, its logarithmic.


Okay. Read paper.

It's talking about outgoing long wave radiation that INCLUDES cloud behavior--how clouds trap or release heat.

El Nino and the measurement of it, namely a coupled discussion between how the ocean behaves by temperatures and winds, has a dynamics part.

I am not disagreeing with the earth average temperature right now is behaving the way that this paper is stating. What I am saying is that there is a constant increase in green house gas CO2. That's the input. And that the MECHANISM is not CO2 as a green house gas amplified a heat trapping gas on cloud behaviors but instead it's directly in the clouds and changes how they trap or release heat. And if you look at the oceans during a full blow El Nino in the tropics there is a strong signal of CO2 removed from the oceans because the oceans hold less CO2 the warmer they become. That CO2 in the oceans are removed from the oceans from surface lows and that CO2, additionally, gets into clouds and has an electrical meaning in how the clouds behave, how they produce cirrus clouds that trap or release heat on orders of scale above CO2 as a green house gas. What you then see is a cyclical behavior of El Nino, with a DEPENDANT relationship of higher cO2 from human activity in the active biosphere.

This paper is tortured because it's looking at spectrums of heat trapping from CO2, looking at the statics of the phenomenon, when it's a dynamical system with kinetic expressions of energy as well as heat trapping expressions. The sun is orbiting the earth kind of model. Again there is a slow steady increase (linear) of human related CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and what is the behavior observed? Two massive back to back 500 year El Ninos followed by La Ninas. This is cyclical, not logarithmic. No I agree observationally that there is average warming, and OLR emissions may be moving as a log function, but that doesn't mean that the present movement can be used to predict future behaviors if mechanism is wrong. And for the record I think non linear super storms are coming. That as ice is placed on land north of Washington, as was in the past when glacial storms raged, that the oceans become more saline and hence more conductive, and then the hydrates melt in the region and storms will rage for about 10 years until a new equilibrium is reached to be followed by much colder and drier climate. Billions will die or be displaced.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
332. EmsiNasklug
9:40 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 227. Xandra:

So in the end, geoengineering is a lose-lose scenario. It’s a scientific pipe dream. We will not be able to “science” our way out of a climate collapse.


What I see in this discussion is two different ways of thinking - engineer versus scientist.
Engineers are generally trained optimists, with a tendency to construct and build up, that's their job.
Scientists are observers, applying different angles of approach to an issue and thus considering much more elements of influence.
Engineers will look for visible results, whereas scientists will look for answers, helpful or not.
So there is no way that both will agree on a thing like geo-engineering.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
331. Pipejazz
9:02 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 214. swflurker:

I, personally, have put away a lot of saved daylight. Keeping them for a raining day which has not happened here in SW FL for awhile.


Quoting 189. washingaway:

Why do we save daylight in the summertime when the days are already longer? Shouldn't we save that daylight for the winter when the days are shorter?

You two are a hoot.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
330. daddyjames
8:09 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 326. elioe:



I've done one geoengineering blog so far, but I've been too lazy to continue. I have many ideas, from which to do blogs. Some day :)



Well, it goes very technical. Typical water temperature beneath the ice shelf is -1.8 degrees Celsius, typical air temperature above is -30 degrees Celsius during July. First, compress the air, so that its temperature rises from -30 to -1.8 (isentropic compression). Second, run the compressed air through a series of turbines, while continuing to keep it at -1.8 degrees Celsius by injecting seawater from beneath the ice (isothermal expansion), until the pressure of the air is again the same as in environment. If this was a closed cycle, the last step would be isobaric loss of heat. But since the loss of heat happens, after the air has left the power plant, the heat-to-power efficiency will exceed the theoretical maximum of a closed cycle, being capable of reaching 0.95. In one year, this process could generate some 250 trillion kilowatt-hours of power, of which less than 0.1% is consumed by the pumping of seawater.



In environmentalism, natural state has a great intristic value. For general public to "buy" the action favored by environmentalists, disruptions to "natural state" like geoengineering have to be portrayed in a manner, which gets the public to think, that such schemes have mainly negative consequences for humans. So, if a study was to show, that a certain geoengineering scheme would have primarily positive consequences, it wouldn't fit the environmentalist way of communication.


What about the energy required to compress the air?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
329. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
8:09 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
328. SunnyDaysFla
8:08 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 318. washingaway:


Well if that's the case the Earth is suffering from cancer, and that being us.


