WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Yet another record snowstorm wallops New England

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 3:08 PM GMT on January 27, 2011

The epic winter of 2010 - 2011 delivered yet another major pounding to New England yesterday and today, and residents are digging out today from the winter's third record snowstorm. The heaviest snows from this newest onslaught hit coastal New Jersey and New York City, where snowfall rates up to 4 inches per hour were accompanied by hundreds of lightning strikes. The 19.0" inches that fell in New York City's Central Park made it the 8th largest snowstorm for the city in recorded history. When combined with the heavy snows of 1 - 2 feet that fell during the Nor'easter just two weeks ago, January 2011 now ranks as the snowiest January on record in New York City, Newark, Bridgeport, and Hartford.


Figure 1. Scene from Times Square, New York during the peak of the January 26 - 27, 2011 Nor'easter. Near midnight, snowfall rates reached 4 inches per hour in thunderstorms. Image credit: Earthcam.com web cam, and captured by Christopher C. Burt.

Remarkably, five of New York City's top-ten snowfalls of the past 142 years have occurred in the past decade (highlighted in the list below.) According to the National Weather Service, the top ten snowstorms on record for New York City's Central Park since 1869 should now read:

1) 26.9" Feb 11-12, 2006
2) 26.4" Dec 26-27, 1947
3) 21.0" Mar 12-14, 1888
4) 20.8" Feb 25-26, 2010
5) 20.2" Jan 7-8, 1996
6) 20.0" Dec 26-27, 2010
7) 19.8" Feb 16-17, 2003
8) 19.0" Jan 26-27, 2011
9) 18.1" Mar 7-8, 1941
10) 17.7" Feb 5-7, 1978

Philadelphia, PA picked up 15.1", from today's storm, making it the tenth largest snowstorm in city history. Philadelphia has now had four of its top ten snowfalls in just over a year--a remarkable string of storms, considering record keeping began 127 years ago, in 1884. So far this winter, Philadelphia has picked up 37.8" of snow. An average winter should have had just 7.5" by now.

The top ten snowstorms on record for Philadelphia:

1. 30.7", Jan 7-8, 1996
2. 28.5", Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon)
3. 23.2", Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse)
4. 21.3", Feb 11-12, 1983
5. 21.0", Dec 25-26, 1909
6. 19.4", Apr 3-4, 1915
7. 18.9", Feb 12-14, 1899
8. 16.7", Jan 22-24, 1935
9. 15.8", Feb 10-11, 2010
10. 15.1", Jan 26-27, 2011
10. 15.1", Feb 28-Mar 1, 1941


Figure 2. Change in snow depth for the 24 hours ending at 1am today shows that an area of 12 - 20" of snow fell from just southwest of Philadelphia, PA to near Bridgeport, CT. The heaviest snows had not quite ended by this time in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Up to two inches of snow melted in upstate New York (orange colors) during this period. Image credit: NOAA.

Just an ordinary-strength Nor'easter
The Nor'easter was of very ordinary strength, with a central pressure of just 987 mb this morning as it passed Cape Cod. Typically, a Nor'easter needs to have a central pressure in the 960 - 980 mb range to dump the kind of heavy snows that this storm generated. The storm did not have a widespread area of strong winds, though Provincetown on Massachusetts' Cape Cod recorded sustained winds of 40 mph, gusting to 60 mph, at 2am EST this morning. Only minor coastal flooding was reported in New England from the storm. However, like the January 12 - 13 Nor'easter of just two weeks ago, this week's rather ordinary-strength Nor'easter managed to assemble the perfect mix of conditions needed to transport moisture to a region of the storm highly favorable for heavy snow formation. Many heavy snow bands with snowfall rates up to 4 inches per hour formed over New England, with some of these bands intense enough to generate lightning and thunder.

Some selected city snowfall amounts for the January 26 - 27, 2011 storm:

NYC Central Park, NY 19.0"
Newark, NJ 18.9"
Philadelphia, PA 15.1"
Wilmington, DE 10.4"
Providence, RI 10.5"
Boston, MA 9.9"

An unusual Nor'easter for a La Niña year
This winter, we are experiencing La Niña conditions in the Equatorial Eastern Pacific, meaning that cold waters have upwelled from the depths off the coast of South America, cooling a huge region of Pacific waters to below-average levels. In most winters, the presence of La Niña acts to deflect the jet stream in such a way the the predominant storm track takes winter storms into the Pacific Northwest, then down through the Upper Midwest and Ohio Valley, particularly so in mid- late-winter. According to Dr. David A. Robinson, the New Jersey State Climatologist and Chairman of the Department of Geography at Rutgers University, this sort of flow pattern keeps New England safe from Nor'easters, as storms tend to move from the Ohio Valley northeastwards into Canada, keeping New England in a warm southwesterly flow of air. However, both the December 26 and today's storm defied climatology, and gave the mid-Atlantic and New England one of their worst poundings on record for a La Niña Nor'easter. These two storms were the first Nor'easters in at least ten La Niña winters, dating back to 1970, to bring 10" of more of snow to New Jersey, according to Dr. Robinson. Philadelphia got 12.4" from the December 26 Nor'easter and 15.1" from today's storm. The National Weather Service stated in December that prior to this winter, only one La Niña winter in the past century has had a storm that dumped more than 10" of snow on the city--a December 1909 Nor'easter.


Figure 3. The annual average number of snowstorms with a 6 inch (15.2 cm) or greater accumulation, from the years 1901 - 2001. A value of 0.1 means an average of one 6+ inch snowstorm every ten years. Image credit: Changnon, S.A., D. Changnon, and T.R. Karl, 2006, Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States, J. Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 45, 8, pp. 1141-1155, DOI: 10.1175/JAM2395.1.

Why such an unusual number of top-ten snowstorms for the Northeast in recent years?
The Northeast has seen an inordinate number of top-ten snowstorms in the past ten years, raising the question of whether this is due to random chance or a change in the climate. This year's record snow storms were all the more unusual, as they came during La Niña conditions in the Eastern Pacific. Is it random chance, or did climate change play role? Well, it could be either, and we simply don't know the answer. A study by Houston and Changnon (2009) on the top ten heaviest snows on record for each of 121 major U.S. cities showed no upward or downward trend in these very heaviest snowstorms during the period 1948 - 2001. It would be interesting to see if they repeated their study using data from the past decade if the answer would change. As I stated in my blog post, The United States of Snow in February, bigger snowstorms are not an indication that global warming is not occurring. The old adage, "it's too cold to snow", has some truth to it, and there is research supporting the idea that the average climate in the U.S. is colder than optimal to support the heaviest snowstorms. For example, Changnon et al. (2006) found that for the contiguous U.S. between 1900 - 2001, 61% - 80% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters with above normal temperatures. The authors also found that 61% - 85% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters that were wetter than average. The authors conclude, "a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000." The authors found that over the U.S. as a whole, there had been a slight but significant increase in heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000. If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where winter temperatures are at the optimum for heavy snow events.

I've done some other posts of interest I've done on snow and climate change over the past year:

Hot Arctic-Cold Continents Pattern is back (December 2010)
The future of intense winter storms (March 2010)
Heavy snowfall in a warming world (February 2010)

Jeff Masters
My vehicle
My vehicle
I don't think I am going anywhere this morning.
Snow on the Lens
Snow on the Lens
Hey, had to get out of the warm truck at some point.....
More Snow 2
More Snow 2

Winter Weather

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

Reader Comments

A relentless onslaught for the Northeast.
Thunderstorms with heavy snow! I still marvel over it every time!
Yet more remarkable extremes: four of Philly's top ten snowstorms of all time in just one year; five of NYC's top-ten snowstorms in the past ten years.

Incredible.
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yet more remarkable extremes: four of Philly's top ten snowstorms of all time in just one year; five of NYC's top-ten snowstorms in the past ten years.

Incredible.
This could be another big storm in the making..Link
Foolish me thought with a La Nina,I would be safe up here.So I hope some investigation is conducted as to why this year is defying typical La Nina storm tracks.And please can we break this pattern,can't through snow up any higher.
Quoting hydrus:
This could be another big storm in the making..Link
Damn I can't see it becuase my computer thinks that the site has a security issue.It's practically block for me.
And the reason i picked FL to live in is because of articles like this :) No snow down here, and its gonna be 70 on Saturday.
Thanks Jeff...no snow south of I-10...yet
Quoting NEwxguy:
Foolish me thought with a La Nina,I would be safe up here.So I hope some investigation is conducted as to why this year is defying typical La Nina storm tracks.And please can we break this pattern,can't through snow up any higher.

It has been. Sort of:

Quoting Dr. Jeff Masters:
The authors conclude, "a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected [as the planet warms] (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more heavy snowstorms of 6 inches than in 1901 - 2000." The authors found that over the U.S. as a whole, there had been a slight but significant increase in heavy snowstorms of 6 inches than in 1901 - 2000. If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where winter temperatures are at the optimum for heavy snow events.

If nothing else, this should be fairly easy to track, no?
Quoting washingtonian115:
Damn I can't see it becuase my computer thinks that the site has a security issue.It's practically block for me.
This one should work...Link
Quoting hydrus:
This one should work...Link
Thanks Hydrus I had the same security notice.
Nearly 34 years having never seen or touched snow up close...Thanks Florida.
Quoting fireflymom:
Thanks Hydrus I had the same security notice.
Be sure to click the forward box to run the model. If you can, run the NOGAPS model too. It is interesting. I tried posting it, it would not work because of security block.
absolutely walloped up here in CT. This is the year that I finally have had enough of the snow. My back and my roof can't take no more.
Quoting NewEnglandCT:
absolutely walloped up here in CT. This is the year that I finally have had enough of the snow. My back and my roof can't take no more.
Lol. You all probably are going to get more..:)Link
Quoting hydrus:
Lol. You all probably are going to get more..:)Link


Noooooooo
Really! Record snowfall caused by global warming? Why can't anyone see that this is a ridiculous theory? Snow, blamed on global warming, cold blamed on global warming, rain blamed on global warming, drought blamed on global warming. Maybe we should re-evaluate our data. Perhaps we should question why 62% of the weather stations were removed since the 1960's which had the coldest average temperatures. And even if the globe is warming, why should we fear this. Do you not understand that plants and organisms thrive in warmer temperature? Just over the last two years our food prices have gone up due to longer winters and wet weather. We should fear cooling, not warming. We already know that the predictions of global warming are overstated, yet we still fall in line with the media and grant driven scientists. Should we protect our environment, YES; but should we have government restrictions and fees that cripple business creation and growth based on a theory that our world is warming out of control, No. More excuses are being made for the AGW theory, and its becoming more obvious to more people, including over 30,000 scientists, that this theory is heavily flawed. We should scratch everything that we think we know and start over. Take into account more variables including sun cycles and develop a consensus that actually makes sense.
Quoting NewEnglandCT:


Noooooooo
Mu-ha ha ha..Yes, yes..more snow..wet, heavy and plentiful..j.k...sry..:)Link
Quoting aburttschell:
Really! Record snowfall caused by global warming? Why can't anyone see that this is a ridiculous theory? Snow, blamed on global warming, cold blamed on global warming, rain blamed on global warming, drought blamed on global warming. Maybe we should re-evaluate our data. Perhaps we should question why 62% of the weather stations were removed since the 1960's which had the coldest average temperatures. And even if the globe is warming, why should we fear this. Do you not understand that plants and organisms thrive in warmer temperature? Just over the last two years our food prices have gone up due to longer winters and wet weather. We should fear cooling, not warming. We already know that the predictions of global warming are overstated, yet we still fall in line with the media and grant driven scientists. Should we protect our environment, YES; but should we have government restrictions and fees that cripple business creation and growth based on a theory that our world is warming out of control, No. More excuses are being made for the AGW theory, and its becoming more obvious to more people, including over 30,000 scientists, that this theory is heavily flawed. We should scratch everything that we think we know and start over. Take into account more variables including sun cycles and develop a consensus that actually makes sense.


Thank you - finally a voice of reason. Going back 142 years in New York and 127 years in Philly doesn't prove anything to me either. Tell me what the winter of 1285 was like or the summer of 1392 - compare these years and decades with the modern scientific measurements we use today, then maybe we can draw somewhat of a conclusion about this so called cilmate change - CO2 is rising, sea ice is shrinking, blah, blah, blah...
Quoting aburttschell:
Really! Record snowfall caused by global warming? Why can't anyone see that this is a ridiculous theory? Snow, blamed on global warming, cold blamed on global warming, rain blamed on global warming, drought blamed on global warming. Maybe we should re-evaluate our data. Perhaps we should question why 62% of the weather stations were removed since the 1960's which had the coldest average temperatures. And even if the globe is warming, why should we fear this. Do you not understand that plants and organisms thrive in warmer temperature? Just over the last two years our food prices have gone up due to longer winters and wet weather. We should fear cooling, not warming. We already know that the predictions of global warming are overstated, yet we still fall in line with the media and grant driven scientists. Should we protect our environment, YES; but should we have government restrictions and fees that cripple business creation and growth based on a theory that our world is warming out of control, No. More excuses are being made for the AGW theory, and its becoming more obvious to more people, including over 30,000 scientists, that this theory is heavily flawed. We should scratch everything that we think we know and start over. Take into account more variables including sun cycles and develop a consensus that actually makes sense.

Nature does what nature does. It doesn't care about political obfuscation or heated anti-AGW rhetoric; it doesn't care about Big Energy denialism; it doesn't care that the uneducated have difficulty grasping even some of the most simple climate concepts; it doesn't care about the profound fear some feel when they realize they've been part and parcel of messing things up, and that they'll have to change. It only knows that the unimpeded pumping of billions of pounds of greenhouse gases into the environment is causing things to go awry. Period. And all the wrong-headed mewling about "scams" and "socialism" and "global cooling" and what have you isn't going to change a single thing.

To put it simply: we can change now somewhat on our own terms for X amount of dollars--or our children will be forced by external forces to change later for X amount of dollars times a hundred. It's our choice.
I was up there for that late december snow storm and for that reason I WILL check snow forecasts and ice forecasts before going there again. Its the main reason I am stuck now in a Ossur (look the name up and you will understand) elbow brace....
Quoting NewEnglandCT:


Noooooooo
Connecticut in 10 days...he he..
Just heard on the radio this morning that burning wood is .5% of our enery, VS .1 and .3 percent for wind and solar energy.

This means that the cave men days of burning wood is still ahead of us. LMAO
Quoting Neapolitan:

Nature does what nature does. It doesn't care about political obfuscation or heated anti-AGW rhetoric; it doesn't care about Big Energy denialism; it doesn't care that the uneducated have difficulty grasping even some of the most simple climate concepts; it doesn't care about the profound fear some feel when they realize they've been part and parcel of messing things up, and that they'll have to change. It only knows that the unimpeded pumping of billions of pounds of greenhouse gases into the environment is causing things to go awry. Period. And all the wrong-headed mewling about "scams" and "socialism" and "global cooling" and what have you isn't going to change a single thing.

To put it simply: we can change now somewhat on our own terms for X amount of dollars--or our children will be forced by external forces to change later for X amount of dollars times a hundred. It's our choice.


Put simply, if you're really worried about the next generation, perhaps you should be more concerned with growing debt that you place on them by current spending, taxes and restrictions. Also, you realize that you contradict yourself. If nature does what it will, which I believe, then why do you think that our "emissions"(what you refer to as billions of pounds of greenhouse gases; actually accounts for less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere)have any influence on our climate?
Quoting RitaEvac:
Just heard on the radio this morning that burning wood is .5% of our enery, VS .1 and .3 percent for wind and solar energy.

This means that the cave men days of burning wood is still ahead of us. LMAO
I hope there is cave beer when this happens
Quoting aburttschell:


Put simply, if you're really worried about the next generation, perhaps you should be more concerned with growing debt that you place on them by current spending, taxes and restrictions. Also, you realize that you contradict yourself. If nature does what it will, which I believe, then why do you think that our "emissions"(what you refer to a billions of pounds of greenhouse gases; actually accounts for less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere)have any influence on our climate?

Didn't contradict myself at all. Nature is acted upon by man's influences, and does what it will in response. All the denialism, politics, and pro-corporate/anti-environment wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that. Only action will--and we have seriously dropped the ball on that. But not to worry; our children and grandchildren will thank us.
Quoting hydrus:
Connecticut in 10 days...he he..


I went through Snowqualmie Pass once and the snow on either side of the street was about 15' high on either side of the road in spots. The snowplows would just keep scraping it up and blowing it over the top. Was something to see.
..'let it Sneaux, let it Sneaux, let it Sneaux'...
Quoting the main blog:

"...This year's record snow storms were all the more unusual, as they came during La Niña conditions in the Eastern Pacific. Is it random chance, or did climate change play role? Well, it could be either, and we simply don't know the answer..."

Pretty honest answer to me.
AMY!!!!!!
Listen to the Weather Underground Broadcast Network here!

The East is hit with yet another huge snowstorm. Get all of the latest information on snow totals and where this storm is headed on The Daily Downpour, hosted by Weather Underground Meteorologist Shaun and Tim, at 4:30 p.m. ET, 1:30 PT.

All three shows will be taking your phone calls at 415-983-2634.
Quoting hcubed:
Quoting the main blog:

"...This year's record snow storms were all the more unusual, as they came during La Niña conditions in the Eastern Pacific. Is it random chance, or did climate change play role? Well, it could be either, and we simply don't know the answer..."

Pretty honest answer to me.

Agreed.
Quoting Neapolitan:

Didn't contradict myself at all. Nature is acted upon by man's influences, and does what it will in response. All the denialism, politics, and pro-corporate/anti-environment wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that. Only action will--and we have seriously dropped the ball on that. But not to worry; our children and grandchildren will thank us.


Our children and grandchildren will be upset if the temperature rises less than 1/2 a degree and the sea level rises 5mm(Btw, 2010 sea level could be the largest sea level drop ever recorded)?
Quoting atmoaggie:


Has there been a lot of snow in Texas this year compared to how it usually is?
Quoting Patrap:
..'let it Sneaux, let it Sneaux, let it Sneaux'...
that it will that it will that it will
Quoting aburttschell:
Really! Record snowfall caused by global warming? Why can't anyone see that this is a ridiculous theory? Snow, blamed on global warming, cold blamed on global warming, rain blamed on global warming, drought blamed on global warming. Maybe we should re-evaluate our data. Perhaps we should question why 62% of the weather stations were removed since the 1960's which had the coldest average temperatures. And even if the globe is warming, why should we fear this. Do you not understand that plants and organisms thrive in warmer temperature? Just over the last two years our food prices have gone up due to longer winters and wet weather. We should fear cooling, not warming. We already know that the predictions of global warming are overstated, yet we still fall in line with the media and grant driven scientists. Should we protect our environment, YES; but should we have government restrictions and fees that cripple business creation and growth based on a theory that our world is warming out of control, No. More excuses are being made for the AGW theory, and its becoming more obvious to more people, including over 30,000 scientists, that this theory is heavily flawed. We should scratch everything that we think we know and start over. Take into account more variables including sun cycles and develop a consensus that actually makes sense.


Aside from the fact that most of your facts are donkey doo doo, all these weather events are related to global warming because global warming is global and continuous, all weather that happens is part of global warming.

What I don't understand is why you are so emotional about something that you think isn't happening? Why do you have to invent some ridiculous theory about how much it will cost, etc..

I think green energy will benefit the economy. But more importantly ecological restrictions will benefit the economy. Do you really want to turn America into a third world cesspool of pollution just so everyone has a job?
Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.


The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.
42. JRRP
Quoting cocoabeachcane:


Has there been a lot of snow in Texas this year compared to how it usually is?
No idea. I'm in SE LA and have never lived north of College Station (only ~90 miles NNW of Houston)...

(well, I did live in Virginia for a while, didn't see much snow there, either)

Any snow where I'm from, and live, is a lot of snow.
;-)
Would love to see references to back up some of the many claims you've made today...

Quoting aburttschell:


Our children and grandchildren will be upset if the temperature rises less than 1/2 a degree and the sea level rises 5mm(Btw, 2010 sea level could be the largest sea level drop ever recorded)?

I am teaching the Dau how to garden, sustainably.

It won't offset the depth of the water, though.
Quoting greentortuloni:


Aside from the fact that most of your facts are donkey doo doo, all these weather events are related to global warming because global warming is global and continuous, all weather that happens is part of global warming.

What I don't understand is why you are so emotional about something that you think isn't happening? Why do you have to invent some ridiculous theory about how much it will cost, etc..

I think green energy will benefit the economy. But more importantly ecological restrictions will benefit the economy. Do you really want to turn America into a third world cesspool of pollution just so everyone has a job?


I presented facts, you presented none. You challenge mine but offer no proof. And I'm emotional because AGW is costing billions, and if we keep taxing, especially at a time when our economic climate is fragile, it could plunge our great country even further into economic plight, while burdening future generations tremendously. I have no problem thinking green, people doing what they can to lessen pollution. I do have a problem with the government interaction when it comes to issues regarding global warming.
Somewhere a Tax cut is crying....
#39...North TX (DFW Metroplex) is going to get hammered, with wintry precip and Arctic air Tu-Fr of next week.

Might as well enjoy our 64-70 F afternoons of Th-Mo :O)!!!!
51. JRRP
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Because our social and agricultural centers are based on the current climate and may be impacted in the event of climate change, especially if it happens quickly.

Do you not understand that plants and organisms thrive in warmer temperature?



No they don't. Rapid climate change has been one of the biggest causes of mass extinctions. Those that survive and adapt will, of course, do better.




Those mass extinctions were caused by global cooling not global warming.
These snow events are not just from excessive moisture, although a key ingredient. The polar and arctic fronts also play a large role, and are behaving differently because of the warm moist air flowing up from the Atlantic and Pacific. These are creating massive high pressure anti-cyclones near the pole and results in the dipole anomaly. An additional boundary condition also needs to be considered as cold polar air is more likely to travel over land rather than a constantly warming ocean, so the remaining air mass is going to dip down over land and interact with the increased moisture coming from the west and south. Global warming is the averaged increase of all mediums which could be possibly considered, of course there is much cooler regions still left to be mixed until the real changes begin.
Quoting aburttschell:


I presented facts, you presented none. You challenge mine but offer no proof. And I'm emotional because AGW is costing billions, and if we keep taxing, especially at a time when our economic climate is fragile, it could plunge our great country even further into economic plight, while burdening future generations tremendously. I have no problem thinking green, people doing what they can to lessen pollution. I do have a problem with the government interaction when it comes to issues regarding global warming.

