2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:22 PM GMT en Enero 27, 2012

Share this Blog
44
+

The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.

How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.


Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.


Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.

Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."

Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.

Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

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

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

Viewing: 533 - 483

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years



This should put a few of the GW fanatics out of business for awhile.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OVERVIEW
What is the Singularity?



Some of the stronger Singularity technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence and brain-computer interfaces, offer the possibility of faster intelligence as well as smarter intelligence. Ultimately, speeding up intelligence is probably comparatively unimportant next to creating better intelligence; nonetheless the potential differences in speed are worth mentioning because they are so huge. Human neurons operate by sending electrochemical signals that propagate at a top speed of 150 meters per second along the fastest neurons. By comparison, the speed of light is 300,000,000 meters per second, two million times greater. Similarly, most human neurons can spike a maximum of 200 times per second; even this may overstate the information-processing capability of neurons, since most modern theories of neural information-processing call for information to be carried by the frequency of the spike train rather than individual signals. By comparison, speeds in modern computer chips are currently at around 2GHz a ten millionfold difference and still increasing exponentially. At the very least it should be physically possible to achieve a million-to-one speedup in thinking, at which rate a subjective year would pass in 31 physical seconds. At this rate the entire subjective timespan from Socrates in ancient Greece to modern-day humanity would pass in under twenty-two hours.
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
Quoting Patrap:
Welcome to year AI-1

2045 - SINGULARITY SCENARIO


Terahertz class photonic and spintronic processors with molecular scale transistor gates are only about 10 to 15 years away.

Borg-style, atomically precise nano-machines for medicine and manufacturing are maybe 30 years away.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is there enough humanity left... to save this Earth? Im not feeling it....thats why I dont put my faith in human beings. Everyone go out and enjoy your day, see you back in June.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 21Jake:
A few of my family members still doubt GW and one of them just posted this article on FB saying we're headed for a mini ice age. Ridiculous. Can someone help me debunk this article?

Link
Please see comments #511 and #512.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ColdInFL:
Another thorn in the side:

Link
It's only a "thorn" for those who believe it's unusual for Alaska to experience prolonged subzero temperatures in January.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A few of my family members still doubt GW and one of them just posted this article on FB saying we're headed for a mini ice age. Ridiculous. Can someone help me debunk this article?

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Law of Accelerating Returns
March 7, 2001 by Ray Kurzweil

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
525. Skyepony (Mod)


"Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom."

"Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve 'model' bills…Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills."


This is starting to make sense.. I've recently seen some public school material 1st-3rd grade pushing oil, oil rigs & such..

"Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"

The bill's opening clause reads [PDF], "The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall…"

Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agencies should,

* "Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."
* "Provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economic controversies."
* "Be presented in language appropriate for education rather than for propagandizing."
* "Encourage students to explore different perspectives and form their own opinions."
* "Encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."
* "Not be designed to change student behavior, attitudes or values."
* "Not include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political action activities."


All sorts of more about this topic here..


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting scott39:
WOW!


Im sure that may be one expletive we use, but definitely, were on the cusp of some very large change,...
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
Quoting ColdInFL:
Another thorn in the side:

Link


"One event that was not canceled was the Running Club North%u2019s Chilly Buns Mid-Winter Run near the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Five people ran the 6.5 mile race, with a temperature of 49 below zero recorded at start time."

Wow!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Welcome to year AI-1

2045 - SINGULARITY SCENARIO
WOW!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:


NYC snow or interior?


Both are possible, too early to tell though...
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
Welcome to year AI-1

2045 - SINGULARITY SCENARIO
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
Quoting WxGeekVA:


6 days out, and still showing a snowstorm. The hype begins....


NYC snow or interior?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Another thorn in the side:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"At least nine people were killed in a string of crashes involving about 20 vehicles on the northbound and southbound sides of Interstate 75 south of Gainesville early Sunday, when smoke from a wildfire on Paynes Prairie reduced visibility to nearly nothing on the highway."

Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Fair enough. Now, there have been millions of observations made in a myriad of areas, and numerous independent bits of research done along multiple lines of investigation. There have been thousands of peer-reviewed articles published, and more than a century of empirical evidence to bolster the theory that the planet's warming due to fossil-fuel emissions and deforestation. My question, then, is this: how much more would be needed to convince you?


Another decade or two's worth of data should suffice. There has only been about 75 years worth of solid, consistent observations, and to me that is too small of a sample set to base a conclusion off of.
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
515. Skyepony (Mod)
I called the cold winter for Eurasia because of the low Arctic sea ice north of there..They'd be getting it like I did the previous two years when the Hudson struggled hard to refreeze. Nice to see the whole idea of it get published..