More like bacteria that produce toxins.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
327. weavingwalker
8:04 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 198. riverat544:

From the hills* of South Salem, Oregon. We had a snow flurry this evening that put down about 1/4 inch of snow, fast enough to cover the traffic lane on the road in front of my house. Forecast calls for up to an inch of snow overnight and tomorrow morning and freezing or below until Saturday. But we're getting off easy. I heard of forecast of up to 15 inches of snow in the upper Hood River valley tonight and 10 inches in Bend which has over a foot on the ground already.

What's unusual is that we've been getting snow in the Willamette Valley on and off for several weeks in a row. That doesn't happen very often.

*The reason I say "hills" is that I'm around 300 feet above the valley floor which makes a difference. It's around 180 feet along the river in downtown Salem and 210 feet at the airport. My home is about 490 feet. For example it's pretty common for there to be thick fog on the valley floor when it's bright and sunny at home.


From 40 miles to the north (Tualatin, south Portland) we have 4". Snow/sleet started on commute home. Finally stopped an hour ago. Seeing pictures on news of Koehler Park (across from office) has 10-12". So glad I can work from home. We're not due to be above freezing until Saturday - so we'll have these conditions for a while. All of Portland is shut down - we have few plows, and are trying salt here for the first time. This the coldest/snowiest winter here in decades. (I blame it on new coworkers that moved here from FL.)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
326. elioe
8:01 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 317. LAbonbon:

I like the discussion going on between Xandra and elioe. Sure they disagree, but the back-and-forth is informative and civil. Have either of you considered doing a blog on this topic? I for one would enjoy reading both of them! Couple of questions for elioe from his earlier posts:


I've done one geoengineering blog so far, but I've been too lazy to continue. I have many ideas, from which to do blogs. Some day :)

Quoting 317. LAbonbon:

What do you mean by 'the process would generate its own power, perhaps even electricity for other consumption'? (sorry if it's obvious)


Well, it goes very technical. Typical water temperature beneath the ice shelf is -1.8 degrees Celsius, typical air temperature above is -30 degrees Celsius during July. First, compress the air, so that its temperature rises from -30 to -1.8 (isentropic compression). Second, run the compressed air through a series of turbines, while continuing to keep it at -1.8 degrees Celsius by injecting seawater from beneath the ice (isothermal expansion), until the pressure of the air is again the same as in environment. If this was a closed cycle, the last step would be isobaric loss of heat. But since the loss of heat happens, after the air has left the power plant, the heat-to-power efficiency will exceed the theoretical maximum of a closed cycle, being capable of reaching 0.95. In one year, this process could generate some 250 trillion kilowatt-hours of power, of which less than 0.1% is consumed by the pumping of seawater.

Quoting 317. LAbonbon:

I'm not sure what you're referring to in regards to '"dogmatically untrue" results'. Can you clarify this a bit?




In environmentalism, natural state has a great intristic value. For general public to "buy" the action favored by environmentalists, disruptions to "natural state" like geoengineering have to be portrayed in a manner, which gets the public to think, that such schemes have mainly negative consequences for humans. So, if a study was to show, that a certain geoengineering scheme would have primarily positive consequences, it wouldn't fit the environmentalist way of communication.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
325. wxgeek723
8:00 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 293. Famoguy1234:

Also, here are my predictions for names retiring.
Alex (5%)
Bonnie (0%)
Colin (20%)
Danielle (10%)
Earl [20%]
Fiona [0%]
Gaston [30%]
Hermine [50-60%]
Ian [0%]
Julia [20%]
Karl [0%]
Lisa [0%]
Matthew [100%]
Nicole [70%]
Otto [50%]



Nicole I think pretty slim. The damage in Bermuda was remarkably moderate.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
324. scott39
7:55 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
It's spring time here again in Mobile Al. Highs in the mid 70's and lows in the upper 50's for the next week I have lived here for 40 years and have never seen such long stretches of above normal temperatures during the winter.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
323. daddyjames
7:55 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 313. vanderwaalselectrics:



The green house gas theory is premised on CO2 warming the earth in a basically linear fashion.