I think you are making a mistake here.
It's not AGW that is costing billions. The US is attempting to recover from a Vast economic problem (that affected the rest of the Planet) which was a direct result of Capitalism gone mad, driven by individual greed.
AGW is just ONE of the issues, and that is being addressed GLOBALLY.
The economic problems you are seeing in the US are not from AGW only.
They include Health and Welfare, War and Defense, Deficit regularization, Falling industrial output, and maintenance of current unsustainable expectations.



Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center



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

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Quoting alfabob:
These snow events are not just from excessive moisture, although a key ingredient. The polar and arctic fronts also play a large role, and are behaving differently because of the warm moist air flowing up from the Atlantic and Pacific. These are creating massive high pressure anti-cyclones near the pole and results in the dipole anomaly. An additional boundary condition also needs to be considered as cold polar air is more likely to travel over land rather than a constantly warming ocean, so the remaining air mass is going to dip down over land and interact with the increased moisture coming from the west and south. Global warming is the averaged increase of all mediums which could be possibly considered, of course there is much cooler regions still left to be mixed until the real changes begin.


What you just described is the complete opposite of the IPCC climate projections, which anticipate a strengthening of the low-level polar vortex as times goes on, which would warm the continents and much of the arctic.

However, over the last 20 years, the sea-level pressure over the arctic has been trending upward, which is a typical pattern that, when fully developed (we appear to currently be in a transition), tends to build snow pack in the northern hemisphere.


University of Illinois IPCC Arctic GCM Scenarios

Arctic Oscillation since 1950 (low index means high pressure over the arctic)


Climate Prediction Center
Quoting aburttschell:


Those mass extinctions were caused by global cooling not global warming.


Wrong. The biggest mass extinction of all was associated with global warming.

Next time before making blanket statements try knowing what you are talking about.
Quoting aburttschell:


Those mass extinctions were caused by global cooling not global warming.


Incorrect. Mass extinctions were caused by climate changes. Global cooling is only ONE form of climate change. Other climate changes have been caused by oxygenation, hypoxia, global warming, as well as other causes. When these changes are gradual, life adapts and survives. ANY rapid change is detrimental to existing life forms not capable of handling it.

Wikipedia has a decent overview of the extinction events that have happened. See here:Link
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Tea Party Express is located on another site. You are deflecting.

Also, you realize that you contradict yourself. If nature does what it will, which I believe, then why do you think that our "emissions"(what you refer to as billions of pounds of greenhouse gases; actually accounts for less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere)have any influence on our climate?


Once again, you demonstrate significant ignorance on the basic physics behind the topic. You can do a quick google search on CO2 and climate forcings and come up with a number of sites that explain this concept.

Our contribution to overall CO2 levels is much higher than 1%. The CO2 levels have increased by 30-35% over pre-industrial levels primarily as a result of burning fossil fuels. This has been determined through isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2.


“Throughout the 1990’s global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing on average by about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. This table from the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report shows the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 over this time period to be 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

“This clearly demonstrates that only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tones of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 was from fossil fuels.

“This means that 95.73% of the increase was naturally sourced.

This also means that "the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of source, is not causing an increase in global temperature as demonstrated by the past eight years of cooling with steadily increasing CO2 concentration and the ever increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.”

Link
Maybe the ocean floor is rising at a faster rate, thus displacing more volumes of water we haven't seen in our existence. Over many years, this process melts sea ice at a faster rate than previously thought in geological history.

Perhaps also, the rate of subduction of the ocean floor, which is said to be about 2 to 8 centimeters per year on average, is slowing down. The offset of a slower subduction rate and increase in the rate of expanding divergent boundaries (opposite of subduction zones) would displace water volumes that could reduce sea ice over time.

Its a sound theory in my mind..

We definetly have evidence that lately, especially on the western boundary of the pacific plate, the earth is experiencing more violent mega thrusts. The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was a result of undersea land movement toward the surface and/or perhaps an undersea avalanche caused by the upward thrust.

What agencies monitor the month by month/year by year growth and reduction of the world's undersea land masses? Do these geolocial phenomenons factor into the Global Warming argument? Or are they dismissed because watching the Earth grow is more time consuming and our impatience tends to settle for an easier solution like atmospheric monitoring?





Quoting weatherboy1992:


Wrong. The biggest mass extinction of all was associated with global warming.

Next time before making blanket statements try knowing what you are talking about.


If that is the case how can you not infer that the earths climate is a cycle and not as a result of man-made influences?
Soooooo anyone want to talk about any up coming storms for the northeast on the models?.And I've always wondered.Why can't wunderground hve their own station since the weather channel has gone to trash.I wouldn't mind applying.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Soooooo anyone want to talk about any up coming storms for the northeast on the models?.And I've always wondered.Why can't wunderground hve their own station since the weather channel has gone to trash.I wouldn't mind applying.
This could be a big player in a few days...
Quoting hydrus:
This could be a big player in a few days...


But it's missing S. Wisconsin again! :( Would gladly take any of the snow storms hitting the NE.....
Quoting aburttschell:


If that is the case how can you not infer that the earths climate is a cycle and not as a result of man-made influences?

The rate of change is equally as important as the amount of change, if not more so. All the mass extinctions in earth's past were the result of rapid climate change--and the climate hasn't changed as rapidly as it is doing so now without an attached ELE.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/HurricaneKatrina/comment.html?entrynum=17

The THC shutting down would leave the heat in the tropics. The areas that used to be warmed by the THC will get colder. The cold air will collide with the very warm moist air. The storms generated by the colliding air masses will penetrate the stratosphere. The superchilled snowflakes will flash freeze anything the touch. Therefor the ideal gas law is not violated. The storm will bury much of the northern hemisphere with snow. The albedo will stabilize the climate at temperatures not seen since the younger dryas. Since civilization will be devastated by the storm the emission of ghgs will slow. The short lived ground level O3 and black carbon will dissipate in days. The colder oceans will over a longer period absorb much of our CO2. The climate will have stabilized, but at a great cost.
Quoting Neapolitan:

The rate of change is equally important to the amount of change, if not more so. All the mass extinctions in earth's past were the result of rapid climate change--and the climate hasn't changed as rapidly as it is doing so now without an attached ELE.


Yes. A slower change is easier to adapt to or escape from. That goes without saying.

Imgaine if the forest fire was larger and the winds more fierce...Bambi, Thumper and Flower would have all parrished and there would have been no hunter to shoot Bambi in the end.


Quoting Surfcropper:


Yes. A slower change is easier to adapt to or escape from. That goes without saying.

Imgaine if the forest fire was larger and the winds more fierce...Bambi, Thumper and Flower would have all parrished and there would have been no hunter to shoot Bambi in the end.



Bambi wasn't shot. His mom was.
Quoting hydrus:
This could be a big player in a few days...


Bring it on,now that all these storms have me in a rythm,I'm ready for anything these nor'easters can deliver.
But on a more serious note,can you imagine what the flooding is going to be like if we get some heavy rains or abnormal warmup?
Quoting aburttschell:


“Throughout the 1990’s global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing on average by about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. This table from the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report shows the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 over this time period to be 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

“This clearly demonstrates that only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tones of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 was from fossil fuels.

“This means that 95.73% of the increase was naturally sourced.

This also means that "the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of source, is not causing an increase in global temperature as demonstrated by the past eight years of cooling with steadily increasing CO2 concentration and the ever increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.”

Link


That's your authoritative source? Really?

Is it too much to ask to have a peer reviewed article cited? Or even just CORRECTLY interpreting information would be a huge start.

The author of that travesty is either being dishonest or ignorant. He doesn't appear to understand the difference between exponential and linear growth. That very simple mathematical flaw destroys his whole case before it even gets off the ground.

Then he goes on to claim that we are only producing 500 megatons of CO2 per year. He basically just made that up to be polite about it. That's off by several orders of magnitude. As of 2008 human CO2 production is estimated to be 31.6 GIGATONS. Or to make it plainer, he was claiming we are producing 500 million metric tons of CO2 when we are actually producing 31.6 BILLION metric tons of CO2

The least you could have done is pointed to someone who correctly cites their sources. I mean, even wikipedia does that.

For this and other REAL facts about CO2 in our atmosphere, you can read about it from the wiki and then follow the citations to various research articles. Link
Quoting HurricaneKatrina:

Bambi wasn't shot. His mom was.


Oh yeah...

I forgot...Bambi got stepped on by Godzilla years later.
aburttschell,

Drs. Gabriele Hergerl and Thomas Crowley (et al) have published a paper in the Journal of Climate that directly answers your question.  I encourage you to set aside a couple quiet hours to read and understand this paper.



Quoting aburttschell:


If that is the case how can you not infer that the earths climate is a cycle and not as a result of man-made influences?

Quoting aburttschell:


If that is the case how can you not infer that the earths climate is a cycle and not as a result of man-made influences?


No climate scientist ever claimed that the Earth does not have climate cycles, nor any AGW proponent who understands the science.

Man-made influences are affecting our CURRENT climate. Not just with global warming, but with other problems as well. Global warming just happens to be the biggest issue at the moment. Back in the '80's it was acid rain and the ozone hole.
Quoting Levi32:


What you just described is the complete opposite of the IPCC climate projections, which anticipate a strengthening of the low-level polar vortex as times goes on, which would warm the continents and much of the arctic.

However, over the last 20 years, the sea-level pressure over the arctic has been trending upward, which is a typical pattern that, when fully developed (we appear to currently be in a transition), tends to build snow pack in the northern hemisphere.


University of Illinois IPCC Arctic GCM Scenarios

Arctic Oscillation since 1950 (low index means high pressure over the arctic)


Climate Prediction Center


Well the low-level polar vortex(s) may increase, but it won't be located in it's usual region (It will move rapidly back and forth like what has been happening recently). I would imagine that these anti-cyclones force cooler air to sink to the surface, although at the same time the air pushing northward would displace the cooler air to the south (over one of either main continents). The first image below is prior to the current outbreak of cold air. Outside of these two images, the air mass was either over Russia or northern Canada.



Glenn Becks been busy with aim points and chain saw's as of late, RUSH has been speaking Chinese and other tongues as well.

Its a Sign of the end days approaching.

693 Days, 11 hours, 10 min till the 2012 Winter Solstice.


Quoting Xyrus2000:


No climate scientist ever claimed that the Earth does not have climate cycles, nor any AGW proponent who understands the science.

Man-made influences are affecting our CURRENT climate. Not just with global warming, but with other problems as well. Global warming just happens to be the biggest issue at the moment. Back in the '80's it was acid rain and the ozone hole.


whatever happened to that ozone hole that we supposedly created. I don't remember man ever refilling it with new ozone. God must have done it, huh?
693 Days, 11 hours, 10 min till the 2012 Winter Solstice.

That's plenty of time to switch to the Yuan!





California Winter Storms, Flooding, and Debris and Mud Flows

Major Disaster Declared January 26, 2011 (DR-1952) [ En Español ]



News Releases

* Jan 26, 2011: Federal Aid Programs For State Of California Disaster Recovery New


* Jan 26, 2011: President Declares Major Disaster For California New
Surf,

I can take time out of my busy day help you research an answer to this question, but you're just trolling aren't you?  I'm learning...

Quoting Surfcropper:


whatever happened to that ozone hole that we supposedly created. I don't remember man ever refilling it with new ozone. God must have done it, huh?

Area Forecast Discussion, NWS Ft Worth, TX issued at 4:11 AM CST:

THIS SYSTEM IS STILL 5
TO 6 DAYS OUT BUT WE ARE GAINING SOME CONFIDENCE SOME TYPE OF
WINTER PRECIPITATION WILL OCCUR LATE MONDAY NIGHT AND TUESDAY.

TEMPERATURE PROFILES STILL DIFFER BETWEEN THE MODELS SO WILL A
MENTION A CHANCE OF LIGHT RAIN OR LIGHT SNOW ACROSS ABOUT THE
NORTHWEST HALF OF NORTH TEXAS. IT IS MUCH TO EARLY TO TAKE A STAB
AT ACCUMULATIONS OR IMPACTS...ESPECIALLY SINCE TEMPERATURES
LEADING UP TO THE EVENT WILL BE WELL ABOVE NORMAL. MUCH COLDER
AND DRIER AIR WILL FILTER INTO NORTH TEXAS TUESDAY NIGHT AS THE
UPPER TROUGH AXIS MOVES EAST AND SURFACE HIGH PRESSURE SETTLES
OVER THE REGION. THEREFORE...WILL NOT KEEP ANY PRECIPITATION IN
THE FORECAST TUESDAY NIGHT.
Another possible factor in the recent Northeast storms is the warmth in the Gulf Stream: the extra heat left in the Caribbean during late fall feeds into the Gulf Stream when the cold air cools the oceans over the Gulf and NW Carib, then the cold air flooding over the North Atlantic plus a general long-term slowing of the Gulf Stream provides a sharp temperature contrast that allows warm eddies in the Gulf Stream to directly add this extra heat to strengthening storms. Given the numerous cold Arctic air blasts over the continent, this adds further to the temperature gradient and often allows for rapid deepening of the storm. However, the recent storms have been cooling the main Gulf Stream area and left the warm anomalies positioned north of Newfoundland and West of Greenland until those areas begin to freeze.

Free at last . . .

Quoting aburttschell:
Really! Record snowfall caused by global warming? Why can't anyone see that this is a ridiculous theory? Snow, blamed on global warming, cold blamed on global warming, rain blamed on global warming, drought blamed on global warming. Maybe we should re-evaluate our data. Perhaps we should question why 62% of the weather stations were removed since the 1960's which had the coldest average temperatures. And even if the globe is warming, why should we fear this. Do you not understand that plants and organisms thrive in warmer temperature? Just over the last two years our food prices have gone up due to longer winters and wet weather. We should fear cooling, not warming. We already know that the predictions of global warming are overstated, yet we still fall in line with the media and grant driven scientists. Should we protect our environment, YES; but should we have government restrictions and fees that cripple business creation and growth based on a theory that our world is warming out of control, No. More excuses are being made for the AGW theory, and its becoming more obvious to more people, including over 30,000 scientists, that this theory is heavily flawed. We should scratch everything that we think we know and start over. Take into account more variables including sun cycles and develop a consensus that actually makes sense.


I hate to inform you of this, but your post was caused by global warming. It's science, you can't argue with it.
Quoting NEwxguy:


Bring it on,now that all these storms have me in a rythm,I'm ready for anything these nor'easters can deliver.
But on a more serious note,can you imagine what the flooding is going to be like if we get some heavy rains or abnormal warmup?
I have been doing some research on potent winter systems. If this pattern were to continue, it is possible we could have a very dangerous and deadly winter storm before this winter is over. I am the furthest thing from a doom-caster, but it could be real threat to areas that have already been hit hard this year. Here on the Cumberland Plateau, we are already way ahead of schedule in the snowfall department and dont need anymore.
Quoting MrMixon:
Surf,

I can take time out of my busy day help you research an answer to this question, but you're just trolling aren't you?  I'm learning...




Seriously, how long did it take for that hole to close up? We switched to nonaresol bugspray and in a few years it was gone, right? Problem solved.

By that logic, if we stopped buring oil and coal for a few years, we'll never ever, ever see ice melt, glaciers recede, cat 4 and 5 hurricanes, record heat waves, record snowfall, record anything again? right?

Quoting sfranz:
Free at last . . .


Wow!! Where is this? Oh man.
Interesting reading from desmogblog!

Climategate: An Autopsy - How did emails stolen from climate scientists snowball into a global news story in less than 48 hours? - Link

If we can use 'maybe', and 'perhaps' in our arguments, then I'll go with the ancient aliens and manbearpig. It's refreshing to know we don't need scientific research anymore.
No snow in Houston. the cold weather this year has gone mostly to the east of us.
Central Massachusetts, near the Rhode Island border.
Quoting HOOTat:
If we can use 'maybe', and 'perhaps' in our arguments, then I'll go with the ancient aliens and manbearpig. It's refreshing to know we don't need scientific research anymore.
No snow in Houston. the cold weather this year has gone mostly to the east of us.

Tell me about it. Going with ManBearPig is sounding pretty good.
Quoting smartinwx:


I hate to inform you of this, but your post was caused by global warming. It's science, you can't argue with it.


Thanks, I'm beginning to see that now!
Quoting sfranz:
Central Massachusetts, near the Rhode Island border.

That is insane. Hope you have some hot chocolate or perhaps coffee and Bailey's Irish Cream to warm up to.
91. HOOTat 11:12 AM PST on January 27, 2011

If we can use 'maybe', and 'perhaps' in our arguments, then I'll go with the ancient aliens and manbearpig.


works for me....

Extra fuzzy slippers at the ready. Had a nice chat with the neighbors this morning about going in on a Florida beach house. :-)
Just a little bit of daily humor is good for the mind !
Quoting HOOTat:
If we can use 'maybe', and 'perhaps' in our arguments, then I'll go with the ancient aliens and manbearpig. It's refreshing to know we don't need scientific research anymore.
No snow in Houston. the cold weather this year has gone mostly to the east of us.


maybe and perhaps are words that influence thought, ideas, arguments and solutions. Maybe there will be a 12.0 earthquake on Earth in the future. Perhaps there have been many before prior to 3000 B.C. There is a volcano in Java that grows 12 feet in height per year. Maybe I won't build my house on its shore.
93. cat5hurricane 11:15 AM PST on January 27, 2011

Quoting HOOTat:
If we can use 'maybe', and 'perhaps' in our arguments, then I'll go with the ancient aliens and manbearpig. It's refreshing to know we don't need scientific research anymore.
No snow in Houston. the cold weather this year has gone mostly to the east of us.

Tell me about it. Going with ManBearPig is sounding pretty good.


it just makes good sense.....

:)
Quoting sfranz:

Extra fuzzy slippers at the ready. Had a nice chat with the neighbors this morning about going in on a Florida beach house. :-)

Well, I have a feeling that won't take too long to decide ;)
Wrong.  First, the ozone layer has NOT yet recovered from the damage we did with CFCs and you could've figured that out with a 15 second internet search.  Ozone recovery is expected to take many decades .

Second, nobody (besides you) has EVER suggested that the recovery of the ozone layer would be expected to occur on the same time scale as recovery from anthropogenic climate change.

You're being flip and argumentative without taking the time to put together a cohesive argument and it shows.

I challenge you to do better - you're worth it.

 
Quoting Surfcropper:


Seriously, how long did it take for that hole to close up? We switched to nonaresol bugspray and in a few years it was gone, right? Problem solved.

By that logic, if we stopped buring oil and coal for a few years, we'll never ever, ever see ice melt, glaciers recede, cat 4 and 5 hurricanes, record heat waves, record snowfall, record anything again? right?


Quoting sfranz:

Extra fuzzy slippers at the ready. Had a nice chat with the neighbors this morning about going in on a Florida beach house. :-)


Florida oceanfront is at its lowest prices EVER
NEXRAD Radar
Caribou, Base Reflectivity 0.50 Degree Elevation Range 248 NMI





Wrong. First, the ozone layer has NOT yet recovered from the damage we did with CFCs

but I heard that the hole was gone, that it closed back up.... seriously, is that not true?
Maybe try the Green Tea..

They say it soothes.
Quoting Surfcropper:


whatever happened to that ozone hole that we supposedly created. I don't remember man ever refilling it with new ozone. God must have done it, huh?


It is still there......

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Supplimental review also from a site not liked by some :)

New rate of stratospheric photolysis questions ozone hole



Quoting MrMixon:
Wrong.%uFFFD First, the ozone layer has NOT yet recovered from the damage we did with CFCs and you could've figured that out with a 15 second internet search.%uFFFD Ozone recovery is expected to take many decades .

Second, nobody (besides you) has EVER suggested that the recovery of the ozone layer would be expected to occur on the same time scale as recovery from anthropogenic climate change.

You're being flip and argumentative without taking the time to put together a cohesive argument and it shows.

I challenge you to do better - you're worth it.
<>BR

Sir, with all due respect, You're being flip and argumentative without taking the time to put together a cohesive argument and it shows., is exactly how I feel about individuals who blindly and arrogantly follow the AGW theory. The North American natives demonstrated in their sculpture that the Sun was the center of our solar sysstem. It took the educated and civilized west thousands of years to adopt this fact. Our human brains are just as evolved as they were 2-3 thousand years ago. Politics and punishment of argument hinder the truth.

Ozone Hole recovery



About 73,500 results (0.14 seconds)



NASA Observations Confirm Expected Ozone Layer Recovery

NASA satellite observations have provided the first evidence the rate of ozone depletion in the Earth's upper atmosphere is decreasing. This may indicate the first stage of ozone layer recovery.

From an analysis of ozone observations from NASA's first and second Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) and the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) satellite instruments, scientists have found less ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere (22-28 miles altitude) after 1997. The American Geophysical Union Journal of Geophysical Research has accepted a paper for publication on these results.

This decrease in the rate of ozone depletion is consistent with the decline in the atmospheric abundance of man-made chorine and bromine-containing chemicals that have been documented by satellite, balloon, aircraft and ground based measurements.

Concerns about ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere led to ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer by the international community in 1987. The protocol restricts the manufacture and use of human-made, ozone-depleting compounds, such as chlorofluorocarbons and halons.

"Ozone is still decreasing but just not as fast," said Mike Newchurch, associate professor at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Ala., and lead scientist on the study. "We are still decades away from total ozone recovery. There are a number of remaining uncertainties such as the effect of climate change on ozone recovery. Hence, there is a need to continue this precise long-term ozone data record," he said.

"This finding would have been impossible had either SAGE II or HALOE not lasted so long past their normal mission lifetime," said Joe Zawodny, scientist on the SAGE II satellite instrument science team at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.

SAGE II is approaching the 19th anniversary of its launch, and HALOE has been returning data for 11 years. Scientists also used international ground networks to confirm these data from satellite results.

SAGE I was launched on the Applications Explorer Mission-B spacecraft in 1979; the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite carried SAGE II into orbit in 1984. The Space Shuttle Discovery carried HALOE into space on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite in 1991.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research in an effort to better understand and protect our home planet. The ozone layer protects the Earth's surface from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Ultraviolet radiation can contribute to skin cancer and cataracts in humans and harm other animals and plants. Ozone depletion in the stratosphere also causes the ozone hole that occurs each spring over Antarctica.

For information about NASA on the Internet, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov
Quoting Patrap:
Maybe try the Green Tea..

They say it soothes.


As a southerner Pat, I must have strong dark sweet tea.....green tea too weak...lol
Make mine coffee. Strong.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


That's your authoritative source? Really?