Climatic Change, 110(4-3) (2012) 1069-1075; doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0334-z



A link between Arctic sea ice and recent cooling trends over Eurasia
S. D. Outten and I. Esau (G. C. Rieber Climate Institute, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Thormhlensgt. 47, 5006 Bergen, Norway)


Abstract

A band of cooling that extends across mid-latitude Eurasia is identified in the wintertime surface air temperatures of the latest ECMWF reanalysis. This cooling is related to extreme warming around the Kara Sea through changes in the meridional temperature gradient. Surface temperatures in the Arctic have risen faster than those at lower latitudes, and as the Arctic warming increases, this north–south temperature gradient is weakened. This change in the meridional temperature gradient causes a decrease in the westerly winds that help maintain the mild European climate by transporting heat from the Atlantic. Since decreasing sea ice concentrations have been shown to be a driving factor in Arctic amplification, a singular value decomposition analysis is used to confirm the co-variability of the Arctic sea ice, including the Kara Sea, and the temperatures over the mid-latitude Eurasia. These findings suggest that decreasing sea ice concentrations can change the meridional temperature gradient and hence the large-scale atmospheric flow of the Northern Hemisphere.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/245682l4416qh q7g/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Our progress has reached a point where something must give.

We see more change in a Year now, than we have seen in the last Thousand.

Soon we shall reach a point where we shall see more change in a single day, than in the last 20,000 years.

Nature, and the Universe are being drawn toward some great attractor just over the Horizon.

A birth, we shall witness.
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
513. Skyepony (Mod)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMarcus:
Not surprisingly, everyone in the scientific community isn't in agreement on this 'dire' set of predictions...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-20 93264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-N ASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
As Xyrus noted, that's hardly a scientific publication. The article quotes three well-known "skeptics"--Henrik Svensmark, Nicola Scafetta, and Juidth Curry--plus a spokesperson for the very skeptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, an organization that keeps its funding hidden for "security purposes". Yet the article quotes just a single supporter, Peter Stott. In the article, Stott is quoted as saying, "Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases"--but then the article went on to say that conclusion was "fiercely disputed" by the other experts they quoted.

I suppose that's the Mail's version of "fair and balanced", huh? ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
499 MrMarcus "Not surprisingly, everyone in the scientific community isn't in agreement on this 'dire' set of predictions...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-20 93264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-N ASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
"

206 aspectre : Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming
Excluding GlobalWarming due to excess greenhouse gases, "...if solar output [were] reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C" by 2100
HOWEVER, "This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5degreesCelsius over the same period due to greenhouse gases."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WxGeekVA:


I still think more observations are necessary before making a conclusion....
Fair enough. Now, there have been millions of observations made in a myriad of areas, and numerous independent bits of research done along multiple lines of investigation. There have been thousands of peer-reviewed articles published, and more than a century of empirical evidence to bolster the theory that the planet's warming due to fossil-fuel emissions and deforestation. My question, then, is this: how much more would be needed to convince you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Short Range Public Discussion

(Latest Discussion - Issued 2006Z Jan 28, 2012)


SHORT RANGE FORECAST DISCUSSION
NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD
306 PM EST SAT JAN 28 2012

VALID 00Z SUN JAN 29 2012 - 00Z TUE JAN 31 2012

...TEMPERATURES WILL BE 15 TO 25 DEGREES ABOVE AVERAGE FOR THE
NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS/NORTHERN/CENTRAL PLAINS...


A FRONT ALONG THE EASTERN SEABOARD WILL MOVE OFF THE COAST BY
SUNDAY MORNING. WITH A VARY MODEST SUPPLE OF MOISTURE ... ONLY
LIGHT SNOW WILL DEVELOP OVER PARTS OF THE INTERIOR NORTHEAST.
BEHIND THIS SYSTEM ... HIGH PRESSURE OVER THE SOUTHERN PLAINS WILL
MOVE EASTWARD TO THE SOUTHEAST BY MONDAY.

ANOTHER WEAK FRONT OVER THE UPPER MIDWEST WILL ROTATE EASTWARD
ACROSS THE GREAT LAKES/OHIO VALLEY TO THE NORTHEAST/MID-ATLANTIC
BY SUNDAY EVENING THEN OFF THE EAST COAST BY MONDAY MORNING.
LIGHT SNOW WILL DEVELOP OVER THE GREAT LAKES AND MOVE INTO THE
NORTHEAST BY SUNDAY NIGHT ... THEN OFF THE COAST BY MONDAY
MORNING. LIKEWISE ... BEHIND THIS FRONT ... HIGH PRESSURE OVER
CENTRAL CANADA WILL MOVE SOUTHEASTWARD INTO THE OHIO VALLEY BY
MONDAY.