Um, its logarithmic.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
322. dabirds
7:43 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Warming quickly in S C IL, was 46 at noon, now 55. Started at 30 this a.m., little black ice on my street, hit accel coming out of lane and little unexpected power slide to right. Very overcast, was foggy at lunch, changed to drizzle coming back as winds picked up a little, now 8-10 S w/ a 23 gust, pressure dropping, at 29.71". Current forecast has the worst of the ice mainly S of I-70, but looked at an hourly for Sat. calling for foggy conditions, but temps shown below freezing. At least at this point, accumulations seem to be backing off a bit, hope that trend continues. Long range still has next work week in mid 40s to mid 50s w/ lows at or above freezing, so any that develops won't be around long.

We were only about 53-54 yesterday, but StL tied its all time daily high of 68 from 1890. They also said across the River in Alton a 71 mph gust was recorded, although nowhere else was above 50s. Back to work and lurk.

Edit : now 57 & avg wind now 11-12, say 58 for high, but at this rate...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
321. daddyjames
7:39 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 303. elioe:



Coming back to the point where the entire discussion started:
Really... Doesn't anyone else see it disturbing, that a journalist in scientific magazine calls an entire field of research as "controversial", while revealing, that there has indeed been peer pressure for scientists to refrain from such studies? It is clear for me, that for ideological reasons, "dogmatically untrue" results shouldn't be allowed to exist among climatological studies.


No, because the controversy does exist in the scientific community. So the journalist is only reporting accurately what exists within that scientific community.

Would you care to expound upon your last statement?

Your assertions - for example listing all the possible ways of geoengineering - often lacks any attribution to any studies that have been actually been done.

For example, "seeding" of the oceans. Yes it has been done, but there is no significant evidence that indeed it could and would work. In fact, results have been mixed with essentially little demonstration of any carbon actually being sequestered. If you could point me to any paper that demonstrates that it was effectively sequestered, much appreciated.

The amounts of CO2 that would be removed - even in the best scenario - would not even come close to matching that currently being released annually into the atmosphere. So, in essence, it (and many of the other techniques mentioned) would only be beneficial in conjunction with reductions of CO2 from emissions.

Edit: corrected some grammar and spelling errors.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
320. StormTrackerScott
7:32 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Next Thursday thru next Saturday should be very active across FL "IF" these models hold true. This pattern could hold true even past the mentioned timeframe below too so something to really watch as possibly some excessive rains across FL. Euro showing 6" to 8" across Tampa with 5" amount in Orlando is something we haven't seen forecast since Hurricane Matthew in early October of 2016.

Thursday


Friday


Saturday
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
319. OKsky
7:31 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 315. vanderwaalselectrics:



If you assume that the earth is alive and the rivers are like arteries, as I do, that help modulate earth chemistry and temperature, then the engineering if it is to serve both modulations and human demands, must include consideration of the electrical feedbacks that occur and how river changes alter those feedbacks or there will be no water to capture.


....but what does it mean if you assume that all balloon animals are alive? You have to keep them in consideration because of the static build up if you rub them the wrong way under certain conditions.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
318. washingaway
7:30 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 315. vanderwaalselectrics:



If you assume that the earth is alive and the rivers are like arteries, as I do, that help modulate earth chemistry and temperature, then the engineering if it is to serve both modulations and human demands, must include consideration of the electrical feedbacks that occur and how river changes alter those feedbacks or there will be no water to capture.

Well if that's the case the Earth is suffering from cancer, and that being us.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
317. LAbonbon
7:22 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
I like the discussion going on between Xandra and elioe. Sure they disagree, but the back-and-forth is informative and civil. Have either of you considered doing a blog on this topic? I for one would enjoy reading both of them! Couple of questions for elioe from his earlier posts:

Quoting 248. elioe:

(snip)

- Artificial thickening of Antarctic ice shelves. Looking at radiation balance alone: if seawater was sprayed on top of Ross and Ronne ice shelves for 180 days each Southern winter, the amount of ice could increase by at least 3000 km³ each year. Majority of those ice shelves would become grounded within a century, so that most of the extra ice is off the ocean volume. Not accounting for the reduced flow of glaciers behind those ice shelves. Best of all: the process would generate its own power, perhaps even electricity for other consumption.