Is it too much to ask to have a peer reviewed article cited? Or even just CORRECTLY interpreting information would be a huge start.

The author of that travesty is either being dishonest or ignorant. He doesn't appear to understand the difference between exponential and linear growth. That very simple mathematical flaw destroys his whole case before it even gets off the ground.

Then he goes on to claim that we are only producing 500 megatons of CO2 per year. He basically just made that up to be polite about it. That's off by several orders of magnitude. As of 2008 human CO2 production is estimated to be 31.6 GIGATONS. Or to make it plainer, he was claiming we are producing 500 million metric tons of CO2 when we are actually producing 31.6 BILLION metric tons of CO2

The least you could have done is pointed to someone who correctly cites their sources. I mean, even wikipedia does that.

For this and other REAL facts about CO2 in our atmosphere, you can read about it from the wiki and then follow the citations to various research articles. Link


Well not so fast.

Based on accumulative global emissions, we released 261282 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1958 and 2007.

Based on Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, annual average CO2 concentrations increased by 68.35ppm between 1958 and 2007. That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.

Divide 261282*10^6 by 3.96*10^14 and you get 0.0006598, or 0.066%. That's 0.066% of all CO2 increase since 1958 that can be attributed to human emissions.
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


As a southerner Pat, I must have strong dark sweet tea.....green tea too weak...lol


Sun Tea on the Porch in a Large Jug.

Spring cant come fast nuf,,as Mardi Gras.
I like that chicory coffee. Good and strong.
You are right to be frustrated when somebody blindly believes something without taking the time to research it for themselves.  But you're a blatant hypocrite if you can't admit that you did that VERY THING on this ozone layer topic.  That is, unless you have data to dispute what I've said.  I'm open-minded, so please, enlighten me as to how you know that the ozone layer has completely recovered.

Quoting Surfcropper:


Politics and punishment of argument hinder the truth.

Quoting Patrap:


Sun Tea on the Porch in a Large Jug.

Spring cant come fast nuf,,as Mardi Gras.


Now thats what I'm talking about.....


Wow. Bianca today is hammering Western Australia, and is soon to affect the area hit in December by the Gascoyne River flood.



The storm's remnants are forecast to track directly across Perth, and the last time that a TS-strength storm came close to hitting Perth was Fifi in 1991.
The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’

By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: January 25, 2010




That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming.

It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual clouds that shielded the Antarctic region from the warming induced by greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, scientists write in Wednesday’s issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

“The recovery of the hole will reverse that,” said Ken Carslaw, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the paper. “Essentially, it will accelerate warming in certain parts of the Southern Hemisphere.”

The hole in the layer, discovered above Antarctica in the mid-1980s, caused wide alarm because ozone plays a crucial role in protecting life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

The hole was largely attributed to the human use of chlorofluorocarbons, chemical compounds found in refrigerants and aerosol cans that dissipate ozone. Under an international protocol adopted in 1987, many countries phased out the compounds, helping the ozone to start reconstituting itself over the Antarctic.

For their research, the authors of the new study relied on meteorological data recorded between 1980 and 2000, including global wind speeds recorded by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

The data show that the hole in the ozone layer generated high-speed winds that caused sea salt to be swept up into the atmosphere to form moist clouds. The clouds reflect more of the sun’s powerful rays and help fend off warming in the Antarctic atmosphere, the scientists write.

The sea spray influx resulted in an increase in cloud droplet concentration of about 46 percent in some regions of the Southern Hemisphere, Dr. Carslaw said.

But Judith Perlwitz, a University of Colorado professor and a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that although the paper’s data were sound, she questioned the conclusions.

Even as the ozone layer recovers, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to expand, she said. She predicted that the rise in temperatures would cause wind speeds to increase over time and have the same cloud-forming effect that the ozone hole now has.

“The question is whether the wind is really going to slow down, and that I doubt,” she said.

“The future is not just determined by the recovery of the ozone hole,” she said. “We’re also increasing our use of greenhouse gases, which increases the speed of the winds all year long.”

Dr. Perlwitz also pointed out that the ozone hole was not expected to fully recover to pre-1980 levels until at least 2060, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s most recent report on the issue.

More Articles in Science » A version of this article appeared in print on January 26, 2010, on page A7 of the New York edition.
Quoting MrMixon:
You are right to be frustrated when somebody blindly believes something without taking the time to research it for themselves.  But you're a blatant hypocrite if you can't admit that you did that VERY THING on this ozone layer topic.  That is, unless you have data to dispute what I've said.  I'm open-minded, so please, enlighten me as to how you know that the ozone layer has completely recovered.




I debate that the "ozone hole" that was noticed then and now is caused by anything other than Earth's "Intended Ozone Way".

I'll also go as far to say that the ozone scare of the 80's lead to the global warming panic of today and presently how its all being advertised and funded today.
I blame all the "hair bands" of the 80's for the hole in the ozone.... Brett Michaels needs to stop dating skanks on TV and start coughing up some cash for all the damage he and his cans of hair spray did....
Quoting NRAamy:
I blame all the "hair bands" of the 80's for the hole in the ozone.... Brett Michaels needs to stop dating skanks on TV and start coughing up some cash for all the damage he and his cans of hair spray did....


I'd venture to say Bret Michaels uses a lot less hairspray today. But his bandana laundry footprint is probably just as harmful to the environment as his high 'C' screams.
Jan 25 2011 8:36 AM EST 8,534
Bret Michaels' Heart Surgery Successful
Poison frontman is recuperating in ICU after surgery to fix hole in his heart.

By Gil Kaufman




Poison singer and reality-TV star Bret Michaels had successful surgery on Monday to repair a hole in his heart.

It was some good medical news after several years of health scares for the 47-year-old "Celebrity Apprentice" winner. According to the Associated Press, the surgery took place at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, and a hospital spokeswoman said Michaels is recuperating and remains in the facility's intensive care unit for observation.

Doctors discovered a hole in Michaels' heart in April 2010 after he was treated for a brain hemorrhage. During Monday's procedure, doctors inserted a catheter into a vein in Michaels' groin with a surgical device and then used tiny cameras to aid them in implanting a closure device. The device will stay inside the rocker permanently to stop abnormal blood flow between two chambers of his heart, which doctors think could have caused his hemorrhage last year.

The impending surgery didn't slow Michaels down over the weekend, when he attended a classic car show in Phoenix and auctioned off his 1969 Camaro — which had a cameo in his recent VH1 series, "Bret Michaels: Life as I Know It" — for more than $200,000, before checking into the hospital on Saturday night to prepare for the procedure.

"Barring any complications, I should be out within three or four days," he told The Arizona Republic newspaper on Friday. "Then, I will be down (resting) for three weeks. I don't know if I can sit around for that long, but I'll try my best."

Michaels, who also had an emergency appendectomy in April, recently proposed to his girlfriend of 16 years, Kristi Gibson, who is also the mother of his two children.
lol Patrap is so great at spot news to the related conversation...

just had to say its entertaining
I guess fixing the hole in his heart was a little more important than fixing the hole in the ozone.... he gets a pass....
but David Coverdale does not....
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Well, I have a feeling that won't take too long to decide ;)



I'm fairly glad this precip is coming frozen. The spring melt may be a bit exciting thie year, though.
Quoting Surfcropper:


I debate that the "ozone hole" that was noticed then and now is caused by anything other than Earth's "Intended Ozone Way".

I'll also go as far to say that the ozone scare of the 80's lead to the global warming panic of today and presently how its all being advertised and funded today.

Its all a conspiracy!

Where's my tin foil hat?
Quoting Surfcropper:


whatever happened to that ozone hole that we supposedly created. I don't remember man ever refilling it with new ozone. God must have done it, huh?


The hole is still there. It's better than it was but still there. It's just not getting any worse thanks to the global effort to curb CFCs.
Good time to propose, before child #3.
Quoting NRAamy:
I guess fixing the hole in his heart was a little more important than fixing the hole in the ozone.... he gets a pass....

I could live with that.

But the others...Sabastian Bach, Axle Rose, etc. Time to pay the piper.
Well, thanks for at least confirming that you're a troll who has no honest intention to foster a proper debate.  You almost had me going for a while, but that's because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I'll leave you to do your thing...


Quoting Surfcropper:


I debate that the "ozone hole" that was noticed then and now is caused by anything other than Earth's "Intended Ozone Way".

I'll also go as far to say that the ozone scare of the 80's lead to the global warming panic of today and presently how its all being advertised and funded today.

Quoting sfranz:



I'm fairly glad this precip is coming frozen. The spring melt may be a bit exciting thie year, though.

Yeah, no joke. I'm sure hoping your spring isn't above average for precip and temperature with all the thawing and runoff already going to be taking place.
Tourists watch as the 70 meters (220 feet) front wall of the glacier Perito Moreno breaks down Sunday, March 14, 2003 for the first time in 16 years in Lago Argentino, some 3,200 kilometers, (2,000 miles) southwest of Buenos Aires, Argentina.


I debate that the "ozone hole" that was noticed then and now is caused by anything other than Earth's "Intended Ozone Way".

I'll also go as far to say that the ozone scare of the 80's lead to the global warming panic of today and presently how its all being advertised and funded today.



How is that a trollish statement? Trolls stalk people and try to disrupt normal debates..... how does this apply?
Quoting Levi32:


Well not so fast.

Based on accumulative global emissions, we released 261282 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1958 and 2007.

Based on Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, annual average CO2 concentrations increased by 68.35ppm between 1958 and 2007. That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.

Divide 261282*10^6 by 3.96*10^14 and you get 0.0006598, or 0.066%. That's 0.066% of all CO2 increase since 1958 that can be attributed to human emissions.


It is interesting to see someone at least try to verify some of this data. Just in the name of accuracy though, I think the first number (261282 million metric tons) is for carbon only, not CO₂. The second link is for CO₂. Just off the top of my head, I would guess this would roughly triple the estimate for the human contribution. If you're calculations are correct, this would still be a small figure.

Seems odd to be that small though. Are you sure these figures are correct?

Added: I assume the links you gave are accurate enough, but I was wondering where the 3.96x10₁₄ million metric ton figure comes from.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


The hole is still there. It's better than it was but still there. It's just not getting any worse thanks to the global effort to curb CFCs.


How do you know its not getting any worse? The reduction of chlorinated fluorocarbons can be attributed to a deduction of ozone depletion. But warmer temperatures and erratic dynamic weather patterns can also have an effect on ozone depletion. That's why the arctic region (North Pole) has less of an extreme example of ozone depletion than the antarctic (South Pole).

Perhaps global warming is good for the ozonbe levels of the planet. In the grand scheme of things, man may be slowing down his extiction by altering the climate in a warmer fashion.
Robert Plant and the Band o Joy are performing opening day Jazz Fest.,New Orleans. April 29th


lineup.nojazzfest.com
Quoting sirmaelstrom:


It is interesting to see someone at least try to verify some of this data. Just in name of accuracy, I think the first number (261282 million metric tons) is for carbon only, not CO%u2082. The second link is for CO%u2082. Just off the top of my head, I would guess this would roughly triple the estimate for the human contribution. If you're calculations are correct, this would still be a small figure.

Seems odd to be that small though. Are you sure these figures are correct?


Yeah I was thinking about "carbon" mentioned on that data table, but the CDIAC calls it CO2:



And yes, those figures are correct. You can do them yourself fairly easily if you look up the average mass of the Earth's atmosphere.

Quoting Levi32:


Well not so fast.

Based on accumulative global emissions, we released 261282 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1958 and 2007.

Based on Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, annual average CO2 concentrations increased by 68.35ppm between 1958 and 2007. That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.

Divide 261282*10^6 by 3.96*10^14 and you get 0.0006598, or 0.066%. That's 0.066% of all CO2 increase since 1958 that can be attributed to human emissions.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA Link

The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.Link
Quoting Levi32:

Based on Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, annual average CO2 concentrations increased by 68.35ppm between 1958 and 2007. That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.


Epic unit fail. I think you confused kg with metric tons.
Quoting Levi32:


Well not so fast.

Based on accumulative global emissions, we released 261282 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1958 and 2007.

Based on Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, annual average CO2 concentrations increased by 68.35ppm between 1958 and 2007. That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.

Divide 261282*10^6 by 3.96*10^14 and you get 0.0006598, or 0.066%. That's 0.066% of all CO2 increase since 1958 that can be attributed to human emissions.
Quoting sirmaelstrom:


It is interesting to see someone at least try to verify some of this data. Just in name of accuracy, I think the first number (261282 million metric tons) is for carbon only, not CO%u2082. The second link is for CO%u2082. Just off the top of my head, I would guess this would roughly triple the estimate for the human contribution. If you're calculations are correct, this would still be a small figure.

Seems odd to be that small though. Are you sure these figures are correct?


I believe you have miscalculated this figure. Let's see, assuming your data but not your calculations are correct:

261,262 x 10^6 metric tonnes is equivalent to 2.61282 x 10^11 metric tonnes of CO2.

Now, to calculate the atmospheric increase in metric tonnes:

The increase in ppmv is roughly 70 ppm. However, we need the ppm by mass. The atmosphere is roughly 78% N2 and 21% O2. So, to simplify, let's assume that the average molar mass of one atmospheric molecule is 29 g/mol. CO2, meanwhile, has a molar mass of about 44 g/mol. So, the ppmm, or parts-per-million by mass concentration of CO2 increase since your prescribed period is very roughly 105 ppmm.

The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is, according to this, close to 5.15 x 10^15 metric tonnes. So, to find the total mass increase of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere in that time, we multiply 105 x 10^-6 (for parts/million) by 5.15 x 10^15. The result is approximately 5.2 x 10^11 for the increase in mass of atmospheric CO2.

So, we take that earlier figure, and divide it by the other figure we got. 2.6 x 10^11/5.2 x 10^11 = 2. That means a full 50% of the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was added there by anthropogenic emissions, but that's ignoring all the carbon sources and sinks in our biosphere, which can be easily augmented by increases in temperature.

Granted, if the first number was indeed for carbon instead of CO2, then that's a problem because it means that close to 150% of the CO2 increase was anthropogenic. However, if that is the case, then it's possible due to the ocean sink absorbing most of our CO2 we've added into the atmosphere. Plankton concentrations have declined by 40% in the past 60 years, which means we could be losing a significant portion of our most vital carbon sink, while the land-based carbon sinks are already starting to add carbon into the atmosphere.

Calculation errors are notoriously common in the field of CO2 concentrations, especially on the order of tens or hundreds. Joe Bastardi, for example, mentally calculated the CO2 concentration to be "the width of a hair on a kilometre bridge". This is obviously off by at least 100 times, so calculate that for yourself and see that the correct analysis would be more like "40 cm on a one-kilometre bridge".

I did not use a calculator for my CO2 anthropogenic percentage calculations. Should anybody catch an obvious error, feel free to correct it.
.
Quoting Xandra:

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA Link

The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.Link


Ok, so for the sake of argument let's assume that since 1958 the world has been emitting 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (which is not true, since it would get smaller with each year we go into the past). That gives us 1.47*10^12 tonnes emitted by humans between 1958 and 2007. That is still only 0.37% of the total increase in CO2 concentration since 1958.
Quoting hendric:


Epic unit fail. I think you confused kg with metric tons.


1000kg = metric ton.
Quoting hendric:


Epic unit fail. I think you confused kg with metric tons.


Hold on though....after double-checking Wiki it may have given me the wrong unit for atmospheric mass, in which case my calculations will be off.
Quoting Levi32:


Hold on though....after double-checking Wiki it may have given me the wrong unit for atmospheric mass, in which case my calculations will be off.


Yeah. So I'll have to apologize for this one. I was off by 3 orders of magnitude, which would make human contributions about 66% of the increase since 1958.
Quoting Levi32:


1000kg = metric ton.


Really? Ok then, here you go

Quoting Levi32:


That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.


No it isn't, seeing as the WHOLE ATMOSPHERE only weighs 5.1480×10^15 metric tons.

Please, check you units. -10 points.
Quoting hendric:


Really? Ok then, here you go



No it isn't, seeing as the WHOLE ATMOSPHERE only weighs 5.1480×10^15 metric tons.

Please, check you units. -10 points.


Note my above post.
Quoting Levi32:


Yeah. So I'll have to apologize for this one. I was off by 3 orders of magnitude, which would make human contributions about 66% of the increase since 1958.


You're still wrong. The source you chose for CO2 emissions is only fossil fuels, not land use changes. Says so right in the header


***********************************************************
*** Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, ***
*** Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2007 ***
*** ***


So fossil fuels alone account for 66%, just as everyone else has been saying. The rest is due to land use changes and natural variations.
Quoting hendric:


You're still wrong. The source you chose for CO2 emissions is only fossil fuels, not land use changes. Says so right in the header


***********************************************************
*** Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, ***
*** Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2007 ***
*** ***


So fossil fuels alone account for 66%, just as everyone else has been saying. The rest is due to land use changes and natural variations.


I think I was talking about emissions, not land use.
Lots of math today. I have been working backwards through this to verify the numbers, but am having some difficulty with the water vapor. I thought some might like to have some fun with it also. This is the stuff conference calls are made for :)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Quoting Levi32:


Yeah. So I'll have to apologize for this one. I was off by 3 orders of magnitude, which would make human contributions about 66% of the increase since 1958.


I applaud the effort regardless. All information should be verified for accuracy and not merely accepted as fact.
Quoting Levi32:


I think I was talking about emissions, not land use.


take a short break Levi.. go and look at #451 in my blog... it will help your day :)

Sometimes this Blog has the same effect on me :)
Quoting Levi32:


Well not so fast.

Based on accumulative global emissions, we released 261282 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1958 and 2007.

Based on Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, annual average CO2 concentrations increased by 68.35ppm between 1958 and 2007. That's an increase of approximately 3.96*10^14 metric tons.

Divide 261282*10^6 by 3.96*10^14 and you get 0.0006598, or 0.066%. That's 0.066% of all CO2 increase since 1958 that can be attributed to human emissions.


The one error in your argument is where you convert ppm to gigatons. I'm not sure where you got the estimate, but it doesn't appear to be the one typically used for mass to ppm conversions. Your conversion factor is off by a few orders of magnitude.

According to this, there is approximately 2,130,000,000 metric tons of CO2 per 1 part per million, or approximately 2.1 metric gigatons of CO2 per ppm.

Using the data you provided, we've put out approximately 261 metric gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But wait, wouldn't that yield an increase of 124 ppm instead of 68 ppm? Yes, if all that CO2 were going into the atmosphere. But it isn't. The natural CO2 sinks (like the ocean) take in about 50% of all emissions though there is evidence that some of the sinks are becoming saturated.

So with that 50% gone and all the other estimates, you get a very rough number of a 62 ppm increase based on human activities, which is pretty close.

For more details on carbon emissions and how much we've contributed, the IPCC report goes into quite a bit of detail and explains it a lot more thoroughly than I can. For the isotopic research into emission source you can view an in very depth research paper here: Link

--EDIT
Serves me right for wandering and then later completing a post. I see others already beat me to it.

And that is why I let experts handle things where peoples lives are involved. And I dont run around screaming conspiracy at a consensus unless I was extremely sure and had everything studied and lined up in a row.
New Mercury Report

A article in USA Today links to a new report on Mercury by an environmental group about contamination in the US. In both a recent EPA study is quoted as advising one in six US women of childbearing age has a high enough mercury content in her blood to place her baby at risk from effects including developmental disorders, learning disabilities, and lower IQ.

To add to this climate change is now connected to a direct increase in mercury concentrations in arctic waters, in addition to the contributions of power generation stations:

Methylmercury photodegradation influenced by sea-ice cover in Arctic marine ecosystems
Nature Geoscience Year published: (2011)

Atmospheric deposition of mercury to remote areas has increased threefold since pre-industrial times. Mercury deposition is particularly pronounced in the Arctic. Following deposition to surface oceans and sea ice, mercury can be converted into methylmercury, a biologically accessible form of the toxin, which biomagnifies along the marine food chain.

We conclude that sea-ice cover impedes the photochemical breakdown of methylmercury in surface waters, and suggest that further loss of Arctic sea ice this century will accelerate sunlight-induced breakdown of methylmercury in northern surface waters.


As a reminder : All freshwater fish in the United States that have been tested recently have been found to be contaminated with mercury.

In addition some salt water fish sold at US markets has recently been found to have mercury levels that could be considered unsafe:

Undercover Fish Testing Reveals Mercury at Three Times Federal Limits
January 18, 2011
Here's an interesting article about what is happening in the Arctic while at the same time all of that snow and cold is hitting the U.S. (and a lot of people claiming that it is because of global cooling):

Cold Jumps Arctic "Fence", Stoking Winter's Fury

Judging by the weather, the world seems to have flipped upside down.

For two winters running, an Arctic chill has descended on Europe, burying that continent in snow and ice. Last year in the United States, historic blizzards afflicted the mid-Atlantic region. This winter the Deep South has endured unusual snowstorms and severe cold, and a frigid Northeast is bracing for what could shape into another major snowstorm this week.

Yet while people in Atlanta learn to shovel snow, the weather 2,000 miles to the north has been freakishly warm the past two winters. Throughout northeastern Canada and Greenland, temperatures in December ran as much as 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. Bays and lakes have been slow to freeze; ice fishing, hunting and trade routes have been disrupted.

Iqaluit, the capital of the remote Canadian territory of Nunavut, had to cancel its New Year's snowmobile parade. David Ell, the deputy mayor, said that people in the region had been looking with envy at snowbound American and European cities. %u201CPeople are saying, "That's where all our snow is going!", he said.

The immediate cause of the topsy-turvy weather is clear enough. A pattern of atmospheric circulation that tends to keep frigid air penned in the Arctic has weakened during the last two winters, allowing big tongues of cold air to descend far to the south, while masses of warmer air have moved north.



Also (note that the above article has a typo, they say 15-20 degrees Fahrenheit - when it should be Celsius - which is a big difference since anomalies in C = F x 1.8):

Canada sees staggering mildness as planet's high-pressure record is "obliterated"



The largest anomalies here exceed 21°C (37.8°F) above average, which are very large values to be sustained for an entire month.

Farther west, a separate monster high developed over Alaska last week. According to Richard Thoman (National Weather Service, Fairbanks), the 500-mb height over both Nome and Kotzebue rose to 582 decameters (5.82 km). That%u2019s not only a January record: those are the highest values ever observed at those points outside of June, July, and August.

Well, recently the atmosphere outdid itself. At the peak of the pattern which begat the wild weather in Europe and the U.S., the biggest departure from average pressure aloft in the database (which goes back to 1948) anywhere on the planet occurred over Greenland on December 15. Then the next day that record was smashed. And the previous record for December at this level, a few miles above the Earth's surface, was completely obliterated.





While Hudson Bay has since frozen over, ending that incredible heat wave (the most intense in history if the 500 mb heights and 30 day temperature anomalies were any indication), the rest of the Arctic is still far below normal (surprisingly, Hudson Bay had about 50% of the ice area anomaly late last month - yet the anomaly hasn't decreased with its freeze-up and has even increased a bit):

While we're talking about snowfall, it's worth mentioning that snow cover is also projected to decrease along with sea ice as the globe warms.

Looking at northern hemisphere data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, we see that there has been a decrease since 1966 when records began. However, the majority of this decrease came in the form of a step-down in average snow cover that occurred between 1987 and 1989. This could possibly be the lagged effect of the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1977, transporting heat to the high latitudes where snow falls most often. The snow cover trend has been pretty flat since 1990 after the step down, and if a similar lag occurs with the ocean cycles this time around, we may be in for a step back up this decade. Or, if AGW is true, snow cover will decrease. So far, it hasn't decreased since 1990, and the polynomial trend captures this well.

Iqaluit, the capital of the remote Canadian territory of Nunavut, had to cancel its New Year’s snowmobile parade

Awwwww..

:(

BTW : Congrats to Christopher Burt and WU for being referenced in that article.
Interesting... negative for a second consecutive day:

Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
Date: 27 January 2011
Average SOI for last 30 days: 18.7
Average SOI for last 90 days: 20.2
Daily contribution to SOI calculation: -0.6


The 30 day average (official SOI) is going to be crashing very fast...



Of course, that also means that "global cooling" (aka La Nina) won't last as long as the deniers hope - not that they understand what actually happens in the first place and why it can't actually cause overall cooling (i.e. not just the surface).

As can be seen here (bottom left), the trade winds are also the weakest since last April:



Plus, isotherm depth/heat content (right side) is higher than it was in early 2009 in the West Pacific.

Heck, Hansen may just be right about 2012 (which would require that an El Nino develop later this year)! And he has been right for the past 30 years (of course, long-term climate predictions aren't the same as weather, including ENSO):



That is why I would trust what he says over any of the denialists anytime (you could say he was wrong because it warmed more than expected - but GHG emissions also rose faster than expected).
we see that there has been a decrease since 1966 when records began.

Wow, they started keeping records in 1966? Is this just Rutgers or the whole shebang in snowfall recording? In 1966 the Green Bay Packers won the Super Bowl, the first year super bowl records were recorded..because it was the first super bowl.

Was 1966 the marking of the very first Snow Lab? Snow Lab and Super Bowl could unite to form the very first Super Snow Lab Bowl...a game forcing two college teams to play the game in 3 to 4 feet of snow...wild idea.
162. MichaelSTL 12:58 PM AKST on January 27, 2011

"of course, long-term climate predictions aren't the same as weather, including ENSO"

This statement is a testament to how grossly warped climate science has become. "Weather" refers to all meteorological events that occur in the troposphere. This includes the long-term trends that we call the climate. There is no separation except for the forecast time scale between "climate" forecasts and short-term "weather" forecasts.
Snow Lab and Super Bowl could unite to form the very first Super Snow Lab Bowl...a game forcing two college teams to play the game in 3 to 4 feet of snow...wild idea.


better do it fast..... what with GW, you'll have to play in the sand instead.... yuck....
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Advice #32
SEVERE TROPICAL CYCLONE BIANCA (12U)
6:00 AM WST January 28 2011
=======================================

At 5:00 am WST, Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca, Category Three (950 hPa) located at 22.3S 111.0E, or 325 kilometres west of Exmouth and 300 kilometres west northwest of Coral Bay has 10 minute sustained winds of 85 knots with gusts of 120 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southwest at 15 knots.

Hurricane Force Winds
===================
25 NM from the center

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

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

Dvorak Intensity: T5.0/5.0/D1.0/24HRS

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca continues to move in a southwest direction away from the coast and damaging winds are no longer expected.

Strong and gusty winds are still possible in areas between Cape Preston and Carnarvon though winds will ease from the east during the day.

Tides will be higher than normal today between Exmouth and Onslow, but flooding of low-lying coastal areas is not expected.

Tropical Cyclone Warnings/Watch
================================
The Cyclone WARNING for communities from Exmouth to Coral Bay has been cancelled.

No further advices will be issued as Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca moves away from Western Australia coastline.

The next Tropical Cyclone Bulletin will be issued at 1:00 AM UTC..
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Wellington
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
Tropical Cyclone Wilma
7:00 AM NZDT January 28 2011
=====================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Tropical Cyclone Wilma (975 hPa) located at 27.9S 171.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south at 20 knots.

Storm Force Winds
==================
80 NM from the center

Gale Force Winds
===================
220 NM from the center in southeast semi-circle
100 NM from the center in northwest semi-circle

Next Tropical Cyclone Bulletin from TCWC Wellington will be issued at 0:00 AM UTC..
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Brisbane
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW, FORMER ANTHONY (11U)
5:00 AM EST January 28 2011
=========================================

At 4:00 AM EST, Tropical Low, Former Anthony (995 hPa) located 16.1S 154.4E has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The low is reported as moving north at 6 knots.

Ex-Tropical Cyclone Anthony is likely to redevelop into a tropical cyclone during the next 6 to 18 hours.
More GW Warming junk on the blog again.... *sigh*

It did change to a weather blog at least for Tuesday, that was an exciting day...
The last graph in № 162 was posted in the comments to Dr.Rood's blog today as well. I'm still curious as to what data is used for the blue trendline that the link labels as "observed global temperatures". It doesn't appear to be a moving average, since it extends all the way to 2010; however, it does resemble the GISS moving average up through 2005. It's obviously smoothed somehow. Any ideas? The article in the link doesn't specify the source.
Quoting Jedkins01:
More GW Warming junk on the blog again.... *sigh*

It did change to a weather blog at least for Tuesday, that was an exciting day...


Get used to it... we have four rabid GW posters...and they are going to keep shoving it down everyones throat until we figure out how stupid we are and how right they HAVE to be.

The season will start again like it does every year (the sooner the better now)
Hmmmm.

If you cannot make a valid and insightful argument, if you cannot derail argument or cast unreasonable doubt then criticize the forum.

The only thing I see being pushed down people throats is politics and belief masquerading as reason and science.

Inevitably we get commentary on climate yet some wont allow the reasonable referenced discussion of it.

Thats what I am used to.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Hmmmm.

If you cannot make a valid and insightful argument, if you cannot derail argument or cast unreasonable doubt then criticize the forum.


Your missing the point.. there is a GW blog... this isn't it.

You could make all of your points there.. if anyone was there...which they are NOT... So you have to come here and spout it.
American children are failing in science and doing poorly in math skills.

A U.S. government study has found that only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science. Unfortunately, it gets worse for kids in high school [and no doubt even worse beyond]. Many studies have indicated U.S. teens trail peers from many countries in math scores.

Of course, one can ask, “If the USA ranks so poorly in math and science, why do we remain as world leaders in scientific and technological advances?” The answer is that there is a long lag between turning out poorly trained students in scientific areas and the end products they eventually come up with. This lag can easily cover a generation. It appears we have a lot of catching up to accomplish.

Yesteday, the US Department of Education released the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.. One of the startling responses revealed: “… the next generation will not be ready to be world-class inventors, doctors, and engineers.”

This report analyzed almost 160,000 fourth graders, 150,000 eight graders and 11,000 twelfth graders.

The results are disturbing:

Only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science.

Only one in five graduating students from high school showed proficiency in science.

• Specifically, in 2009, 34% of fourth grade children performed at or above the “proficient” level in science, while only 30% of eighth graders performed at or above the "proficient" level and, even worse, only 21% of those 12th graders participating in the study could perform at or above the "proficient" level in science.

• In fourth grade, 28% of students could not meet the “basic” level of science knowledge; in eighth grade 37% of students couldn’t meet the "basic" science level; and in 12th grade, 47% of students couldn’t achieve a "basic" level of science.

Only between 1% and 2% show a strong knowledge of “advanced” scientific concepts.
Quoting MichaelSTL:
American children are failing in science and doing poorly in math skills.

A U.S. government study has found that only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science. Unfortunately, it gets worse for kids in high school [and no doubt even worse beyond]. Many studies have indicated U.S. teens trail peers from many countries in math scores.

Of course, one can ask, “If the USA ranks so poorly in math and science, why do we remain as world leaders in scientific and technological advances?” The answer is that there is a long lag between turning out poorly trained students in scientific areas and the end products they eventually come up with. This lag can easily cover a generation. It appears we have a lot of catching up to accomplish.

Yesteday, the US Department of Education released the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.. One of the startling responses revealed: “… the next generation will not be ready to be world-class inventors, doctors, and engineers.”

This report analyzed almost 160,000 fourth graders, 150,000 eight graders and 11,000 twelfth graders.

The results are disturbing:

Only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science.

Only one in five graduating students from high school showed proficiency in science.

• Specifically, in 2009, 34% of fourth grade children performed at or above the “proficient” level in science, while only 30% of eighth graders performed at or above the "proficient" level and, even worse, only 21% of those 12th graders participating in the study could perform at or above the "proficient" level in science.

• In fourth grade, 28% of students could not meet the “basic” level of science knowledge; in eighth grade 37% of students couldn’t meet the "basic" science level; and in 12th grade, 47% of students couldn’t achieve a "basic" level of science.

Only between 1% and 2% show a strong knowledge of “advanced” scientific concepts.


They didn't even have to do a study on that. All they had to do was look at some of the posts on this blog and come to the same conclusion. Would have saved a lot of money.
173

Well then you are of course correct - Dr Masters should remove his comments on climate and discus things that avoid the issue altogether. Some agreed socially acceptable approach to science, weather and climate perhaps. Polling and social networking could solve all of this.

Thats certainly what I come here for.

Thank you for clearing that up and good day.
Anyone else wish that hurricane season was here already????
A new month coming in only a few days,and that means more info on how this upcoming hurricane season should be.We're getting closer my friends only 4 months as soon as february comnes till hurricane season.You can hold on.Just wait.....
Quoting Levi32:
162. MichaelSTL 12:58 PM AKST on January 27, 2011

"of course, long-term climate predictions aren't the same as weather, including ENSO"

This statement is a testament to how grossly warped climate science has become. "Weather" refers to all meteorological events that occur in the troposphere. This includes the long-term trends that we call the climate. There is no separation except for the forecast time scale between "climate" forecasts and short-term "weather" forecasts.

Quote from Dan Satterfield, Chief Meteorologist Link

Why are so many TV weather people so skeptical? I wish I knew. The lack of science training in some may be a factor, but I think it is much deeper than that. I know some really smart forecasters who make a right turn into a brick wall when it comes to climate change.

It is very difficult to forecast the weather for the next 7 days and perhaps the idea of talking about the weather 100 years ahead is the problem. I used to feel exactly the same way. I’ve since learned that climate and weather are two very different things.


Quoting Grothar:
Anyone else wish that hurricane season was here already????

Sounds bad to wish for a hurricane,but....HECK YEAH..I'm ready! :)
Quoting MichaelSTL:
American children are failing in science and doing poorly in math skills.

A U.S. government study has found that only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science. Unfortunately, it gets worse for kids in high school [and no doubt even worse beyond]. Many studies have indicated U.S. teens trail peers from many countries in math scores.

Of course, one can ask, “If the USA ranks so poorly in math and science, why do we remain as world leaders in scientific and technological advances?” The answer is that there is a long lag between turning out poorly trained students in scientific areas and the end products they eventually come up with. This lag can easily cover a generation. It appears we have a lot of catching up to accomplish.

Yesteday, the US Department of Education released the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.. One of the startling responses revealed: “… the next generation will not be ready to be world-class inventors, doctors, and engineers.”

This report analyzed almost 160,000 fourth graders, 150,000 eight graders and 11,000 twelfth graders.

The results are disturbing:

Only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science.

Only one in five graduating students from high school showed proficiency in science.

• Specifically, in 2009, 34% of fourth grade children performed at or above the “proficient” level in science, while only 30% of eighth graders performed at or above the "proficient" level and, even worse, only 21% of those 12th graders participating in the study could perform at or above the "proficient" level in science.

• In fourth grade, 28% of students could not meet the “basic” level of science knowledge; in eighth grade 37% of students couldn’t meet the "basic" science level; and in 12th grade, 47% of students couldn’t achieve a "basic" level of science.

Only between 1% and 2% show a strong knowledge of “advanced” scientific concepts.


You believe in trickle-down theory don't you? Guess who becomes a teacher down the road...the student. Its pretty clear the teachers are getting worse. Or at least their ciriculum. Of the 1 in 5 high school students that show a proficiency in science, how many actually go on to teach science? I bet of the 4 of 5 not proficient enough, 1 or 2 end up teaching insufficient amounts of science. The whole educational system eventually starts to reak of...bad education.


Quoting Grothar:
Anyone else wish that hurricane season was here already????
Read post 178.I know some people can't wait.But as soon as you know it,it'll be june 1.
Impressive. Winds up to 105mph and expected to continue to increase in association with Bianca.


For the record, the entire final paragraph of Dr. Masters' post today is devoted to a discussion of climate change.  It is my understanding that comments on this blog should focus on tropical weather "or the topic of the blog entry itself," which, today, includes the subject of climate change.

So, for those of you who do not wish to discuss climate change, I humbly suggest you send your complaints to Dr. Masters or find a "general weather" blog and post there.
You believe in trickle-down theory don't you? Guess who becomes a teacher down the road...the student. Its pretty clear the teachers are getting worse. Or at least their ciriculum. Of the 1 in 5 high school students that show a proficiency in science, how many actually go on to teach science? I bet of the 4 of 5 not proficient enough, 1 or 2 end up teaching insufficient amounts of science. The whole educational system eventually starts to reak of...bad education.


50% of the high school students in Los Angeles do not graduate.... and the teachers are the second highest paid in the nation.... I guess you don't get what you pay for after all....
Here is an easy experiment that could be done even at a basic high school level; all you really need is an IR camera and CO2 (which could be obtained in other ways than a compressed air cylinder, maybe even baking soda and vinegar):

Quoting MiamiHurricanes09:
Impressive. Winds up to 105mph and expected to continue to increase in association with Bianca.




Know it may sound petty...but..something about the name "Bianca" ..dont sound right, MH09
Quoting MrMixon:
For the record, the entire final paragraph of Dr. Masters' post today is devoted to a discussion of climate change.  It is my understanding that comments on this blog should focus on tropical weather "or the topic of the blog entry itself," which, today, includes the subject of climate change.

So, for those of you who do not wish to discuss climate change, I humbly suggest you send your complaints to Dr. Masters or find a "general weather" blog and post there.


I also want to point out just how Dr. Masters feels about climate change - not to mention what he has to put up with:

Yale profile of Wunderground.com’s Jeff Masters: “The ignorance and greed that human society is showing [on climate change] will be to our ultimate detriment and possible destruction.”

He’s shared these views in his blogs, not surprisingly leading to hundreds of “hate e-mails” a year. Critics call him biased and chastise him for defending scientists named or involved in last fall’s hacked e-mails controversy at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. While he respects the right of these people to voice their point of view, he doesn’t pull punches: “The ignorance and greed that human society is showing in this matter will be to our ultimate detriment and possible destruction,” he says.


(FWIW, some of those hate emails may very well include death threats)
Quoting Orcasystems:


Get used to it... we have four rabid GW posters...and they are going to keep shoving it down everyones throat until we figure out how stupid we are and how right they HAVE to be.

The season will start again like it does every year (the sooner the better now)



True, it just seems worse than ever, maybe the Earth's warming will scare them away enough to where they leave Earth because it is clearly becoming just far too hostile for habitation...
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


Know it may sound petty...but..something about the name "Bianca" ..dont sound right, MH09
It Bi-others you!.Get it?.No?
Quoting Grothar:
Anyone else wish that hurricane season was here already????


why? so we can listen to them say "But in two weeks, the pattern will change dangerously!"
Quoting Grothar:
Anyone else wish that hurricane season was here already????
...I want a cat-1612 to hit my street dude. That would be cool dude..:)....
Quoting washingtonian115:
It Bi-others you!.Get it?.No?


That woud be a yes..lol....or I'm just grumpy today ;)
Quoting Jedkins01:



True, it just seems worse than ever, maybe the Earth's warming will scare them away enough to where they leave Earth because it is clearly becoming just far too hostile for habitation...
Quoting aquak9:


why? so we can listen to them say "But in two weeks, the pattern will change dangerously!"


Or those who say that some area WILL get hit (sort of like those overhyping the severe weather in Florida the other day - not that it wasn't anything to dismiss, as you pointed out).
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Here is an easy experiment that could be done even at a basic high school level; all you really need is an IR camera and CO2 (which could be obtained in other ways than a compressed air cylinder, maybe even baking soda and vinegar):



lol. that's a high school in that vid? must be a charter. No public school in Florida has jazzy equipment like that...even in the nineties the computers were like Atari 600's and, no lie, the camcorders for the broadcasting department were Beta tape.

Maybe Florida is the problem... All of those old snowbird retirees don't want to fork over any dough for the local kids. Shame on you, Snowbirds, shame on you.
The servers for this site have a bigger carbon footprint than my car does in 20,000 miles.
Quoting NRAamy:
50% of the high school students in Los Angeles do not graduate.... and the teachers are the second highest paid in the nation.... I guess you don't get what you pay for after all....

Just to be straight: for the 07-08 school year, the dropout rate for the LAUSD was 26.4%. And while they do have the 2nd highest salaries in the nation out of the 50 largest school districts, they come in 48th when based upon cost of living.
Quoting hydrus:
...I want a cat-1612 to hit my street dude. That would be cool dude..:)....
Oh no!!.Did you just say the bad words "I want it to hit me".You sound like the 3 initial blogger!!
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


That woud be a yes..lol....or I'm just grumpy today ;)
The name reminds me of something else,but I won't say it.it's not for the blog to see.
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Or those who say that some area WILL get hit (sort of like those overhyping the severe weather in Florida the other day - not that it wasn't anything to dismiss, as you pointed out).


IMHO you cannot overhype a tornado vortex.
Right now I'm listening to this rock band called flyleaf that I found out about today.So far I downloaded 2 of their songs.I'm totally digging the song right now.Rock on!!!.
Quoting Surfcropper:


lol. that's a high school in that vid? must be a charter. No public school in Florida has jazzy equipment like that...even in the nineties the computers were like Atari 600's and, no lie, the camcorders for the broadcasting department were Beta tape.

Maybe Florida is the problem... All of those old snowbird retirees don't want to fork over any dough for the local kids. Shame on you, Snowbirds, shame on you.


Ohio Mom Kelley Williams-Bolar Jailed for Sending Kids to Better School District
Maybe Florida is the problem... All of those old snowbird retirees don't want to fork over any dough for the local kids. Shame on you, Snowbirds, shame on you.

or, as in Calif, maybe it's the illegals who don't pay taxes.... but take $12 Billion a year in benefits....
Quoting washingtonian115:
Oh no!!.Did you just say the bad words "I want it to hit me".You sound like the 3 initial blogger!! The name reminds me of something else,but I won't say it.it's not for the blog to see.
Yeah dude...I wish i could twist up a hurricane in a strawberry flavored 1.5 sized paper and smoke it dude.
Quoting Surfcropper:


lol. that's a high school in that vid? must be a charter. No public school in Florida has jazzy equipment like that...even in the nineties the computers were like Atari 600's and, no lie, the camcorders for the broadcasting department were Beta tape.

Maybe Florida is the problem... All of those old snowbird retirees don't want to fork over any dough for the local kids. Shame on you, Snowbirds, shame on you.


No, that is a scientist's lab (I presume) - I was only saying that it COULD be done at a high school level, or in college. If people could only see for themselves that CO2 behaves the way scientists claim, they they'd surely see what the deal with CO2 emissions is.

See, most of the skepticism about science probably comes from not having any hands-on experience with science.
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


IMHO you cannot overhype a tornado vortex.


god forbid someone hype up a super cell in Florida in January. when people are clammering week after week about...snow. My goodness, its as if its never snowed before in New England. Really? REALLY? SNOW?!? Every darn year I watch the Patriots play in snow...why is it any different in 2011? WHY?!
Great post!

Quoting MrMixon:
For the record, the entire final paragraph of Dr. Masters' post today is devoted to a discussion of climate change.  It is my understanding that comments on this blog should focus on tropical weather "or the topic of the blog entry itself," which, today, includes the subject of climate change.

So, for those of you who do not wish to discuss climate change, I humbly suggest you send your complaints to Dr. Masters or find a "general weather" blog and post there.
Add Saudi Arabia to the list:

Torrential rain hits Saudi Arabia, causing major flooding

JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA (BNO NEWS) -- Heavy rains on Wednesday flooded the streets of Saudi Arabia's city of Jeddah, exceeding the volume of rainfall recorded during the November floods that killed at least 123 people, Arab News reported.

In just three hours, Saudi Arabia's second largest city was inundated with 111 millimeters of rain, increasing from the 90 mm recorded in four hours during the Nov. 25, 2009 flash floods.

Mansour Al-Mazrouie, head of the meteorology department at the King Abdulaziz University (KAU), blamed climate change for the heavy rains in Jeddah. The average amount of rain during the winter months (November to January) is about 51 millimeters.

Eyewitnesses told Arab News that floodwater was turning streets into rivers once again, and that the water from a broken dam was flooding nearby neighborhoods. Cars were seen floating in some places.

Hundreds of students were stranded at various institutions. It was reported that three female students were electrocuted at KAU, but it has not been confirmed. Accidents in other regions as a result of the rains killed at least one person and injured several others.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Right now I'm listening to this rock band called flyleaf that I found out about today.So far I downloaded 2 of their songs.I'm totally digging the song right now.Rock on!!!.


I am not real fond of most contemporary Christian music, especially worship music, but I do admit to liking Flyleaf and Skillet.
Quoting Xandra:

Quote from Dan Satterfield, Chief Meteorologist Link

Why are so many TV weather people so skeptical? I wish I knew. The lack of science training in some may be a factor, but I think it is much deeper than that. I know some really smart forecasters who make a right turn into a brick wall when it comes to climate change.

It is very difficult to forecast the weather for the next 7 days and perhaps the idea of talking about the weather 100 years ahead is the problem. I used to feel exactly the same way. I’ve since learned that climate and weather are two very different things.