What do you mean by 'the process would generate its own power, perhaps even electricity for other consumption'? (sorry if it's obvious)

Quoting 303. elioe:


(snip)

It is clear for me, that for ideological reasons, "dogmatically untrue" results shouldn't be allowed to exist among climatological studies.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in regards to '"dogmatically untrue" results'. Can you clarify this a bit?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
316. Patrap
7:21 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Atmospheric CO2

December 2016

404.48 ppm


December 2015: 401.85 ppm

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
315. vanderwaalselectrics
7:18 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 307. civEngineer:

So much water in CA heading out to the ocean completely belies the argument that you couldn't build more storage to provide for both environmental and industrial purposes. The mantra we heard during the drought that "It will take many wet years to refill these reservoirs" when here not two years removed from a historic drought on the heels of an average year and in the beginning of a wet year many of our reservoirs including our largest are spilling flood flows some of which were doing so the previous year as well. The next argument will be "well it will take 20 years just to build one" and 20 years from now we will ask why we didn't do so 20 years ago.


If you assume that the earth is alive and the rivers are like arteries, as I do, that help modulate earth chemistry and temperature, then the engineering if it is to serve both modulations and human demands, must include consideration of the electrical feedbacks that occur and how river changes alter those feedbacks or there will be no water to capture.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
314. washingaway
7:16 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 222. Xyrus2000:



They're an interesting phenomena. In my opinion they lend some credibility to hypothetical conjectures regarding our universe being a hyper dimensional/"holographic" projection of some sort. Like how you're a 4 dimensional object, but your shadow is only 3 dimensions.

If you remove the constraints of "normal" thinking about space and time, some of the "WTF?" phenomena we see is more easily explainable. Take quantum entanglement. In our "normal" universe we see quantum entanglement as "spooky". That's because we perceive two particles separated by distance instantly being known simply by observing them.

The thing is, that's just how it happens to appear when "projected" on our universe. Much like how your shadow can appear to be 30 feet tall when project but you're actually only 6 feet tall. In the hyper-dimensional plane of these particles, they may not even be physically separated at all.

Think of it like a hyper-dimensional coin. When we "split" the particles in our universe, this does the equivalent of flicking this coin to make it spin. When we observe one of the particles, it's the equivalent of slamming your hand down on the hyper-dimensional coin to make it stop. Now we know know which side is facing up or down. But in our universe it appears as if two quantum particles went flying apart from one another but instantly became know when one was measured.

Interesting and fun things to think about, but needless to say not exactly trivial to test. The machine needed to detect gravitational waves was a major engineering undertaking and achievement. It wouldn't surprise if that level of skill will be needed to flesh out any of the more hypothetical models of our universe.

In February of 2016, scientist detected, or observed, gravitational waves for the first time. I postulate, similar to that of the famous double slit experiment, that gravitational waves are waves of probability, and the detection of these waves caused the the wave function to collapse and thus bombarding us with particles of space-time, which, skewed us right into an alternate reality where nothing makes sense anymore. I call this weird reality the "Alt Right Reality".
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
313. vanderwaalselectrics
7:14 PM GMT on January 11, 2017

And that would be in addition to your fundamental premise that electron orbitals can have non-quantum states, which makes zero sense.



The van der waals attractive forces are not covalent bonds. Look it up. It's a weak polar electrical attraction or repulsion of water which is how it freezes or liquefies depending on temperature.



And then you proceed onward to ever more esoteric distractions without ever addressing the fundamental issues with your premise. Wow! That's what I am saying about the warmers and so called skeptics. Yet I refrain from calling for censorship because I don't agree.


Amazingly, there's a whole branch of science dedicated to studying the ocean, it's currents, how it influences and interacts with the atmosphere, etc.
There was a lot of research dedicated to complex patterns of how the sun orbited the earth, and a lot of bullies who worked very hard to make sure everyone was reading that material instead of any other views.


Regardless, what does [the second derivative of sine] that have to do with anything you're talking about


The green house gas theory is premised on CO2 warming the earth in a basically linear fashion. The first derivative of that would be generally a constant with zero acceleration. But what is observed is up and down--the best teleconnection to speak about this is ENSO, particularly when there are two 500 year events (1997-8 and 2015-16} back to back..


research done on El Nino/La Nina. The simple answer is wind patterns.