No true meteorologist would say that. Just amazing...
Quoting MichaelSTL:


No, that is a scientist's lab (I presume) - I was only saying that it COULD be done at a high school level, or in college. If people could only see for themselves that CO2 behaves the way scientists claim, they they'd surely see what the deal with CO2 emissions is.

See, most of the skepticism about science probably comes from not having any hands-on experience with science.


I'll agree with you there. That's why I found it funny Al Gore became an oscar winning scientist on film.

Personally, I'm skeptical of almost everything until I decide to believe it. Kind of redundant, huh?

I believe the Sun will expand as it changes from a yellow..er white darf to a red giant..but no one is making a giant fusion star in a lab somewhere testing the theory.

Forgive me if I seen skeptical of you...I'm that way to everything naturally.
No offense
Quoting NRAamy:
Maybe Florida is the problem... All of those old snowbird retirees don't want to fork over any dough for the local kids. Shame on you, Snowbirds, shame on you.

or, as in Calif, maybe it's the illegals who don't pay taxes.... but take $12 Billion a year in benefits....
Actually illegals who work pay extra taxes because they often don't file for refunds. I'm praying one is using my social insecurity number so I can draw more when I retire.
Actually illegals who work pay extra taxes because they often don't file for refunds. I'm praying one is using my social insecurity number so I can draw more when I retire.

good luck with that, Shen.... Social Security is going under, just like California...
I looked back at Levi's post about carbon dioxide and his howler of a mistake by a factor of 1,000 because he mixed up kilograms and metric tons. He also forgot carbon dioxide is a molecule.

The 11 gigatons is the weight of carbon in carbon dioxide. Most carbon has an atomic weight of 12. Most oxygen has an atomic weight of 16. Most molecules of carbon dioxide have a weight of 44.

That's 3 2/3 times as much. Mankind is putting almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.

Man's activity is not responsible for 66% of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are responsible for all of it. More than 200% actually. Slightly over half of our carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the oceans, where it lowers the PH of seawater (acidification).

There's nothing natural about the current rise of CO2 in the air.
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


IMHO you cannot overhype a tornado vortex.


It wasn't like the SPC had a high risk (or even moderate risk) and/or PDS tornado watches. In fact, I think they only had a 5% chance of tornadoes (in any 25 mile radius). They did have a more significant wind threat though (high winds are equivalent to weaker tornadoes, not to mention more widespread).

Of course, they had only a slight risk and 5% tornado probability here on New Year's Eve - and multiple tornadoes, including several EF3s, touched down, killing 7.
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
Actually illegals who work pay extra taxes because they often don't file for refunds. I'm praying one is using my social insecurity number so I can draw more when I retire.


lol social insecurity
Social Security projected to run out by 2037

Thursday, January 27, 2011

WASHINGTON (KABC) -- The social security fund is on track to run out of money by 2037, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


This year alone, Social Security will pay out $45 billion more than it will collect in payroll taxes. A commission appointed by President Barack Obama has recommended some changes to improve Social Security's finances. The panel suggested a gradual increase in the full retirement age, lower cost-of-living increases and a gradual increase in the threshold on the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Obama has not embraced any of the panel's recommendations. In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, he called for unspecified bipartisan solutions to strengthen the program while protecting current retirees, future retirees and people with disabilities.

High unemployment has payroll taxes lagging at the same time applications for benefits are rising, because baby boomers are retiring.

More than 54 million people receive retirement, disability or survivor benefits from Social Security.


Quoting Surfcropper:


lol social insecurity


hur hur hur
216.

I never mixed up any such thing. I was given incorrect units for the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and discovered my mistake upon double-sourcing that value which was off by 3 orders of magnitude.

The debate isn't over whether man is emitting CO2. We obviously are. The debate is about the overall effect of our emissions on the entire climate. Don't confuse the issue.
Quoting KoritheMan:


I am not real fond of most contemporary Christian music, especially worship music, but I do admit to liking Flyleaf and Skillet.
In some of U2 songs they talk about god,their are also some other rock bands like Nickleback that have brought god into their songs.
Quoting hydrus:
Yeah dude...I wish i could twist up a hurricane in a strawberry flavored 1.5 sized paper and smoke it dude.
My kids always come home and tell me "mom don't smoke,becuase the teacher says it's bad for you".No I'm not a smoker,nor have I ever attempted to,but I was eduacated at an early age (around 14 or 15)about different smokes.Maybe you could add chocolate to the mix?.So it could be strawberry,and chocalate.lol.
Quoting weatherboy1992:
I looked back at Levi's post about carbon dioxide and his howler of a mistake by a factor of 1,000 because he mixed up kilograms and metric tons. He also forgot carbon dioxide is a molecule.

The 11 gigatons is the weight of carbon in carbon dioxide. Most carbon has an atomic weight of 12. Most oxygen has an atomic weight of 16. Most molecules of carbon dioxide have a weight of 44.

That's 3 2/3 times as much. Mankind is putting almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.

Man's activity is not responsible for 66% of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are responsible for all of it. More than 200% actually. Slightly over half of our carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the oceans, where it lowers the PH of seawater (acidification).

There's nothing natural about the current rise of CO2 in the air.


Know whats really ironic? Everything that exists comes from natural elements...even the wicked bad stuff. Nothing comes from nothing, something comes from something.
Quoting Surfcropper:


Know whats really ironic? Everything that exists comes from natural elements...even the wicked bad stuff. Nothing comes from nothing, something comes from something.


that has nothing to do with anything.
Quoting Levi32:
162. MichaelSTL 12:58 PM AKST on January 27, 2011

"of course, long-term climate predictions aren't the same as weather, including ENSO"

This statement is a testament to how grossly warped climate science has become. "Weather" refers to all meteorological events that occur in the troposphere. This includes the long-term trends that we call the climate. There is no separation except for the forecast time scale between "climate" forecasts and short-term "weather" forecasts.


On the contrary, there is quite a bit of separation. Weather is just one part of climate. Or rather, meteorology is just one aspect of climate science.
Yes you did Levi. You need to check again. Our emissions of CO2 are now almost 40 billion tons, not 11 billion tons. What you wrote about is the mass of the carbon in CO2. You then mistook the mass of carbon for the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Quoting Levi32:
216.

I never mixed up any such thing. I was given incorrect units for the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and discovered my mistake upon double-sourcing that value which was off by 3 orders of magnitude.

The debate isn't over whether man is emitting CO2. We obviously are. The debate is about the overall effect of our emissions on the entire climate. Don't confuse the issue.


By three orders of magnitude you mean you were off by a factor of 1,000 in your other error.
Quoting Levi32:
216.

I never mixed up any such thing. I was given incorrect units for the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and discovered my mistake upon double-sourcing that value which was off by 3 orders of magnitude.

The debate isn't over whether man is emitting CO2. We obviously are. The debate is about the overall effect of our emissions on the entire climate. Don't confuse the issue.


Levi. you have to remember... if you are not a firm believer of the faith.. you must be attacked and ridiculed.

I am waiting for one of them to say your work has not been published and gone through a peer review in one of their "officially sanctioned" publications.. therefore you should be ignored... wait for it :)

Quoting weatherboy1992:


that has nothing to do with anything.


it has everything to do with nothing
Quoting weatherboy1992:
Yes you did Levi. You need to check again. Our emissions of CO2 are now almost 40 billion tons, not 11 billion tons. What you wrote about is the weight of the carbon in CO2. You then mistook the weight of carbon for the weight of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.



I already had that discussion with a couple of people. The site labeled the data as CO2, while the data table itself said "carbon," so there was some uncertainty about what it meant. I then adjusted my numbers (which were still incorrect at the time) up to the CO2 data cited by somebody else in order to compare.

The need to vilify any kind of rational scientific discussion on here is incredible.
Quoting washingtonian115:
In some of U2 songs they talk about god,their are also some other rock bands like Nickleback that have brought god into their songs.


Er, yeah. You're right. Flyleaf isn't implicitly Christian, as Lacey herself stated. Just, some of their songs inevitably contain religious connotations, because the band members themselves ARE Christian.

Out of curiosity, which album are you listening to at the moment? I should clarify: I don't care for Flyleaf, generally, except for in the case of Memento Mori, which was a fantastic album.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Levi. you have to remember... if you are not a firm believer of the faith.. you must be attacked and ridiculed.

I am waiting for one of them to say your work has not been published and gone through a peer review in one of their "officially sanctioned" publications.. therefore you should be ignored... wait for it :)



Lol. Well they will have to wait for published papers until I have actually completed college.
Quoting MichaelSTL:


No, that is a scientist's lab (I presume) - I was only saying that it COULD be done at a high school level, or in college. If people could only see for themselves that CO2 behaves the way scientists claim, they they'd surely see what the deal with CO2 emissions is.

See, most of the skepticism about science probably comes from not having any hands-on experience with science.


Or maybe some people are a step further, those who decide not to panic and let fear be their god, and instead use their head and think things through a little more. They don't just believe something because scientists with a degrees publish articles that have peer reviews by people who believe the same stuff.

The problem is some people in all their calculations begin to believe they know more than they do. Anyone who actually thinks they can accurately determine what the Earth's climate will be like in 30 years is full of crap.

Maybe part of the reason less meteorologists believe in GW is that they know enough about that atmosphere to not believe everything they hear, and not arrogant enough to believe they can actually claim what will really happen to the Earth's Climate in 30 years.

Forecasting weather for the Tampa Bay area is dang hard enough, predicting what will happen on the Earth in 30 years is that much more out of reach.

Quoting Surfcropper:


I'll agree with you there. That's why I found it funny Al Gore became an oscar winning scientist on film.

Personally, I'm skeptical of almost everything until I decide to believe it. Kind of redundant, huh?

I believe the Sun will expand as it changes from a yellow..er white darf to a red giant..but no one is making a giant fusion star in a lab somewhere testing the theory.

Forgive me if I seen skeptical of you...I'm that way to everything naturally.
No offense


So what determines what you believe? I think that belief should be based on scientific facts.

Also, the example you give on the Sun's evolution - you do have to realize that we can't directly measure the Sun itself, only what it emits (a space probe sent into the Sun would vaporize before it returned anything useful), much less other stars, so all of that really is nothing more than theory based on models and predictions, although it fits what we observe. In contrast, we can directly measure the absorption of CO2 and other gasses and measure the exact amounts in the atmosphere, even measure how much energy is going into or leaving the planet.
I'm not vilifying. I pointed out you made two major mistakes. The total of your errors means you were off by a factor of more than 3,600.

Think of your mistakes as opportunities to learn. I do!
Quoting weatherboy1992:
I'm not vilifying. I pointed out you made two major mistakes. The total of your errors means you were off by a factor of more than 3,600.

Think of your mistakes as opportunities to learn. I do!


I figured out my mistakes about 3 hours before you did.
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


IMHO you cannot overhype a tornado vortex.



Its cause the tonado threat didn't involve GW, or his home town, therefore, it must have been insignificant :)
No one responded to my theory on undersea land masses diverging at a faster rate than subducting with leads to greater water volume displacement at a faster rate thus causing sea ice to melt more rapidly.

Seems just as feasible as 200 years of carbon emissions unsettling a XYZ million year old climate.
Quoting Surfcropper:
No one responded to my theory on undersea land masses diverging at a faster rate than subducting with leads to greater water volume displacement at a faster rate thus causing sea ice to melt more rapidly.

Seems just as feasible as 200 years of carbon emissions unsettling a XYZ million year old climate.


That makes no sense at all. Water displacement doesn't cause ice to melt.
Quoting weatherboy1992:
I'm not vilifying. I pointed out you made two major mistakes. The total of your errors means you were off by a factor of more than 3,600.

Think of your mistakes as opportunities to learn. I do!


Must be another "Lets get Levi" day....geeez..is it a jealousy thing?
Quoting Surfcropper:


Know whats really ironic? Everything that exists comes from natural elements...even the wicked bad stuff. Nothing comes from nothing, something comes from something.


Well, of course. But while the human body contains carbon and nitrogen, among other things, I certainly wouldn't drink cyanide, which is made up of carbon and nitrogen.

Nor would I drink a gallon of water all at once because that could be fatal - despite the fact that water is essential to all like as we know it. I wouldn't use a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen to put out a fire either, despite the combined form being highly effective for this purpose.
Quoting MichaelSTL:


I think that belief should be based on scientific facts.



You can't live solely by empiricism, Michael.
I don't see where you figured out that a molecule of carbon dioxide has a greater mass than an atom of carbon.
Quoting weatherboy1992:
I'm not vilifying. I pointed out you made two major mistakes. The total of your errors means you were off by a factor of more than 3,600.

Think of your mistakes as opportunities to learn. I do!



Hey its called being human.

But according to the Lords of Global Warming, those who support Global Warming cannot make mistakes.

They must be all greek gods, then, that's the only logical conclusion :)
Quoting washingtonian115:
In some of U2 songs they talk about god,their are also some other rock bands like Nickleback that have brought god into their songs. My kids always come home and tell me "mom don't smoke,becuase the teacher says it's bad for you".No I'm not a smoker,nor have I ever attempted to,but I was eduacated at an early age (around 14 or 15)about different smokes.Maybe you could add chocolate to the mix?.So it could be strawberry,and chocalate.lol.
They do manufacture chocolate flavored papers dude, for at least the past 35 years dude...You are going to get a snow storm in a week dude, pft.
Quoting Jedkins01:
They must be all greek gods, then


Except their respective background stories aren't nearly as interesting.
Quoting MichaelSTL:


So what determines what you believe? I think that belief should be based on scientific facts.

Also, the example you give on the Sun's evolution - you do have to realize that we can't directly measure the Sun itself, only what it emits (a space probe sent into the Sun would vaporize before it returned anything useful), much less other stars, so all of that really is nothing more than theory based on models and predictions, although it fits what we observe. In contrast, we can directly measure the absorption of CO2 and other gasses and measure the exact amounts in the atmosphere, even measure how much energy is going into or leaving the planet.


Yes, I understand that. Just as I understand that monitoring a white dwarf and red giant in different systems at different distances doesn't mean our home star will act the same way. Every star has a different mass size and different levels of elements.

I won first place in the State of Florida science fair for eigth graders. Got a $100 check and trophy to boot.

My thesis: cockroaches can learn to follow a maze to food.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Get used to it... we have four rabid GW posters...and they are going to keep shoving it down everyones throat until we figure out how stupid we are and how right they HAVE to be.

The season will start again like it does every year (the sooner the better now)


I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I respond when people post incorrect information, debunked myths, or outright lies about the state of climate science today.

I would be more than happy to NOT discuss the topic. But I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science.

I've only responded when there's been something to correct, or when the blog contains specific subject material worth talking about. If Dr. M posts something about climate then it is valid as a discussion topic.
Quoting Jedkins01:



Hey its called being human.

But according to the Lords of Global Warming, those who support Global Warming cannot make mistakes.

They must be all greek gods, then, that's the only logical conclusion :)


And also remember Oscar winners do not have to return the award in the category of scientific documentary.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Levi. you have to remember... if you are not a firm believer of the faith.. you must be attacked and ridiculed.

I am waiting for one of them to say your work has not been published and gone through a peer review in one of their "officially sanctioned" publications.. therefore you should be ignored... wait for it :)

There is so much truth in this post.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I respond when people post incorrect information, debunked myths, or outright lies about the state of climate science today.

I would be more than happy to NOT discuss the topic. But I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science.

I've only responded when there's been something to correct, or when the blog contains specific subject material worth talking about. If Dr. M posts something about climate then it is valid as a discussion topic.


Agreed.. and you were not one of the four.
For everyone's information, here are some definitions from dictionary.com:

Weather: the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.

Climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I certainly see "climate" being described here as long-term weather patterns that define the average state of the atmosphere over a long period of time. The only separation is time scale. No true meteorologist or climatologist would attempt to widen this gap.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Agreed.. and you were not one of the four.


haha
Quoting KoritheMan:


Er, yeah. You're right. Flyleaf isn't implicitly Christian, as Lacey herself stated. Just, some of their songs inevitably contain religious connotations, because the band members themselves ARE Christian.

Out of curiosity, which album are you listening to at the moment? I should clarify: I don't care for Flyleaf, generally, except for in the case of Memento Mori, which was a fantastic album.
Right now I'm listening to their Demo leaf.The two songs I have found to like so far are I'm so sick,and Fully Alive.I like how the drums,and guitar sounds in both songs.
Quoting Surfcropper:
No one responded to my theory on undersea land masses diverging at a faster rate than subducting with leads to greater water volume displacement at a faster rate thus causing sea ice to melt more rapidly.

Seems just as feasible as 200 years of carbon emissions unsettling a XYZ million year old climate.


Any idea how significant continental drift is on a 200 year timescale? The fastest rate of plate movement today is about 4 inches per year, or only 66.7 feet in 200 years. Which is in turn only about 0.00005% of the Earth's circumference. In other words, it would take 396 million years for a continent to circumnavigate the globe, and even then, they don't move like that. Here is what it looked like 90 million years ago (if you actually believe that they got it right):



The most notable difference is the location of India, which in turns leads to this:

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change

The strong global warming trend between 60 and 50 My ago was surely a consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2, as the Indian plate subducted carbonate-rich ocean crust while traversing the Tethys Ocean. The magnitude of the CO2 source continued to increase until India crashed into Asia and began pushing up the Himalaya Mountains and Tibetan Plateau. Emissions from this tectonic source continue even today, but the magnitude of emissions began decreasing after the Indo-Asian collision and as a consequence the planet cooled. The climate variations between 30 and 15 million years ago, when the size of the Antarctic ice sheet fluctuated, may have been due to temporal variations of plate tectonics and outgassing rates (Patriat et al., 2008). Although many mechanisms probably contributed to climate change through the Cenozoic era, it is clear that CO2 change was the dominant cause of the early warming and the subsequent long-term cooling trend.

Plate tectonics today is producing relatively little subduction of carbonate-rich ocean crust (Edmund and Huh, 2003), consistent with low Pleistocene levels of CO2 (170-300 ppm) and the cool state of the planet, with ice sheets in the polar regions of both hemispheres. Whether Earth would have continued to cool in the absence of humans, on time scales of millions of years, is uncertain. But that is an academic question. The rate of human-made change of atmospheric CO2 amount is now several orders of magnitude greater than slow geological changes. Humans now control atmospheric composition, for better or worse, and surely will continue to do so, as long as the species survives.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Levi. you have to remember... if you are not a firm believer of the faith.. you must be attacked and ridiculed.

I am waiting for one of them to say your work has not been published and gone through a peer review in one of their "officially sanctioned" publications.. therefore you should be ignored... wait for it :)



No, he made a mistake, and an honest one. He corrected himself, apologized, and that is that.

He made an honest effort to take legitimate data and analyze it, which is a lot more than most do. If anything, he should be commended for it, especially on this blog.
There is always some degree of belief.

You should be constantly updating and minimizing your belief systems to include learned material.

That process of building is the core of learning.

Learning enhances creativity into new and more areas of validity. It is a misnomer that intellect stifles creativity. It only extends it.

Ignorance however is proven to limit vision and scope of appreciation.
Quoting hydrus:
They do manufacture chocolate flavored papers dude, for at least the past 35 years dude...You are going to get a snow storm in a week dude, pft.
Snow week equals awesomness!!!
But I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science.

?
Quoting Xyrus2000:


No, he made a mistake, and an honest one. He corrected himself, apologized, and that is that.

He made an honest effort to take legitimate data and analyze it, which is a lot more than most do. If anything, he should be commended for it, especially on this blog.


If it was followed up with an attempt to build on material it would be. If it was another disjointed amateurish attempt to sabotage reason with un-sourced and unreasoned accusations it should also be pointed out as such.

I dont see much more inquiry into CO2 atmospheric sourcing even as obviously there is a deficiency in knowledge of that core concept of climate study here.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I respond when people post incorrect information, debunked myths, or outright lies about the state of climate science today.

I would be more than happy to NOT discuss the topic. But I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science.

I've only responded when there's been something to correct, or when the blog contains specific subject material worth talking about. If Dr. M posts something about climate then it is valid as a discussion topic.


With all due respect, you've been here for a few years...not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science????

Are you serious? Its been the same since 2005. The host of this blog is a University of Michigan employee and has been since its inception.

Climate debate is the driving force of this blog when the tropics are quiet...any WUvet knows that.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
You should be constantly updating and minimizing your belief systems to include learned material.

That process of building is the core of learning.


Yet, all too often, humanity (myself included at times -- I'm not perfect by any means) fails in this endeavor. Whatever happened to valuing intellectual honesty, I wonder?

Hell, I've changed my beliefs on certain subjects numerous times. If I'm wrong, I'll refine my belief(s) accordingly.
Quoting KoritheMan:


Except their respective background stories aren't nearly as interesting.



lol good point, at least greek gods are fun to read about, they make a great subject for college papers, I enjoyed writing a 2000 word research paper on the Iliad.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


If it was followed up with an attempt to build on material it would be. If it was another disjointed amateurish attempt to sabotage reason with un-sourced and unreasoned accusations it should also be pointed out as such.


ah I see you changed "ridiculed"

good man
Quoting JFLORIDA:


If it was followed up with an attempt to build on material it would be. If it was another disjointed amateurish attempt to sabotage reason with un-sourced and unreasoned accusations it should also be pointed out as such.


Considering that my post which you speak of is only 3 hours old this time, perhaps you aren't unwilling to quote it so that we may all see how I didn't source the data.
Quoting KoritheMan:


Yet, all too often, humanity (myself included at times -- I'm not perfect by any means) fails in this endeavor. Whatever happened to valuing intellectual honesty, I wonder?

Hell, I've changed my beliefs on certain subjects numerous times. If I'm wrong, I'll refine my belief(s) accordingly.


Critical thinking is something that is always taught so heavily in college, even more so in scientific classes. It seems like many turn a blind eye to practicing it, including sometimes those who teach it as well. Good thing is, at least all of my math and science professors so far seem to actually live it, not just preach it.

But then again, maybe that's because I use ratemyprofessor.com As much as its hated by some professors, its only hated by the ones that know they are arrogant and biased to the core. So they hate students can check their bad ratings and avoid them ahead of time
:)
Quoting Levi32:


Considering my post that you speak of is only 3 hours old this time, perhaps you aren't unwilling to quote it so that we may all see how I didn't source the data.


Don't play his game Levi... he's so slippery with his words and innuendo, he would make a lawyer blush.
Quoting NRAamy:
But I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science.

?


Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (or Denial)

Which is exactly what some want.
Quoting Jedkins01:


Good thing is, at least all of my math and science professors so far seem to actually live it, not just preach it.


Aye. That's always the hardest part. My hat goes off to the professors in question.
thanks Michael
Thats a challenge of the Internet age. Lots of complex information out there, not all true. If you are unable to use inquiry constructively you will never establish a foundation on which to correct and build.

Constantly attacking a consensus of advanced science from all directions and all possibilities, claiming conspiracy, actually reinforces invalidity and encourages the placement of preconceived belief as a mechanism in place of learning.

Its over and downhill from there.
Quoting Surfcropper:


With all due respect, you've been here for a few years...not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for ignorance and FUD about climate science????

Are you serious? Its been the same since 2005. The host of this blog is a University of Michigan employee and has been since its inception.

Climate debate is the driving force of this blog when the tropics are quiet...any WUvet knows that.


I'm not every WUvet nor even a WUvet. Depending on my schedule and my interests I spend more or less time here.

I usually don't say much during the hurricane season because people more experienced than I am do a better job at tracking the storms. I just watch and learn.
Wow two back-to-back horribad winters.Now If I remember that some of the early predictions said that the north east would get a break from the cold/snow except for northern parts of New England.See this is why weather is so amazing,becuase you never know how things could turn out in the end.
And when behavior becomes so unreasonable, outlandish and counterproductive it needs to be dealt with, even by ridicule as it will destroy reason.

Ignored. best just to let others that can deal with it.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I'm not every WUvet nor even a WUvet. Depending on my schedule and my interests I spend more or less time here.

I usually don't say much during the hurricane season because people more experienced than I am do a better job at tracking the storms. I just watch and learn.


Indeed. I'll agree about the hurricane activity. I stay away from that madness.

But as far as a day like today, I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for junk science and propaganda about climate science
The funny thing is about all the GW fighting, if we all actually knew each other in person, I'm sure we would get along pretty well!

I rarely discuss the things me and my friends disagree on the most, for obvious reasons. lol
Some heavy stuff here tonight....
Good discussion, generally.
Nice.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
And when behavior becomes so unreasonable, outlandish and counterproductive it needs to be dealt with, even by ridicule as it will destroy reason.


I think this one has to be saved... ...counterproductive to "who's" agenda?
Quoting JFLORIDA:
And when behavior becomes so unreasonable, outlandish and counterproductive it needs to be dealt with, even by ridicule as it will destroy reason.


Indeed, ridicule is a very effective medium with which to chastise.
Quoting pottery:
Some heavy stuff here tonight....
Good discussion, generally.
Nice.


Good evening Sir, how are things in the Kingdom of Grog.
Quoting Surfcropper:


Indeed. I'll agree about the hurricane activity. I stay away from that madness.

But as far as a day like today, I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for junk science and propaganda about climate science


hahaha!!
:)

What you can't explain can threaten you.

:)

Nobody here seems to want to tackle my theory on expanding rates of divergent boundaries of undersea land masses vs slowing of subduction rates causing water volume displacement to cause more rapid sea ice melts.
Quoting Jedkins01:
The funny thing is about all the GW fighting, if we all actually knew each other in person, I'm sure we would get along pretty well!

I rarely discuss the things me and my friends disagree on the most, for obvious reasons. lol
All though some people would question about the three initial blogger,and why he does what he does.Hmmm college has been keeping him busy lately from what I've herd.
I'm impressed that the MJO has been able to progress all the way across the Pacific, when models were forecasting it to collapse in the central Pacific (phase 7):



As a result, it has lead to the weakening of the trade winds and drop in SOI; they will probably rebound after it passes, but this will lead to longer-term warming of the subsurface - you can already see positive isotherm depth anomalies pushing eastwards, accelerating the seasonal trend (positive anomalies were already gradually increasing since La Nina developed):

"Constantly attacking a consensus of advanced science from all directions and all possibilities, claiming conspiracy, actually reinforces invalidity and encourages the placement of preconceived belief as a mechanism in place of learning."

Folks should remember this one. Science is nothing without opposing opinions. Theories won't stand without being put through the fire. And most importantly, the consensus is never always right.
Quoting Levi32:
For everyone's information, here are some definitions from dictionary.com:

Weather: the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.

Climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I certainly see "climate" being described here as long-term weather patterns that define the average state of the atmosphere over a long period of time. The only separation is time scale. No true meteorologist or climatologist would attempt to widen this gap.


I double checked the definition of climatology with several different sites and Levi is correct. The "official" definition of climatology is described as a branch of the atmospheric sciences.

That being said, climatology today as practiced in the science community goes beyond just atmospherics to also include, land, ocean, ice, sun, and other studies. It has become more of an interdisciplinary research area that draws on many different sciences.

I wonder if the definition will eventually end up changing or they'll just come up with a different name altogether.
Quoting Surfcropper:


hahaha!!
:)

What you can't explain can threaten you.

:)

Nobody here seems to want to tackle my theory on expanding rates of divergent boundaries of undersea land masses vs slowing of subduction rates causing water volume displacement to cause more rapid sea ice melts.


Instead, people will mock you for your theory not being peer reviewed... Of course, since when are they qualified atmospheric scientists either?


I got mocked for being ignorant, yet I am putting my blood sweat and life savings into acquiring a degree in atmospheric sciences.

Go figure.

Quoting Surfcropper:
No one responded to my theory on undersea land masses diverging at a faster rate than subducting with leads to greater water volume displacement at a faster rate thus causing sea ice to melt more rapidly.

Seems just as feasible as 200 years of carbon emissions unsettling a XYZ million year old climate.


They've found Greenland is rising because of the glacier loss.
I've recently updated my blog about a possible winter weather event in Texas early next week. There isn't very much info yet, but I expect to be updating it going into the weekend as the event draws closer and more things are known. Feel free to check it out!
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I double checked the definition of climatology with several different sites and Levi is correct. The "official" definition of climatology is described as a branch of the atmospheric sciences.

That being said, climatology today as practiced in the science community goes beyond just atmospherics to also include, land, ocean, ice, sun, and other studies. It has become more of an interdisciplinary research area that draws on many different sciences.

I wonder if the definition will eventually end up changing or they'll just come up with a different name altogether.


I bet urban dictionary already has..

Quoting MichaelSTL:
I'm impressed that the MJO has been able to progress all the way across the Pacific, when models were forecasting it to collapse in the central Pacific (phase 7):



As a result, it has lead to the weakening of the trade winds and drop in SOI; they will probably rebound after it passes, but this will lead to longer-term warming of the subsurface - you can already see positive isotherm depth anomalies pushing eastwards, accelerating the seasonal trend (positive anomalies were already gradually increasing since La Nina developed):



Not really. The models were actually overdone in Octant 7:



It's nice to see that you've been excited for the last couple weeks about a potential El Nino episode to warm the globe up. I cried when I wasn't allowed to perk up about this La Nina and its impact.
Also, the MJO progressing through phase 7 and into phase 8 is one reason for the cold blast across the eastern U.S., and more cold is likely if it continues through phases 1-3:


(click to enlarge, phase 8 is second from left at bottom)
Quoting Skyepony:


They've found Greenland is rising because of the glacier loss.


I'll buy that. Removing coal from mountains rises river beds over time...makes sense.
Quoting 1900hurricane:
I've recently updated my blog about a possible winter weather event in Texas early next week. There isn't very much info yet, but I expect to be updating it going into the weekend as the event draws closer and more things are known. Feel free to check it out!


Good to see you here, Ryan.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


If it was followed up with an attempt to build on material it would be. If it was another disjointed amateurish attempt to sabotage reason with un-sourced and unreasoned accusations it should also be pointed out as such.

I dont see much more inquiry into CO2 atmospheric sourcing even as obviously there is a deficiency in knowledge of that core concept of climate study here.


But he did source it. He provided the two links he used. The major error was that he used an incorrect calculation when figuring the mass-to-ppm ratio.

I don't think it was an attempt to twist the science and data.
Quoting pottery:
Some heavy stuff here tonight....
Good discussion, generally.
Nice.
POTtery, Good evenin sir. How are tings way on down ther..?
Quoting Orcasystems:


Good evening Sir, how are things in the Kingdom of Grog.

And Greetings to You, Oh Northern One!
All is well here. I admit that I am now sipping a Very Fine Grog, that has come my way through a tangled grapevine of approvals.
I see that you are detirmined to expose your contradictions, and wave them about here to the chagrin of many.
ONWARD>>>>

heheheh
Ohh boy After some of the break down moments of some bloggers during last hurricane season which led to permabans I wonder what this year will bring.A whole new set of trolls?.Bad forecasters?.Over hypers?.Entertainment?.That's the price that comes with hurricane season though around these parts.
Quoting KoritheMan:


Good to see you here, Ryan.

Thanks! It's sometimes hard to pop in during the busy semester, but things really haven't wound up yet, giving me a little time for Weather Underground.
Quoting 1900hurricane:

Thanks! It's sometimes hard to pop in during the busy semester, but things really haven't wound up yet, giving me a little time for Weather Underground.


What is your major? Mine is for Meteorology at Florida State
Quoting hydrus:
POTtery, Good evenin sir. How are tings way on down ther..?

Very Good!
I hope you are enjoying your evening as well.
Some good Debate tonight, but I am afraid I will have to check it in the morning as I am on another tack.....

Stay safe, all.
Quoting pottery:

Very Good!
I hope you are enjoying your evening as well.
Some good Debate tonight, but I am afraid I will have to check it in the morning as I am on another tack.....

Stay safe, all.
Dont forget to duck the boom.
Quoting Jedkins01:


What is your major? Mine is for Meteorology at Florida State

I'm also a Meteorology major, but I'm at Texas A&M.
Quoting hydrus:
Dont forget to duck the boom.

Wha..? BONK! OUCH !!!!

I'm out. Cold.
Quoting Jedkins01:


What is your major? Mine is for Meteorology at Florida State


Your degree does not matter here. Its your political leanings.

;)
Quoting Jedkins01:


What is your major? Mine is for Meteorology at Florida State
Quoting 1900hurricane:

I'm also a Meteorology major, but I'm at Texas A&M.


I envy both of you greatly.
Well, so much for the theory that the AMO is causing global warming:

Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” — Science

The 3.5°F warming of Fram Strait water over the past century is "not just the latest in a series of natural multidecadal oscillations."

Study after study finds recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause. The anti-science crowd keeps trying to debunk one or two old Hockey Sticks, but new ones crop up faster than a speeding puck.

Science just published a new one, “Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water” (subs. req’d), news release here, “Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study.”

I have pulled out the key graph — and it is one heck of a Hockey Stick. It is derived from “planktic foraminifers in a sediment core”:


Hey, let's play name the climatologist?

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics (Died: July 19, 2010)
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography


Nope, OK

Perhaps we could play name that commonly shared IP address from several posters? Ya think there is more than perhaps 2 coming from many of the vocal activists? How many shadows are cast from that spigot handle? Perhaps that is why they never post on a blog with any tracking. LOL





Quoting Surfcropper:


Indeed. I'll agree about the hurricane activity. I stay away from that madness.

But as far as a day like today, I'm not going to sit idly by to watch this blog become yet another dumping ground for junk science and propaganda about climate science


I don't post junk science nor propaganda. Unless reports like the IPCC and actual reviewed climate science are viewed as junk science and propaganda. But that's the conspiracy angle. You can't have a logical discussion about a topic someone believes there is a conspiracy about. It doesn't work. You've got birthers, the grassy knoll, ufos, spirits, and Elvis sightings. No matter how hard you argue or what proof you have, you're not going to convince them differently.

So if you're angle is that climate science is all junk and propaganda so that the evil money grubbing scientists can continue to work on paltry grant stipends and the lowest paying jobs for their experience so they can implement a socialistic utopia, then it's best if we just say we disagree and leave it at that.
Protip:  if you have a theory and you want people to give it serious consideration, you should provide at least a modicum of evidence to back up your theory.
Quoting Levi32:


I envy both of you greatly.
Couldn't you transfer to another college perhaps that has a meteorology program?.If I remember correctly my nephew had transfered to another college for an arts program since the current school that he was going to at that time didn't have such a program.
Perhaps we could play name that commonly shared IP address from several posters?

I had fun with that one earlier this week.....

;)
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Well, so much for the theory that the AMO is causing global warming:

Temperatures of North Atlantic %u201Care unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming%u201D %u2014 Science

The 3.5F warming of Fram Strait water over the past century is "not just the latest in a series of natural multidecadal oscillations."

Study after study finds recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause. The anti-science crowd keeps trying to debunk one or two old Hockey Sticks, but new ones crop up faster than a speeding puck.

Science just published a new one, %u201CEnhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water%u201D (subs. req%u2019d), news release here, %u201CWarming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study.%u201D

I have pulled out the key graph %u2014 and it is one heck of a Hockey Stick. It is derived from %u201Cplanktic foraminifers in a sediment core%u201D:




Funny how the hockey spike jets upward at 1850, when we were essentially emitting nothing at that time, and almost nothing through 1920. In fact our emissions spike didn't even really kick in until 1950.

Quoting 1900hurricane:

I'm also a Meteorology major, but I'm at Texas A&M.


Nice!

My semester is actually pretty easy, except the calculus, the last 2 were much more packed, I'm only going to school part time this semester to build up some more funds, the State cut some of my funding, so I'm working extra for just this semester, and I'm working full time plus a part time job this summer(so basically over time) to help make up for it.

Next semester, and for a while will be my toughest yet though, I will have Cal 2, Physics, and Chem with quantitative analysis are among the ones I'm gonna be burdened the most by next semester.

278 interesting.

kori ill have a chat with you later.

293 - lets hope it is something new.

305 noted. Another fail.

315 - thats still under a lot of debate. "landfalling" might make it difficult to answer too. Certainly a slight increasing el nino has its fans for hurricane activity. Or did at one time.
Quoting Ossqss:
Hey, let's play name the climatologist?

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics (Died: July 19, 2010)
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography


Nope, OK

Perhaps we could play name that commonly shared IP address from several posters? Ya think there is more than perhaps 2 coming from many of the vocal activists? How many shadows are cast from that spigot handle? Perhaps that is why they never post on a blog with any tracking. LOL







lol, be careful certain people will be be blowing off super heated steam at you for posting that :)
Does a weak el nino,or neutral conditions has more effect on landfalling hurricanes in the u.s?
Quoting washingtonian115:
Couldn't you transfer to another college perhaps that has a meteorology program?.If I remember correctly my nephew had transfered to another college for an arts program since the current school that he was going to at that time didn't have such a program.


I don't currently have the money to go to the lower 48. My only hope right now seems to be grad school. A physics degree doesn't seem so bad, but I wish I could be actually learning more meteorology right now. I've read about the labs they have in places like FSU, similar to my physics labs but all about identifying jet streams and all this cool stuff. Just makes my mouth water.
Quoting Surfcropper:


Your degree does not matter here. Its your political leanings.

;)


oh yeah, I apologize for that, lol.
Quoting Levi32:


I envy both of you greatly.


I bet man!
Quoting Levi32:


I don't currently have the money to go to the lower 48. My only hope right now seems to be grad school. A physics degree doesn't seem so bad, but I wish I could be actually learning more meteorology right now. I've read about the labs they have in places like FSU, similar to my physics labs but all about identifying jet streams and all this cool stuff. Just makes my mouth water.


Yeah FSU has an amazing program, going there my first day topped any Christmas morning, lol.
The CFS has the big orange ball of subsidence returning to the central Pacific during the next few weeks.

Quoting FirstCoastMan:
Does a weak el nino,or neutral conditions has more effect on landfalling hurricanes in the u.s?


ENSO certainly has an effect, primarily because it influences the longwave patterns in the mid-latitudes. El Ninos typically favor more troughing along the eastern seaboard which tends to steer more storms out to sea.
Quoting Levi32:


ENSO certainly has an effect, primarily because it influences the longwave patterns in the mid-latitudes. El Ninos typically favor more troughing along the eastern seaboard which tends to steer more storms out to sea.


Here in Florida we love El Nino, it almost always means lots of active weather(rain and thunderstorms, and less of a hurricane threat.
I hope that upcoming rain doesn't bring rain.I want it to be an all snow event!!.
Quoting Skyepony:


They've found Greenland is rising because of the glacier loss.


we are young
we have much to learn
Quoting washingtonian115:
I hope that upcoming rain doesn't bring rain.I want it to be an all snow event!!.
before this winter is done you may never what to see snow again
Quoting washingtonian115:
I hope that upcoming rain doesn't bring rain.I want it to be an all snow event!!.
Aw.I mean storm event.
Quoting Levi32:


I don't currently have the money to go to the lower 48. My only hope right now seems to be grad school. A physics degree doesn't seem so bad, but I wish I could be actually learning more meteorology right now. I've read about the labs they have in places like FSU, similar to my physics labs but all about identifying jet streams and all this cool stuff. Just makes my mouth water.
That must suck.But doesn't Alaska have programs for such a thing?.
Quoting Jedkins01:


lol, be careful certain people will be be blowing off super heated steam at you for posting that :)


I hear ya. It is just amazing that most of them attribute 90% of the current warming to CO2 and nothing else. That is of course due to the climate modeling and the aggregate position of the IPCC. It speaks volumes when everything is now AGW related when it comes to weather of any sort. Of course this blog was formally trained, in Denver I believe, several months ago to do exactly what it is currently doing on every single blog now !

I just wish those models could have done a good job of predicting, not in hindsight, the events that are now touted as such extreme AGW events. We are no smarter than Yeast! :)



Bait
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I don't post junk science nor propaganda. Unless reports like the IPCC and actual reviewed climate science are viewed as junk science and propaganda. But that's the conspiracy angle. You can't have a logical discussion about a topic someone believes there is a conspiracy about. It doesn't work. You've got birthers, the grassy knoll, ufos, spirits, and Elvis sightings. No matter how hard you argue or what proof you have, you're not going to convince them differently.

So if you're angle is that climate science is all junk and propaganda so that the evil money grubbing scientists can continue to work on paltry grant stipends and the lowest paying jobs for their experience so they can implement a socialistic utopia, then it's best if we just say we disagree and leave it at that.


I'm just blogging, really.

Go back and read post 305

The anti-science crowd

anyone who disagrees with the data conclusions is considered anti-science.

I like to see it as ignoring the pushers.

If AGW was 100% believable, certain people wouldn't have to keep posting ad nauseum like trying to convince a jury.

The whole argument was skewed for me when those pictures surfaced of official climate science agencies with thermometers in parking lots and next to air conditioning units. And the hockey stick thing.

Come on, really?
Quoting washingtonian115:
Aw.I mean storm event.That must suck.But doesn't Alaska have programs for such a thing?.


They have a grad program in Atmospheric Science, not quite the same as Meteorology. They focus more on things like aurora, air pollution, mesospheric winds (which is cool), and other things. It is not a meteorology program. I will, however, hopefully be able to take the basic MET courses that they do have as prerequisites to an Atmo-Sci degree. I believe they have exactly two classes on synoptic meteorology here.
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
before this winter is done you may never what to see snow again
Why you say that?.So far D.C has been in a donut whole when it comes to snow.It's like this dome of air is blocking what ever storm that even seems like It'll drop snow.
This science link titled Quantum Birds is not about the weather, but it is maybe the most gee-whiz story I've seen in a long time.
Quoting Ossqss:
Hey, let's play name the climatologist?

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics (Died: July 19, 2010)
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography


That's quite a list. It's interesting to note that there's not a single politician, oil company CEO, coal company lawyer, or small-market radio weathercaster in the bunch.
Quoting Levi32:


Lol. Well they will have to wait for published papers until I have actually completed college.

Actually, no.
Quoting Levi32:


They have a grad program in Atmospheric Science, not quite the same as Meteorology. They focus more on things like aurora, air pollution, mesospheric winds (which is cool), and other things. It is not a meteorology program. I will, however, hopefully be able to take the basic MET courses that they do have as prerequisites to an Atmo-Sci degree. I believe they have exactly two classes on synoptic meteorology here.
Well it's better than taking nothing at all I would say.
Quoting Levi32:


I figured out my mistakes about 3 hours before you did.

Levi is reversing field here. He's like a broken field runner.
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


Must be another "Lets get Levi" day....geeez..is it a jealousy thing?

Nah, he just is lousy about fessing up.

Edit: if he had figured out the mistake 3 hours ago, why are other people having to point it out and get static in the process?
Quoting bappit:

Levi is reversing field here. He's like a broken field runner.
Now that you on I've been meaning to ask you,whats that in your avatar?.It looks like a bug,and bugs I'm not to fond of.They...creep me out.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Now that you on I've been meaning to ask you,whats that in your avatar?.It looks like a bug,and bugs I'm not to fond of.They...creep me out.
Smh.It's you're.Damn I sounded ignorant back there.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Now that you on I've been meaning to ask you,whats that in your avatar?.It looks like a bug,and bugs I'm not to fond of.They...creep me out.


oh and your avatar is explainable itself..lol
Quoting Surfcropper:


oh and your avatar is explainable itself..lol
Eh.I've always wanted my avatar to stick out.Where did I get the pictue from?.Well me,and my daughter watch the show,and that picture you see their is the new season that's permiring on Feb/6/11.
Quoting Levi32:


Funny how the hockey spike jets upward at 1850, when we were essentially emitting nothing at that time, and almost nothing through 1920. In fact our emissions spike didn't even really kick in until 1950.


Check out that industrial revolution article in Wikipedia. It was fueled by coal and started in the 1700's.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world.


The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. Most notably, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the two centuries following 1800, the world's average per capita income increased over 10-fold, while the world's population increased over 6-fold.[2] In the words of Nobel Prize winning Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth. ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before."[3]
332 they are experts publishing in their field and climate science using their collective expertise constructively > the first biologist has biological climate studies peer reviewed and published.

Every denial post depends upon a lack of reason and/or someone being too lazy to check.

Meanwhile for instance on the denial side:

Monckton - "Professor Niklas Mrner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century."

Mrner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. Recently he has extensively dabbled in dowsing and criticizing current scientific work on sea level. Work by Vermeer and Rahmsorf contradict Mrners' claim.


this is the true caliber of "scientist" Oss is used to listening to and posting here.
Levi, where do you go to school?
Quoting bappit:

Check out that industrial revolution article in Wikipedia. It was fueled by coal and started in the 1700's.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world.

The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. Most notably, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the two centuries following 1800, the world's average per capita income increased over 10-fold, while the world's population increased over 6-fold.[2] In the words of Nobel Prize winning Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth. ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before."[3]


yeah its called advancing

hate to break it you green guys but wind power was invented well before the world was officially round...

it was weak then and its weak now. history isn't very kind to the weak, unfortunately. I don't care what the crystal balls foresee...energy at its most efficient will be the best chances of survival. what good is a clean landscape when we're all rotting underneath it for being too generous and stupid?