Simple answers do not always work with complex problems. Remember the movie Twister? The scientists studying the storms put measuring balls inside the tornado to try to understand them. But what if there is an electrical complexity to how they behave? This is what Charles Chandler thinks: http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.p hp?text=full

It turns out by observation that during La Ninas there are more tornadoes in the alley. Why? Winds ONLY as you suggest. Let me frame it in a question. When I walk across the carpet and touch you and there is a static ZAP! -- would there be the same result if I had not walked across the carpet and touched you? What is going on with the SOI index when it rises and correlates to severe storms and tornadoes in the CONUS?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
312. RitaEvac
7:13 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
U.S. oil investment to hit $61 billion as prices surge

I agree with last paragraph of story
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
311. RitaEvac
7:05 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Meanwhile we have armchair climate change experts on here, lol. People like to talk, talk, talk, talk, but....just can't seem to take action. In other words...your all, S. O. L.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
310. LAbonbon
7:03 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 296. JohnLonergan:


But Finnegan's Wake is more coherent than Trump's tweets.

Jabberwocky, anyone?

Weather-wise, 40F here with light rain, temperature expected to drop today with a turn to snow. Snowing of course in the mountains; skiers are haaaapppy.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
309. Patrap
7:02 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
All the risks of climate change, in a single graph
There are a lot of them.


Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Jan 9, 2017, 8:40am EST

The risks of climate change are not easy to communicate clearly. Since the atmosphere affects everything, everything will be affected by its warming — there’s no single risk, but a wide and varied array of risks, of different severities and scales, affecting different systems, unfolding on different timelines. It’s difficult to convey to a layperson, at least without droning on and on.

One of the better-known and more controversial attempts to address this problem is a graphic from the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The so-called “burning embers” graph attempts to render the various risks of climate change — “reasons for concern,” or RFCs — in an easy-to-grasp visual form.

In a new paper in the journal Nature Climate Change, a group of 17 scholars examines the RFC conceptual framework and reviews the latest science. (Because IPCC reports take so long to produce, the science they contain is always a few years behind.)

Long story short, they find that the graphic is generally accurate (though it has key limitations). They offer suggestions for how the RFC framework could be extended in the future to “better account for possible changes in social and ecological system vulnerability.”

I won’t get into the details — I just want to have a look at their new and improved burning-embers graph, which is up at the top of this post.

As you can see, there is a ton of information about the risks of climate change crammed in there, so it’s worth unpacking a bit. It offers a remarkably coherent overview of the various risks that lie ahead this century.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
308. RitaEvac
6:57 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Same idiots different day

No learning curve with the media and pollsters, apparently they haven't figured out polls were....WRONG

CNN Politics
January 11, 2017 12:53pm

"Trump says public doesn't care 'at all' about his taxes
But his comment is directly contradicted by most major public polls on the issue. A CNN poll from October found 86% of registered voters said they see paying taxes as every American's civic duty."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
307. civEngineer
6:26 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
So much water in CA heading out to the ocean completely belies the argument that you couldn't build more storage to provide for both environmental and industrial purposes. The mantra we heard during the drought that "It will take many wet years to refill these reservoirs" when here not two years removed from a historic drought on the heels of an average year and in the beginning of a wet year many of our reservoirs including our largest are spilling flood flows some of which were doing so the previous year as well. The next argument will be "well it will take 20 years just to build one" and 20 years from now we will ask why we didn't do so 20 years ago.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
306. Xandra
6:00 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Professor Martin Bunzl:

"You can test a vaccine on one person, putting that person at risk, without putting everyone else at risk. But with geoengineering, You can’t build a scale model of the atmosphere or tent off part of the atmosphere. As such you are stuck going directly from a model to full scale planetary-wide implementation. In short, you could not conduct meaningful tests of these technologies without enlisting billions of people as guinea pigs—for years".

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
305. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
5:54 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
304. 999Ai2016
5:46 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Tillerson on climate: Increase in atmospheric ghg is having an effect, but "our ability to predict that effect is very limited."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
303. elioe
5:46 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 285. Xandra:



Opinion pieces, most often, have some factual information included in them. But, hopefully no-one here really thinks, that every word and sentence a scientist types out of his/her keyboard has automatically the status of a solid scientific fact. And thanks for listing these authorities.

And the writers, as well as the ones they quote, indeed are in very advanced and respected situations. Environmentalists are currently controlling the tone of discussion in scientific community. If one of those listed would speak in such a tone like "hey, perhaps something else than unconditional reversion to natural state, or as close to it as possible, should be considered as an equal option as eventual outcome", career and reputation among colleagues could exhibit a serious backlash.