Quoting bappit:

Check out that industrial revolution article in Wikipedia. It was fueled by coal and started in the 1700's.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world.

The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. Most notably, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the two centuries following 1800, the world's average per capita income increased over 10-fold, while the world's population increased over 6-fold.[2] In the words of Nobel Prize winning Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth. ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before."[3]


That mentions nothing about CO2 emissions in the 19th century. Current data on the subject shows pathetically low values compared with today. Almost nothing.
More seasonal to slightly above normal temps. for West Palm Beach the next week. Hope it’s cool Super Bowl Sunday!

Quoting caneswatch:
Levi, where do you go to school?


University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It's an amazing school, just not with a focus in meteorology.
"Mrner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. Recently he has extensively dabbled in dowsing and criticizing current scientific work on sea level. Work by Vermeer and Rahmsorf contradict Mrners' claim.

this is the true caliber of "scientist" Oss is used to listening to and posting here.
"

If "retired" now also means "stupid," then I guess times really have changed. And if "criticizing" now means "crazy," then I'm floored.
la nina=little snow for the ne not this yr
Quoting JFLORIDA:
332 they are experts publishing in their field and climate science using their collective expertise constructively > the first biologist has biological climate studies peer reviewed and published.

Every denial post depends upon a lack of reason and/or someone being too lazy to check.

Meanwhile for instance on the denial side:

Monckton - "Professor Niklas Mrner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century."

Mrner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. Recently he has extensively dabbled in dowsing and criticizing current scientific work on sea level. Work by Vermeer and Rahmsorf contradict Mrners' claim.


this is the true caliber of "scientist" Oss is used to listening to and posting here.


Attack and ridicule... try something new next time.

Quoting Levi32:


That mentions nothing about CO2 emissions in the 19th century. Current data on the subject shows pathetically low values compared with today. Almost nothing.

You have a point there. CO2 emissions have and are increasing. If I were an alarmist I'd say they were increasing at an alarming rate, but I'm not an alarmist. No way.
Quoting bappit:

You have a point there. CO2 emissions have and are increasing. If I were an alarmist I'd say they were increasing at an alarming rate, but I'm not an alarmist. No way.


Nice deflection. The Atlantic SST hockey stick shooting towards the sky at 1850, a hundred years before our emissions hockey-sticked, doesn't seem to fit.
353. DDR
Good evening all
An interesting day here(Trinidad) weather wise,1/2 inch of rain and a little more before dawn for sure.
354. DDR
Hi Levi
You know what i'm going to ask you...
Could you post those precip maps again.thx
Quoting JFLORIDA:
332 they are experts publishing in their field and climate science using their collective expertise constructively > the first biologist has biological climate studies peer reviewed and published.

Every denial post depends upon a lack of reason and/or someone being too lazy to check.

Meanwhile for instance on the denial side:

Monckton - "Professor Niklas Mrner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century."

Mrner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. Recently he has extensively dabbled in dowsing and criticizing current scientific work on sea level. Work by Vermeer and Rahmsorf contradict Mrners' claim.


this is the true caliber of "scientist" Oss is used to listening to and posting here.


No bud, they are setting policy. It is no secret. And your other comments are simply assault and flattery. LOL

Check and see if you exist in the master plan.

Core Publications
Agenda 21


Conspiracy theory it is not!

Have some fun and you-tube it.........
Quoting DDR:
Hi Levi
You know what i'm going to ask you...
Could you post those precip maps again.thx


Certainly.

ECMWF:



Japanese:



CFS:


Amazing amount of snow !



Quoting Levi32:


Nice deflection. The Atlantic SST hockey stick shooting towards the sky at 1850, a hundred years before our emissions hockey-sticked, doesn't seem to fit.

Not a deflection. Just pointing out that what you said actually supports what I was saying. You have now changed the subject to sea surface temps in the 1800's. If you investigate the industrial revolution, you will learn more about how coal burning increased.

Watching the Super Bowl this weekend? Watch for the Levi Reverse.
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
More seasonal to slightly above normal temps. for West Palm Beach the next week. Hope it’s cool Super Bowl Sunday!



Gee, Geoff, I've never asked you. Where do you go to school?
360. DDR
Thanks
ECMWF is spot on, rainfall locally is about 180 percent above average for this month.
Quoting bappit:

Not a deflection. Just pointing out that what you said actually supports what I was saying. You have now changed the subject to sea surface temps in the 1800's. If you investigate the industrial revolution, you will learn more about how coal burning increased.

Watching the Super Bowl this weekend? Watch for the Levi Reverse.


Lol. I beg to differ.

"341. bappit 4:11 PM AKST on January 27, 2011
Quoting Levi32:


Funny how the hockey spike jets upward at 1850, when we were essentially emitting nothing at that time, and almost nothing through 1920. In fact our emissions spike didn't even really kick in until 1950.



Check out that industrial revolution article in Wikipedia. It was fueled by coal and started in the 1700's.
"

By the way, here is a Wiki graph showing how coal was the main source of emissions in the 19th century. It was still almost nothing until 1950, and certainly not a hockey stick at 1850.

Quoting anvilhead:
Amazing amount of snow !





What?
Quoting Surfcropper:


yeah its called advancing

hate to break it you green guys but wind power was invented well before the world was officially round...

it was weak then and its weak now. history isn't very kind to the weak, unfortunately. I don't care what the crystal balls foresee...energy at its most efficient will be the best chances of survival. what good is a clean landscape when we're all rotting underneath it for being too generous and stupid?





Even Saudi Arabia is Turning to Renewable Energy
Ferret Theory LXVIII

1995-2000 The greatest “Super Bowl Heist” Done by:

Are one and only, Anheuser-Busch Corporation!

Five years - Anheuser-Busch in Missouri, was in-direct contact with a guy named Eddie Verdon, he was a fan of the Anheuser-Busch (Premier Collectors Club.) Eddie hoped they would use his Ideas for making a “Collectors-Stein” in his honor as a member of the club, for his helpful suggestions to Anheuser-Busch!

Well, it turns-out, Eddies ideas were better than the ones that Anheuser-Busch company was paying other companies to invent for them…

Eddie got the usual acknowledgement from Anheuser-Busch and that they were interested in some of his “Commercial Ideas as well as his Stein designs for the A-B Collectors Club!” Eddie was just thrilled! Then, as months went by, with no-word from Anheuser-Busch lately? Eddie gets a letter from Tim Schoen “Vice President of Commercial Marketing and Sports” also notoriously known as; The Uncle of August Busch IV.

Tim Schoen indicated he appreciates all the work and effort Eddie did with his designing for Anheuser-Busch but, they are not going to use his ideas and void the current “Non-Confidentially Agreements” they have on files for years? Eddie felt a little put out by this because, little did he know? His Ideas were a smash for Budweiser and Bud Light. He would only find out once Anheuser-Busch started releasing them in Super Bowl commercials in 1995 - 2000 and Memorabilia and Steins where going to be sold all over the world in and by the billions baby! They were in motion to pitch for the “King of Beers for the next five years.”

While Eddie may not be the richest or wisest person in the world, for this. He does realize he cannot stand and fight the giant Anheuser-Busch in court! So, no financial outcome will ever come to light in this matter….. This is why; “The Ferret Theory” got started! Because of one mans tribute to America and for causes in-need Eddie did this as his legacy, which was stolen from him in the name of; “greed and theft” by: Schoen and Busch IV!

Ones thing is for sure about August Busch IV whether he’s trying to idolize King Henry VIII or make a great Ferret Theory LXVIII. August Busch IV just is not going to find any luck in Roman Numbers! And you can take that to the nearest Belgium Bank August…..!


You Can read: Ferret Theory, XXI
No -- Dirty Deed, goes unpunished unless you have
America’s blessing! For a more in-depth story!

Sincerely,

Author (Unknown)
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Advice #33
SEVERE TROPICAL CYCLONE BIANCA (12U)
9:00 AM WST January 28 2011
=======================================

At 8:00 am WST, Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca, Category Three (951 hPa) located at 23.0S 110.3E, or 410 km west southwest of Exmouth and 400 km west northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 85 knots with gusts of 120 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southwest at 18 knots.

Hurricane Force Winds
===================
25 NM from the center

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

Gale Force Winds
=================
140 NM from the center in northeastern quadrant
140 NM from the center in southeastern quadrant
110 NM from the center in northwestern quadrant
110 NM from the center in southwestern quadrant

Dvorak Intensity: T5.0/5.0/D0.5/24HRS

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca continues to move in a southwest direction away from the northwest of the state. Strong and gusty winds are still possible in areas between Cape Preston and Carnarvon though winds will ease from the east during the day.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca is expected to gradually weaken as it takes a more southerly track overnight. On Saturday Bianca will move in a southeasterly direction towards the southwest corner of the state while weakening steadily. However there is a significant risk that Bianca will maintain tropical cyclone intensity as it approaches the coast early on Sunday. If this scenario eventuates, coastal areas between Jurien Bay and Albany could experience DAMAGING WINDS with gusts to 120 kilometres per hour.

On Sunday tides between Jurien Bay and Cape Naturaliste are likely to rise signficantly above the normal high tide mark with VERY ROUGH SEAS, DANGEROUS SURF and FLOODING of LOW LYING COASTAL AREAS. SIGNIFICANT COASTAL EROSION is possible. Heavy rainfall is also possible on the southern side of the system. FLASH FLOODING is possible but extensive flooding is not expected.

SEVERE to EXTREME FIRE DANGERS are likely across a broad area south of a line from Geraldton to Esperance on Sunday.

Tropical Cyclone Warnings/Watch
================================
A Cyclone WATCH has been declared for coastal areas from Jurien Bay to Albany, including Perth, Bunbury and Busselton.

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 25.5S 108.4E - 80 knots (CAT 3)
24 HRS: 28.2S 108.1E - 60 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 32.8S 113.8E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
72 HRS: -- --- --

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

Overnight IR images have yielded DT's around 5.0 and this agrees with the MET/PAT T. A transient eye appeared on the IR imagery around 15Z and has re-appeared in recent IR images.

The system is likely to maintain its current intensity over the next 12 hours and then weakening is expected as the system moves over cooler SSTs and experiences an increase in shear as it moves southwards.

The system is expected to be steered steadily towards the southwest by a strong mid-level ridge tonight then an amplifying trough will result in the system being steered towards the south then southeast. By Sunday the system will be experiencing strong shear but may maintain Tropical Cyclone intensity as it reaches the southwest corner of WA.

The next tropical cyclone advice on Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca will be at 7:00 AM UTC..
Just a reminder folks, keep it civil:

Rules of the Road
Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
Foul language is not allowed.
Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
No spam.
25 years ago tomorrow...a very sad day:

This deserves a repost because it is basically what Levi is claiming:

Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Claim: The Thermohaline Circulation causes Global Warming, Hurricane Cycles, etc

For years, perhaps decades, Gray has been ascribing all sorts of climate changes and hurricane cycles to fluctuations in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), an overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean associated with formation of deep water in the North Atlantic. None of the assertions are based on rigorous statistical associations, oceanographic observations or physically based simulations; it is all seat-of -the-pants stuff of a sort that was common in the early days of climate studies, but which is difficult to evaluate when viewed as a scientific hypothesis. The THC is undoubtedly important to climate, because it transports heat from one place to another. However it cannot do magical things. It cannot create energy out of thin air (or thick water), nor can it make energy mysteriously disappear.
ok.

I gotta put my two cents in (more like two questions)! How can they measure human factors before say 20 years ago? Also, how can you deny that the acid rain in the 70's were caused by coal burning?

It is a fine line between the two. There is nothing wrong with any fuel source (we need it all!) as long as its done properly. There will always be a footprint, but how big will it be?

Compromise ;)
Quoting Grothar:


Gee, Geoff, I've never asked you. Where do you go to school?


I took the short bus!
Quoting charlottefl:
Just a reminder folks, keep it civil:

Rules of the Road
Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
Foul language is not allowed.
Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
No spam.


There goes the neighborhood! lol
Quoting Grothar:


Thank you for relevant info.
Product of the Florida school system. That explains a lot!
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
25 years ago tomorrow...a very sad day:



I remember watching that in school as it happened :( It was broadcast in every classroom in our school. We were young and you can imagine what the teachers dealt with 2 minutes later.
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Product of the Florida school system. That explains a lot!


No wonder! I will go easy on you then. I will use small, short words. For some reason I thought you were still in college.
Quoting GrtLksQuest:


Thank you for relevant info.


You are welcome, but I just posted a chart in the heat of the moment. Not really sure I know what it means.
Oh no! Levi suckered me in and posted the rest of his data in a later post!

Well, I'll assert without any proof that particulate matter from coal burning acted to a) absorb insolation and b) absorb outgoing radiation, too.

I'll go further and suggest (again with no proof) that the lead time at the end of ice ages is due to a similar process. The ice retreats leaving a dusty landscape behind. The dust in the air causes increased absorption and retention of heat. That would only be a short term effect though.

Edit: dust on the ice, too.
Quoting GrtLksQuest:


Thank you for relevant info.


Just realized, are you the GrtLksQuest from the old days when the blog was civil? The one with whom I shared some enjoyable WU mail? If so, I apologize for not recognizing your handle.
Quoting Grothar:


No wonder! I will go easy on you then. I will use small, short words. For some reason I thought you were still in college.


Yes, I am majoring in Three Stooges, Zeppo & Gummo and obscure songs.
Quoting Surfcropper:


I'm just blogging, really.

Go back and read post 305

The anti-science crowd

anyone who disagrees with the data conclusions is considered anti-science.

I like to see it as ignoring the pushers.

If AGW was 100% believable, certain people wouldn't have to keep posting ad nauseum like trying to convince a jury.

The whole argument was skewed for me when those pictures surfaced of official climate science agencies with thermometers in parking lots and next to air conditioning units. And the hockey stick thing.

Come on, really?


AGW isn't 100% believable anymore than quantum physics is 100% believable.

No science is 100% believable. That's why it's science. If it were fact, they're would be no point in researching it because we'd already know.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the science and research. I have a problem with people disagreeing with it for the wrong reasons. Conspiracy theories and the like have no place in scientific discussion. You use research, analysis, and data to make your statements in a verifiable, repeatable manner, not random psuedo science from someone's blog who doesn't know the difference between linear an exponential. Intelligent skepticism is a far cry from ignorant denialism.

There were couple of research papers that debunked the claim of tainted stations giving incorrect data. One went so far as to remove all urban and suburban locations from the record. The results were nearly identical. As for the hockey stick, there are plenty of referential materials explaining he graph and it's portents in scientific literature. I won't bother going into details because it will just fall on deaf ears anyway. Suffice it to say, if you want to know the real story behind the science you can get it. If you don't want to, then hang on to the hockey stick mantra.
I think we're going to skip straight to summer this year,just like we did last year.Or for that matter the last couple of years.And about those sst in the gulf?.those should have no problem rebounding once the heat waves start coming in around late spring.
I was standing in a courtyard with my class of middle school students when the Challenger cloud went from normal stream of white to erratic burst. Having seen several launches, we knew immediately that something had gone wrong. We all went back to our classrooms and watched on tv as we were told the bad news.
That day we all prayed, yes, in public school.
There was nothing else we could think of to do.
As we knew everyone on board had perished.
Another scientist weighs in:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/27/kaku.snowstorms.global.warming/index.html?hpt=T2

But according to some, he's not believable. He's not a climatologist or meteorologist.
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
25 years ago tomorrow...a very sad day:




Thanks, Geoff!

A sad day indeed! (head bowed).
384 ~~~ Here ya go, thoughts ?

Edit, sorry, you cannot go there without a subscription. My bad.

On a brighter note, kids in the northeast are having a blast. Snowdays and plenty of the white stuff to play in.
I heard bout that on NPR today Geoffrey. She was a foster child from Chicago and 15 years old when they cut that record for Motown. According to a reporter for NPR, they toured as the first 'girl-group' for Motown Music and were responsible for all their own clothes and performances. Bravo Gladys! Way to go.
'night all.
Quoting Chicklit:
I heard bout that on NPR today Geoffrey. She was a foster child from Chicago and 15 years old when they cut that record for Motown. According to a reporter for NPR, they toured as the first 'girl-group' for Motown Music and were responsible for all their own clothes and performances. Bravo Gladys! Way to go.
'night all.



Wow. I did not know that. Thanks, Chicklit!


Night.
Evening all. I don't know about snow, but it seems these last two winters have been abnormally wet in our area for La Nina conditions. We had torrential downpours with thunderstorms yesterday morning, and again this afternoon and evening it was raining, though much more lightly. Flooding is usually a concern for us in June, August and October, rather than January, particularly when the E Pac is cold. It seems to me that the influence of a cold PDO on ENSO patterns may be something to be considered if one is thinking about reasons why this relatively unusual wx is occurring...
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Funny that people still listen to Levi when all he does is spout unsubstantiated gibberish. He obviously lies about going to school as well, because of course if he were talking a real degree in meteorology (which includes climate science, at least the basics, including hands-on experiments like the CO2 one I posted), he wouldn't be saying what he does. In fact, that, along with other major fields of science, should be a REQUIREMENT to graduate - regardless of what degree or field you are in. Then we would have no science denial (hopefully), whether in climate science or any other field.

Instead, we have this:

Are meteorologists climate experts?

Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service] certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change.

Clearly, he is in the 98-99% who know nothing about science...


I thought you ignored me and banned me from your blog for a reason.
Time for Coast to Coast with George Noory for the truth! :)
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Even Saudi Arabia is Turning to Renewable Energy


Just a quick comment (then goodnight) look I work on natural gas for a living and I have installed solar panels.

Coal, bad.

Oil... running low on cheap supplies.

Renewables are a good investment (solar PV; hot water forget it in the Southwest but in saying so you know I just ain't an ecomoron).
402. JRRP

normal and slight above normal precip over Sahel
--->
Quoting JRRP:

normal and slight above normal precip over Sahel


That means less dust this year then, although 2009 wasn't dry and there was a lot of dust, then I don't think the Sahel is exactly what you want to look at for that.
JRRP...What does them charts represent?
Quoting FirstCoastMan:
JRRP...What does them charts represent?


The first is precipitation, with green being above average and red below average (if it is too small, right-click and view image to see full size). Since he shows precipitation in the Sahel with the next graph, I assume he is referring to African dust (the drought years in the 80s correspond to low hurricane activity, although for individual years there isn't much correlation; see 2005 for example, and 2009 was wetter but had a lot of dust).
407. JRRP
Quoting MichaelSTL:


The first is precipitation, with green being above average and red below average (if it is too small, right-click and view image to see full size). Since he shows precipitation in the Sahel with the next graph, I assume he is referring to African dust (the drought years in the 80s correspond to low hurricane activity, although for individual years there isn't much correlation; see 2005 for example, and 2009 was wetter but had a lot of dust).

and 1995
So is that a good thing or bad thing for the coming up hurricane season?
Quoting Surfcropper:


yeah its called advancing

hate to break it you green guys but wind power was invented well before the world was officially round...

it was weak then and its weak now. history isn't very kind to the weak, unfortunately. I don't care what the crystal balls foresee...energy at its most efficient will be the best chances of survival. what good is a clean landscape when we're all rotting underneath it for being too generous and stupid?




+ 1000


That's one of the most true and intelligent comments of the night! Don't be afraid to say what's true.

And that's what's happened, we have people who literally uphold the earth above people. Not all, but many GW activists are earth worshipers. The earth is their religion, whether they like it or not.

They keep thinking everyone who isn't on board is stupid and ignorant. No we aren't a bunch of dreamers that try to idealize the world. Instead we live in reality, and try to come up with the smartest and most efficient ways to do it best.

We need to learn to stop the obsession with oil, coal and the internal combustion engine as well as whatever other technology that is much obsolete and pollutes.

However, for those of us who aren't panicking about GW and/or aren't earth worshipers. We realize that we can't run wild calling to shutdown multi-billion dollar industries that make the world go round. Its not that simple. Unless you want to collapse society anyway.

A lot of GW activists claim to be brilliant intellectuals, however, I don't see what's very smart about trying to collapse world wide industries immediately because what humans have contributed to the atmosphere is going to bring doom to us all in the near future. But I like to think the best of people and hope its not stupidity, in that case, its fear that they let run wild and drive them to insensibility. Either way, its not good.

As much as I don't like pollution and mistreatment of this planets resources that supports life so amazingly so. I do realize that these industries like oil are integrated into every aspect of life, you can't just rip it all away and not be aware that it will also obliterate the Global Economy, and cause utter collapse of just about every way of life. Let's face it, its gonna take a while to remove the old in-efficient system. That's just how it is, learn to accept reality more, rather than idealizing a dream that won't work.

Dreaming and idealizing about such things is no different than Karl Marx's utopian dreaming.

Wake up and face reality.

Quoting FirstCoastMan:
So is that a good thing or bad thing for the coming up hurricane season?


More dust (known as the Saharan Air Layer or SAL) suppresses hurricane activity:

Saharan Air Layer

Findings to date indicate that the iron-rich dust particles which often occur within the SAL reflect solar radiation, thus cooling the atmosphere. The particles also reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the ocean, thus reducing the amount of heating of the ocean. They also tend to increase condensation as they drift into the marine layer below, but not precipitation as the drops formed are too small to fall and tend not to readily coelesce. These tiny drops are subsequently more easily evaporated as they move into drier air laterally or dry air mixes down from the SAL aloft. Research on aerosols also shows that the presence of small particles in air tends to suppress winds. The SAL has also been observed to suppress the development of tropical cyclones, which may be related directly to these factors.


Thus, less dust would enhance activity, assuming that everything else is equal.

Also, here is an interesting article:

Long-Term Variations of Western Sahelian Monsoon Rainfall and Intense U.S. Landfalling Hurricanes

Abstract
Western Sahelian rainfall during the primary rainy season of June through September is shown to be significantly associated with concurrent intense U.S. Iandfalling hurricanes during the last 92 years The most intense hurricanes (i.e., Saffir-Simpson Scal e Category 3, 4, or 5) have an especially strong relationship with Sahelian rainfall, whereas weaker hurricanes show little or no association. The hurricane-Sahelian rainfall association is most evident along the U.S. East Coast but is negligible in the U .S. Gulf Coast region.

(But what happened last year? Obviously it doesn't mean that it will be a bad year; of course, we did have several major hurricanes narrowly miss the East Coast)
Quoting Levi32:


Certainly.

ECMWF:



Japanese:



CFS:





Quoting MichaelSTL:
Funny that people still listen to Levi when all he does is spout unsubstantiated gibberish. He obviously lies about going to school as well, because of course if he were talking a real degree in meteorology (which includes climate science, at least the basics, including hands-on experiments like the CO2 one I posted), he wouldn't be saying what he does. In fact, that, along with other major fields of science, should be a REQUIREMENT to graduate - regardless of what degree or field you are in. Then we would have no science denial (hopefully), whether in climate science or any other field.

Instead, we have this:

Are meteorologists climate experts?

Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service] certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change.

Clearly, he is in the 98-99% who know nothing about science...


You mock Levi saying he lies about going to school?

Where the heck are your credentials Mr. Brilliant? Oh crap, that's right geeze you don't have them....


Seriously, you should join the comedy club, I'd pay money to watch you do shows on GW.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


AGW isn't 100% believable anymore than quantum physics is 100% believable.

No science is 100% believable. That's why it's science. If it were fact, they're would be no point in researching it because we'd already know.


Ah but quantum mechanics is 100% correct as it describes the probability of finding an electron in a potential field created by a positive nuclei. This has been verified to the highest of lab results and is the reason why modern electronics exist. Just because you don't understand 4-dimensional vector calculus doesn't mean it is inaccurate. The same goes for any other models which process data correctly, as the point of a model is to match reality usually by differential equations. Not saying that the models for climate change are 100% correct, but they give general results which indicate AGW as it is commonly defined.
well was going to attempt the blog tonight................
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Wellington
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
Tropical Cyclone Wilma
19:00 PM NZDT January 28 2011
=====================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Cyclone Wilma (978 hPa) located at 32.5S 172.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 55 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south southeast at 20 knots.

Storm Force Winds
==================
60 NM from the center

Gale Force Winds
===================
240 NM from the center in southeast semi-circle
120 NM from the center in northwest semi-circle

Next Tropical Cyclone Bulletin from TCWC Wellington will be issued at 12:00 PM UTC..
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Brisbane
Tropical Cyclone Advice #1
TROPICAL CYCLONE ANTHONY (11U)
5:00 PM EST January 28 2011
=========================================

At 4:00 PM EST, Tropical Cyclone Anthony, Category One (988 hPa) located 15.7S 155.3E, or 980 km east northeast of Townsville and 890 km east northeast of Bowen has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving north northeast at 4 knots.

Gale Force Winds
===============
90 NM from the center in northern quadrant
90 NM from the center in southeastern quadrant
140 NM from the center in southwestern quadrant

Dvorak Intensity: T3.0/3.0/D0.5/24HRS

Tropical Cyclone Anthony is moving in a northerly direction and is expected to move in a southwesterly direction during Saturday.

Damaging winds are expected to develop about coastal and island communities between Innisfail and Sarina late on Sunday.

People between Innisfail and Sarina should consider what action they will need to take if the cyclone threat increases.
- Information is available from your local government
- For cyclone preparation and safety advice, visit Queensland's Disaster

Forecast and Intensity
=====================
12 HRS: 14.7S 154.5E - 45 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 14.7S 153.2E - 55 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 17.4S 149.5E - 60 knots (CAT 2)
72 HRS: 20.7S 146.2E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)

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

Curved band pattern applied with 0.50 degree wrap on log10 spiral, giving DT 2.5 MT 3.0 and PT 3.0. CI kept at 3.0.

Deep convection and organisation has significantly improved around Tropical Cyclone Anthony over the past 24 hours. Tropical Cyclone Anthony is currently being guided in a northerly direction with the assistance upper low west of New Caledonia. A building ridge will turn Tropical Cyclone Anthony to the southwest on Saturday.

The next tropical cyclone advice on Tropical Cyclone Anthony will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Advice #35
SEVERE TROPICAL CYCLONE BIANCA (12U)
3:00 PM WST January 28 2011
=======================================

At 2:00 pm WST, Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca, Category Three (950 hPa) located at 23.9S 108.9E, or 495 km west northwest of Carnarvon and 1130 km northwest of Perth has 10 minute sustained winds of 85 knots with gusts of 120 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southwest at 17 knots.

Hurricane Force Winds
===================
25 NM from the center

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

Gale Force Winds
=================
140 NM from the center in northeastern quadrant
140 NM from the center in southeastern quadrant
110 NM from the center in northwestern quadrant
110 NM from the center in southwestern quadrant

Dvorak Intensity: T5.5/5.5/D0.5/24HRS

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca continues to move in a southwest direction away from the northwest of the state. Strong and gusty winds are still possible in areas between North West Cape and Carnarvon though winds will ease from the east during the afternoon and evening.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca is expected to gradually weaken as it takes a more southerly track overnight. On Saturday Bianca will move in a southeasterly direction towards the southwest corner of the state while weakening steadily. However there is a significant risk that Bianca will maintain tropical cyclone intensity as it approaches the coast early on Sunday. If this happens, coastal areas between Jurien Bay and Albany could experience DAMAGING WINDS with gusts to 120 kilometres per hour. Wind gusts to 100 kilometres per hour may be experienced through inland parts southwest of a line Jurien Bay to Albany.

On Sunday tides between Jurien Bay and Cape Naturaliste are likely to rise significantly above the normal high tide mark with VERY ROUGH SEAS, DANGEROUS SURF and FLOODING of LOW LYING COASTAL AREAS. SIGNIFICANT COASTAL EROSION is possible. HEAVY RAINFALL is also possible on the southern side of the system. LOCALISED FLOODING is possible but extensive flooding is not expected.

VERY HIGH to SEVERE FIRE DANGERS are likely near the west coast on Sunday. EXTREME to CATASTROPHIC FIRE DANGERS are likely across inland areas south of a line from Geraldton to Leonora to Israelite Bay on Sunday.

Tropical Cyclone Warnings/Watch
================================
A Cyclone WATCH is current for coastal areas from Jurien Bay to Albany, including Perth, Bunbury and Busselton.

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 26.4S 107.8E - 70 knots (CAT 3)
24 HRS: 29.3S 108.6E - 60 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 33.1S 116.7E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: -- --- --

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

Dvorak EIR analysis produced DT 6.0 over several images during the morning. Final intensity is held at 10-min 85 knots.

The system is likely to maintain intensity or weaken only slightly over the next 12 hours before cooler SSTs and increasing shear leads to rapid weakening as it approaches the SW coast.

There is significant uncertainty regarding the intensity of the system as it impacts the coast with many models indicating the system will fall apart just off the coast as the strong southeasterlies from the new high push in and markedly increase the shear. However a number of runs have indicated the system may reach the coast with gale force winds and other associated impacts.

The next tropical cyclone advice on Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca will be at 13:00 PM UTC..
Quoting aburttschell:


I presented facts, you presented none. You challenge mine but offer no proof. And I'm emotional because AGW is costing billions, and if we keep taxing, especially at a time when our economic climate is fragile, it could plunge our great country even further into economic plight, while burdening future generations tremendously. I have no problem thinking green, people doing what they can to lessen pollution. I do have a problem with the government interaction when it comes to issues regarding global warming.


No, you really didn't present facts. You presented well formed sentences, e.g., "55% of hamsters ride unicycles while eating cheery ice cream." That's not a fact. Neither were your conclusions about global warming.

If you are against a particular solution, fine, state your reasons and many more intelligent people than me on here can debate with you. However, in my humble opinion, the costs of pollution almost always out weight the benefits of the technology involved. I can't present that as a fact because I can't survey all the cases but an example: grass fertilizer for the front yard. Benefits from a green yard? A lot (no pun intended), I grew up on grass. Negatives: pollution to streams, respiratory and other diseases (e.g. ALS maybe?).

Similarly introducing electric vehicles will cause some problems that we don't foresee. It will also eliminate a lot of problems. I agree that there are no perfect solutions. However relaxing pollution standards doesn't make America more competitive and it shouldn't even be necessary, we should have the talent to do things right and then export that know how to other coutnries that want to do it right as well.

And financially, there is no proof that going green will cost anything. If we don't develop new technology what are we going to export other than grain/food? New technology is the only thing that has a high enough price to compete with products of equal quality from third world countries. If you want to destroy America, keep producing crap automobiles and importing oil.

Economically, we need to pay off our international debt before the economic endgame of capitalism comes (e.g. when productivity of the average worker rises to where 10% of the work force can produce subsistence level standard of living world wide, circa 2025-2035) or we are screwed. IF you think that will happen without major cahgnes, you are dreaming. -Sweet dreams i might add because I think both of us are on the same side: strong clean America, it's my dream too. I just think the only way forward is America on renewable energy and in partnership with the 70% of peaceful nations.
Quoting Surfcropper:


yeah its called advancing

hate to break it you green guys but wind power was invented well before the world was officially round...

it was weak then and its weak now. history isn't very kind to the weak, unfortunately. I don't care what the crystal balls foresee...energy at its most efficient will be the best chances of survival. what good is a clean landscape when we're all rotting underneath it for being too generous and stupid?



Yes, because all those people putting up windmills are making the sails out of hemp and papyrus. Chuck Babbage's first computer couldn't even play Freecell. Historical evidence suggests that windwills will rock out till your legs can't dance no more, gas and coal will playing barmitzvahs while solar's still selling out Wembley.
Quoting alfabob:


Ah but quantum mechanics is 100% correct as it describes the probability of finding an electron in a potential field created by a positive nuclei. This has been verified to the highest of lab results and is the reason why modern electronics exist. Just because you don't understand 4-dimensional vector calculus doesn't mean it is inaccurate. The same goes for any other models which process data correctly, as the point of a model is to match reality usually by differential equations. Not saying that the models for climate change are 100% correct, but they give general results which indicate AGW as it is commonly defined.
I agree: science doesn't explain everything. I see Monica Belluci and I think I should have taken a left at Albuquerque: nothing explain that yet. Whomever, making decisions about the future is just using probability as a proxy for knowledge since even explained it's a chaotic system. Probability and cost matrixes suggest that pretending AGW doesn't exist is the worst case scenario.
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Advice #36
SEVERE TROPICAL CYCLONE BIANCA (12U)
6:00 PM WST January 28 2011
=======================================

At 5:00 pm WST, Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca, Category Four (945 hPa) located at 24.5S 108.3E, or 545 km west of Carnarvon and 1110 km northwest of Perth has 10 minute sustained winds of 90 knots with gusts of 125 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southwest at 15 knots.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca continues to move in a southwest direction away from the northwest of the state.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Bianca is expected to gradually weaken as it takes a more southerly track overnight. On Saturday Bianca will move in a southeasterly direction towards the southwest corner of the state while weakening steadily. However there is a significant risk that Bianca will maintain tropical cyclone intensity as it approaches the coast early on Sunday. If this happens, coastal areas between Jurien Bay and Albany could experience DAMAGING WINDS with gusts to 120 kilometres per hour. Wind gusts to 100 kilometres per hour may be experienced through inland parts southwest of a line Jurien Bay to Albany.

On Sunday tides between Jurien Bay and Cape Naturaliste are likely to rise significantly above the normal high tide mark with VERY ROUGH SEAS, DANGEROUS SURF and FLOODING of LOW LYING COASTAL AREAS. SIGNIFICANT COASTAL EROSION is possible. HEAVY RAINFALL is also possible on the southern side of the system. LOCALISED FLOODING is possible but extensive flooding is not expected.

VERY HIGH to SEVERE FIRE DANGERS are likely near the west coast on Sunday. EXTREME to CATASTROPHIC FIRE DANGERS are likely across inland areas south of a line from Geraldton to Leonora to Israelite Bay on Sunday.

Tropical Cyclone Warnings/Watch
================================
A Cyclone WATCH is current for coastal areas from Jurien Bay to Albany, including Perth, Mandurah, Bunbury and Busselton
Okay, (longish coffee-ish) break is over, I leave the blog for the more intelligent and knowledgeable, a domani.
Fiji Meteorological Services
Tropical Disturbance Summary
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 09F
18:00 PM FST January 28 2011
====================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression 09F (1003 hPa) located at 13.0S 179.0E is reported as moving slowly. Position POOR based on infrared imagery with animation and peripheral surface observations. Sea surface temperature is around 30C.

Organization has slightly improved in the last 6 hours. Convection has been persistent in the eastern semi-circle of the system in the past 24 hours with low level circulation center difficult to locate. System lies along a surface trough and to the east of 250 HPA ridge axis, in moderate sheared environment. Cyclonic circulation extends to 500 HPA.

Global models have picked up the system and slowly moves it southwestward with some intensification.

The potential for this system to develop into a tropical cyclone within the next 24-48 hours is MODERATE.
Quoting aburttschell:


I presented facts, you presented none. You challenge mine but offer no proof. And I'm emotional because AGW is costing billions, and if we keep taxing, especially at a time when our economic climate is fragile, it could plunge our great country even further into economic plight, while burdening future generations tremendously. I have no problem thinking green, people doing what they can to lessen pollution. I do have a problem with the government interaction when it comes to issues regarding global warming.


yeah cause it's only the people who walk on north american soil (and of course their wallets) that count

"our great country"

the pathetic mind-stance that americans are somehow better, and more deserving, than the humans of rest of the world
Quoting aquak9:
Quoting aburttschell:


I presented facts, you presented none. You challenge mine but offer no proof. And I'm emotional because AGW is costing billions, and if we keep taxing, especially at a time when our economic climate is fragile, it could plunge our great country even further into economic plight, while burdening future generations tremendously. I have no problem thinking green, people doing what they can to lessen pollution. I do have a problem with the government interaction when it comes to issues regarding global warming.


yeah cause it's only the people who walk on north american soil (and of course their wallets) that count

"our great country"

the pathetic mind-stance that americans are somehow better, and more deserving, than the humans of rest of the world

Good morning, aqua, and well-said. I love America, and am proud to be an American. But it takes a special kind of fool to turn a blind eye toward America's many problems, or to assume that we have some perfect "exceptional" past that will automatically transmogrify into some perfect "exceptional" future, or to believe that our lives matter more than the lives of the large majority of humans born elsewhere. Such ignorant hubris has led us far down the road toward our own decay and obsolescence.

Okay, time for coffee. ;-)
(warm fuzzy feeling)

thanks Nea...

it's supposta be 71º here tuesday afternoon and I am experiencing hysterical joy..



Rest in Peace Dick, Mike, Judy, El, Ron, Greg and Christa. We still morn your passing as a nation together even 25 years later.
Quoting hydrus:
I have been doing some research on potent winter systems. If this pattern were to continue, it is possible we could have a very dangerous and deadly winter storm before this winter is over. I am the furthest thing from a doom-caster, but it could be real threat to areas that have already been hit hard this year. Here on the Cumberland Plateau, we are already way ahead of schedule in the snowfall department and dont need anymore.


We got by with only 12 inches from this storm, but after last year... snow fatigue set in before the storm even started :) So here's the bad news- we live the eastern slope of the Applachians, on some of the higher peaks in the region and are subject to up-slope amplification of any precip that comes from the Atlantic. I think we're in for a long month in February. The good news- we were reaching the mid-seventies by the first week of March last year, so hopefully it'll be short-lived. Looking forward, do you see a series of storms for Feb. such as hit the Mid-Atlantic in Feb 2010?
52 degrees currently in Coconut Grove, FL. Off to a high of 70. I'll take it. No snow forecasted here in the next couple days.
In memory of 25 years ago, today:




Quoting goosegirl1:


We got by with only 12 inches from this storm, but after last year... snow fatigue set in before the storm even started :) So here's the bad news- we live the eastern slope of the Applachians, on some of the higher peaks in the region and are subject to up-slope amplification of any precip that comes from the Atlantic. I think we're in for a long month in February. The good news- we were reaching the mid-seventies by the first week of March last year, so hopefully it'll be short-lived. Looking forward, do you see a series of storms for Feb. such as hit the Mid-Atlantic in Feb 2010?
I will get back with you on this..In the near term, Tuesday thru Friday of next week look interesting. Atmospheric conditions should be in place for severe weather and a large winter storm...This is 132 hours out..
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:
In memory of 25 years ago, today:




It is still tough for me to watch that. I decided to tune in just before going to work that morning. I remember the shock and not believing what I just witnessed..Very sad day
Complete Update





That's tough to watch even 25 years later.

The same set of issues that caused the Space Shuttle explosion are eerily similar to what happened to the economy.

No one ever seems to think that the means justify the ends.

Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:
In memory of 25 years ago, today:




I will get back with you on this

thanks... gads, it's snowing again right now!
Quoting Jedkins01:





You mock Levi saying he lies about going to school?

Where the heck are your credentials Mr. Brilliant? Oh crap, that's right geeze you don't have them....


Seriously, you should join the comedy club, I'd pay money to watch you do shows on GW.


They have to attack, mock, criticize, and ridicule. That's all they have left to work with, they lost the ball to be righteous.

As he stated.. he is obviously one of the chosen few (1-2%) who know anything about GW.

Love to see his credentials... they have to be pretty impressive :)
Quoting hydrus:
It is still tough for me to watch that. I decided to tune in just before going to work that morning. I remember the shock and not believing what I just witnessed..Very sad day



Agreed. Stunned silence is what I recall most vividly. I think everyone I was around that morning knew instinctively that there could be no survivors. It took some time for folks' emotions to come out.
I was at the Cape that morning (well, standing on the western bank of the Indian River in Titusville, actually). I almost didn't leave Fort Myers to go; I figured it would be too cold, and I didn't want to make the six-hour round trip only to see the launch scrubbed. But I went anyway; I was off of work that day, and my car was running well.

My chief memory is of watching those two booster rockets speeding wildly away on their own, leaving that elongated fireball behind, that fireball with its many sad smoke tendrils arching downward to the sea. Most of the crowd around me watching at first seemed to think it was normal, though some who'd seen multiple launches pretty much knew the machine had blown up. The excited chatter one hears after any takeoff morphed into curious puzzlement, then words of dismay and disbelief, and then there was only the enormous silence of dawning realization punctuated by the small sounds of someone on TV talking about the incident, and the occasional tightly-bundled child asking his mother or father why everyone was crying.

There have been 132 shuttle flights; two have ended in the total loss of craft and crew. That means any astronaut realistically has a 1 in 66 chance of not making it home. Terrible odds. (Even more terrible: 40% of the fleet has been destroyed by accident.) But even with those odds, I'd still go up in a second. No qualms, no questions.



Well put, Nea.
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:



Agreed. Stunned silence is what I recall most vividly. I think everyone I was around that morning knew instinctively that there could be no survivors. It took some time for folks' emotions to come out.
I think many us knows where we were that day. I was a young Technical Sergeant flying on a C-5 out of Dover heading into Standiford Field, Ky when the crew announced the loss of the space shuttle. Upon arrival, I was one of many that ran over to Hawthorne Avaition and watched the news cast over and over. Sad day then as it is now.
Quoting PakaSurvivor:
I think many us knows where we were that day. I was a young Technical Sergeant flying on a C-5 out of Dover heading into Standiford Field, Ky when the crew announced the loss of the space shuttle. Upon arrival, I was one of many that ran over to Hawthorne Avaition and watched the news cast over and over. Sad day then as it is now.



Agreed.
Awesome SDO video of major eruptions on the sun today.

I don't know what is harder to believe.. that it has been 25 years or a wound could be so fresh after all that time. My thoughts are with all the old guys that put their life into launching these & what they will suffer through today.. The exploding shuttle pic is one I could do without seeing.
Quoting Skyepony:
Awesome SDO video of major eruptions on the sun today.

I don't know what is harder to believe.. that it has been 25 years or a wound could be so fresh after all that time. My thoughts are with all the old guys that put their life into launching these & what they will suffer through today.. The exploding shuttle pic is one I could do without seeing.



Excellent points. Morning, Skye.



That is an awesome clip. Thanks.
Morn'n all. Sunny and 60 degrees in Navarre. Conflicted...stay at work and look at it or go to the golf course and play in it...hmmmmmmm
Quoting alfabob:


Ah but quantum mechanics is 100% correct as it describes the probability of finding an electron in a potential field created by a positive nuclei. This has been verified to the highest of lab results and is the reason why modern electronics exist. Just because you don't understand 4-dimensional vector calculus doesn't mean it is inaccurate. The same goes for any other models which process data correctly, as the point of a model is to match reality usually by differential equations. Not saying that the models for climate change are 100% correct, but they give general results which indicate AGW as it is commonly defined.


It's not 100% correct. It is correct enough for our current purposes and works to explain the observations. But it is no more correct than Newtonian mechanics when compared to special and general relativity.

Eventually a new theory and model will evolve that will resolve the differences between relativity and QM that will show that QM alone was good, but the new model is better. Beyond that we may finally discover the GUT and it will surpass them.

Just because a particular model or equation is giving the correct results does not mean that something better won't be discovered. It means that, at the moment based on our best research that this is the best we have to work with.

The same goes with pretty much any science branch. We develop models and theories and keep building on them to make them more complete.

Your not going to find rigorous proofs in science.
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:



Agreed. Stunned silence is what I recall most vividly. I think everyone I was around that morning knew instinctively that there could be no survivors. It took some time for folks' emotions to come out.
I do remember watching the weather forecast before the launch. They did mention that the cold could postpone the flight.
Quoting Skyepony:
Awesome SDO video of major eruptions on the sun today.

I don't know what is harder to believe.. that it has been 25 years or a wound could be so fresh after all that time. My thoughts are with all the old guys that put their life into launching these & what they will suffer through today.. The exploding shuttle pic is one I could do without seeing.


I was on my way to the elementary school principal's office because in a journal for class I had written about a dream I had of the space shuttle exploding. I caught a glimpse of a TV screen in the gym where everyone had gathered to watch the launch on my way there. :P

And no, I don't attribute it to psychic nonsense or premonition. I don't believe in the metaphysical, nor religion, nor that humans have any special powers. I had been talking with the science teacher the previous day because I was curious about the fuel used in the shuttle. She explained that other than the SRBs, it was liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Having recently singed myself in a recent hydrogen producing experiment using a home chemistry set (I tried to make a lot more hydrogen than the experiment said to try), I gained a whole new level of respect for the astronauts for basically strapping themselves to a giant fuel bomb.

Some things just get stuck in kids heads. Even though I noted in the journal that the dream was probably inspired by my chemistry experiment gone wrong and the fact that hydrogen and oxygen can make a very big boom, the teacher thought it was in bad taste (or there was something wrong with me) considering the launch was coming up.

Things weren't quite the same between me and the teacher after that.

At any rate, I remember the event and the rest of the school year afterward because it was one of the most awkward and unpleasant school years I remember.