Coming back to the point where the entire discussion started:
Really... Doesn't anyone else see it disturbing, that a journalist in scientific magazine calls an entire field of research as "controversial", while revealing, that there has indeed been peer pressure for scientists to refrain from such studies? It is clear for me, that for ideological reasons, "dogmatically untrue" results shouldn't be allowed to exist among climatological studies.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
302. MrTornadochase
5:44 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 295. GTstormChaserCaleb:

This could be some good news for the Sierra Nevada to get a solid snowpack along the mountain ranges. Still a little over a week out. But this is an encouraging run.



A waterway along the Tuolumne River. Such beautiful landscape and topography.



Definitely good news for Sierra snowpack if it comes true which is already at 158% of normal for this date Link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
301. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
5:42 PM GMT on January 11, 2017

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
300. win1gamegiantsplease
5:40 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Well I was going to post about how nice the temperatures are where I am, but um



Quoting 297. islander101010:

number one reason trump is going to be president is the obama care mandate. many people are tired of the IRS hitting their returns for lack of insurance.


That and lots of blue-collar workers believe his message of helping their industries doing more in the US. Also lots of people are unhappy with amnesty and sanctuary cities in the SW, whether or not they think the wall is a dumb idea or not.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
299. washingaway
5:30 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
A different perspective on Trump's tweets.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
298. schwankmoe
5:25 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 297. islander101010:

number one reason trump is going to be president is the obama care mandate. many people are tired of the IRS hitting their returns for lack of insurance.


unfortunately the mandate is necessary to get the popular stuff to work, like community rating, guaranteed issue, subsidies, and ending recission.

ETA: maybe not subsidies. likely separable.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
297. islander101010
5:18 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
number one reason trump is going to be president is the obama care mandate. many people are tired of the IRS hitting their returns for lack of insurance.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
296. JohnLonergan
5:16 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 282. daddyjames:

Listening to Trump's news conference. It sounds like a series of tweets. At least he is consistent.
Predict that "stream of consciousness" and "James Joyce" will peak on Google for the next four years.


But Finnegan's Wake is more coherent than Trump's tweets.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
295. GTstormChaserCaleb
5:12 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
This could be some good news for the Sierra Nevada to get a solid snowpack along the mountain ranges. Still a little over a week out. But this is an encouraging run.



A waterway along the Tuolumne River. Such beautiful landscape and topography.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
294. weathermanwannabe
5:11 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 289. RitaEvac:

Widening gaps between rich and poor, and old and young, are fueling feelings of resentment.
WEF said that while inequality between countries has been decreasing over the past 30 years, inequality within many developed nations -- including the U.S. and Britain -- has risen. The group pointed to Brexit and Trump's election as clear signs of a backlash against the status quo.

"Rapid changes of attitudes in areas such as gender, sexual orientation, race, multiculturalism, environmental protection and international cooperation have led many voters -- particularly the older and less-educated ones -- to feel left behind in their own countries," the WEF said in its annual risk report.


Corporate interests, which is the driving force between current global inequality issues and common folks being left behind in the name of a "global economy" crosses all borders...........In a nutshell, we are basically headed towards "Rollerball" where corporate entities matter more than the individual nation state (or their individual citizens)....................................
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
293. Famoguy1234
4:51 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Also, here are my predictions for names retiring.
Alex (5%)
Bonnie (0%)
Colin (20%)
Danielle (10%)
Earl [20%]
Fiona [0%]
Gaston [30%]
Hermine [50-60%]
Ian [0%]
Julia [20%]
Karl [0%]
Lisa [0%]
Matthew [100%]
Nicole [70%]
Otto [50%]
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
292. daddyjames
4:41 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Totally weird. Trump has to have a spokeswoman address potential conflicts of interest. Of course, this is without actually releasing any plan.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
291. Patrap
4:41 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
When was the last time we saw a atty at PE PC?

Lordy, a 2 Billion dollar deal with a Guy named Hussein?

LOL

Yeah....we in uncharted derpville beaucoup cher.

Here's a Surface map.

Enjoy

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
290. Xandra
4:41 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Did Putin help elect Trump to restore $500 billion Exxon oil deal killed by sanctions

Follow the money: Will Trump repay Putin by ending Russian sanctions and killing the Paris climate deal?


Russia’s $500 billion oil deal with Exxon was killed by U.S. sanctions. No doubt coincidentally, drilling In the Russian Arctic would be easier if warming-driven sea ice melt continued. CREDIT: Wall Street Journal, 9/11/2014.


Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
289. RitaEvac
4:37 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Widening gaps between rich and poor, and old and young, are fueling feelings of resentment.
WEF said that while inequality between countries has been decreasing over the past 30 years, inequality within many developed nations -- including the U.S. and Britain -- has risen. The group pointed to Brexit and Trump's election as clear signs of a backlash against the status quo.

"Rapid changes of attitudes in areas such as gender, sexual orientation, race, multiculturalism, environmental protection and international cooperation have led many voters -- particularly the older and less-educated ones -- to feel left behind in their own countries," the WEF said in its annual risk report.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
288. schwankmoe
4:37 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 287. Xyrus2000:



Solid picks? Like Perry for DoE? Now there's a good idea. Let's put a complete idiot with zero experience in any of the fields of science in charge of the department responsible for nuclear materials, weapons, and advanced research. What could possibly go wrong?

The only pick that even remotely makes sense is for DHS. Everyone else is who's who of corruption, cronyism, and outright stupidity. They're not even popular among his supporters according to recent polls. But honestly, what were they expecting?


hey now, ben carson is a good pick for housing and urban development because...well...he lives in a house, right?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
287. Xyrus2000
4:36 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 243. StormTrackerScott:



The picks Trump selected are very solid picks and I think you will be surprised on how this Country will turn around from 8 years of chaos.


Solid picks? Like Perry for DoE? Now there's a good idea. Let's put a complete idiot with zero experience in any of the fields of science in charge of the department responsible for nuclear materials, weapons, and advanced research. What could possibly go wrong?

The only pick that even remotely makes sense is for DHS. Everyone else is who's who of corruption, cronyism, and outright stupidity. They're not even popular among his supporters according to recent polls. But honestly, what were they expecting?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
286. daddyjames
4:34 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 273. Barefootontherocks:

Potential ice accumulation graphic from NWS Norman this morning...
Friday through Sunday.
">


Looking a little better but not good enough.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
285. Xandra
4:30 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 248. elioe:



Lots of opinion pieces indeed. [...]
.

These scientists have contributed with their knowledge to
those "opinion pieces":

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor of Climate Science at Rutgers University

Simon Redfern, Professor of Mineral Physics at the University of Cambridge, Department of Earth Sciences

Professor Ken Caldeira, Atmospheric scientist in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University. He also serves as a professor in Stanford’s Department of Environmental Earth System Science.

Professor Mark Lawrence, Managing Scientific Director at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)

Clive Hamilton, Professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Halley Professor of Physics, University of Oxford

David Keith, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School

Professor John Shepherd FRS Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science, University of Southampton.

Professor Ken Caldeira Director, Caldeira Lab, Carnegie Institution, USA.

Professor Peter Cox Professor of Climate System Dynamics, University of Exeter, UK.

Professor Joanna Haigh Head of Department of Physics, Professor of Atmospheric Physics,
Imperial College, London, UK.

Professor David Keith Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment, Director, ISEEE,
Energy and Environmental Systems Group, University of Calgary, Canada.

Professor Brian Launder FREng FRS Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manchester, UK.

Professor Georgina Mace CBE FRS Director, NERC Centre for Population Biology, Division of Biology, Imperial College, London, UK.

Professor Gordon MacKerron Director, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK.

Professor John Pyle FRS 1920 Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Cambridge, UK.

Professor Steve Rayner James Martin Professor of Science and Civilization, Director, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, UK.

Professor Catherine Redgwell Professor of International Law, University College London, UK.

Professor Andrew Watson FRS Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK.

Rachel Garthwaite Senior Policy Adviser, Environment, Energy and Climate Change.

James Wilsdon Director, Science Policy Centre.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
284. schwankmoe
4:28 PM GMT on January 11, 2017
Quoting 274. nymore:



He saved the economy? He saved the car industry? You may want to go check out these claims as some of the credit goes to the last president (who I am no fan of)

You are correct though ignorant is no way to go through life.

There is a complete programming being done on both sides as proved by your comment. Sad indeed




yes, O saved the auto industry. bush offered up a small amount that the auto companies themselves said wouldn't have been enough. in his defense, after TARP (which the GOP voted down the first time), neither he nor his party had the stomach to spend any more money. later the auto companies came back saying "we need a real bailout" and O started to push through the vast majority of the 85 or so billion that was spent bailing out the industry, around the time he pushed through the fiscal stimulus.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 334 - 284

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™

About

Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Storm on the Amalfi Coast
Vesuvius view
Snow on the trail to Vesuvius
The mists of Iceland