ONSHORE FLOW AHEAD OF THE NEXT SYSTEM MOVING ONSHORE OVER THE
NORTHWEST WILL PRODUCE LIGHT TO MODERATE RAIN ALONG THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST COAST ... STARTING OVERNIGHT SATURDAY THROUGH SUNDAY
EVENING. LIGHT SNOW WILL ALSO DEVELOP AT THE HIGHEST ELEVATIONS
OVER THE REGION. IN ADDITION ... LIGHT SNOW WILL DEVELOP OVER
PORTIONS OF THE NORTHERN ROCKIES AND THE NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS. IN
THE WAKE OF THE STORM ... ONSHORE FLOW WILL AID IN PRODUCING LIGHT
RAIN AND HIGHER ELEVATION SNOW OVER THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST ON
MONDAY MORNING.

ELSEWHERE ... AN OLD BOUNDARY NEAR THE SOUTHERN TIP OF FLORIDA
WILL AID IN PRODUCING SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS OVER THE REGION
THROUGH MONDAY.


ZIEGENFELDER
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Ya'll can try to 'spain this all away but, I still say we are heading in the wrong direction. The party is the other way! ;-)


any you are just annoyed because you were not invited. :)
Member Since: Febrero 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
Scientists find bacteria resistant to nearly all antibiotics in Antarctica sea water

Posted on January 29, 2012
January 29, 2012 – ANTARTICA – Bacteria that can resist nearly all antibiotics have been found in Antarctic seawater. Björn Olsen of Uppsala University in Sweden and colleagues took seawater samples between 10 and 300 meters away from Chile’s Antarctic research stations, Bernardo O’Higgins, Arturo Prat and Fildes Bay. A quarter of the samples of Escherichia coli bacteria carried genes that made an enzyme called ESBL, which can destroy penicillin, cephalosporins and related antibiotics. Bacteria with these genes can be even more dangerous than the better known superbug MRSA. That’s because the genes sit on a mobile chunk of DNA that can be acquired by many species of bacteria, increasing the incidence of drug-resistant infections such as the E. coli outbreak last year in Germany. The type of ESBL they found, called CTX-M, is common in bacteria in people, and the Uppsala study found that concentrations of resistant bacteria were higher close to the sewage outfalls from the stations. Some Antarctic stations started shipping out human feces for incineration after gut bacteria were found nearby. Chile’s research stations have virtually no sewage treatment in place, says Olsen. Recent work shows the bacteria may hang on to the genes for CTX-M even when no longer exposed to antibiotics, suggesting that superbugs can survive in the wild, with animals acting as a reservoir. Penguins near the Chilean stations have been checked and are free of ESBL, though Olsen is now looking at the area’s gulls as he has found ESBL-producing bugs in gulls in France. “If these genes are in Antarctica, it’s an indication of how far this [problem] has gone,” he says. –New Scientist


Scientists bewildered by mass migration of snowy owls from the Arctic
Posted on January 28, 2012
January 28, 2012 – SALMON, Idaho – Bird enthusiasts are reporting rising numbers of snowy owls from the Arctic winging into the lower 48 states this winter in a mass southern migration that a leading owl researcher called “unbelievable.” Thousands of the snow-white birds, which stand 2 feet tall with 5-foot wingspans, have been spotted from coast to coast, feeding in farmlands in Idaho, roosting on rooftops in Montana, gliding over golf courses in Missouri and soaring over shorelines in Massachusetts. A certain number of the iconic owls fly south from their Arctic breeding grounds each winter but rarely do so many venture so far away even amid large-scale, periodic southern migrations known as irruptions. “What we’re seeing now — it’s unbelievable,” said Denver Holt, head of the Owl Research Institute in Montana. “This is the most significant wildlife event in decades,” added Holt, who has studied snowy owls in their Arctic tundra ecosystem for two decades. Holt and other owl experts say the phenomenon is likely linked to lemmings, a rodent that accounts for 90 percent of the diet of snowy owls during breeding months that stretch from May into September. The largely nocturnal birds also prey on a host of other animals, from voles to geese. An especially plentiful supply of lemmings last season likely led to a population boom among owls that resulted in each breeding pair hatching as many as seven offspring.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Well, technically only galaxies outside our own galaxy cluster, the "local group".

Dark Energy was invented as a patch to explain this accelerating expansion of the universe. Not that anyone knows exactly what Dark Energy is, it's just a label for "That weird force we don't know how to describe."

However, what they are talking about is "something" warps the motion of the cosmos on a very large scale so that it appears to favor one direction over the other, and the "something" does not appear to be part of the universe itself.


Ya'll can try to 'spain this all away but, I still say we are heading in the wrong direction. The party is the other way! ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate



Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127664
Quoting Neapolitan:
Being informed is the very best thing one can do, of course. Just remember, however, that not all sources of information are the same, so be careful what you accept and what you reject. IOW, consider the source; if it comes from a person or group funded by fossil fuel interests, it'll pay you to be extra vigilant while reading.
There are a couple of ways. First, it's helpful to know that manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, those natural CO2 emissions are--and have almost always been--balanced by natural absorption (by both the ocean and vegetation). But now our rising CO2 emissions have upset that natural balance. About 40% of anthropogenic emissions are being absorbed by the oceans (leading to acidification), while the remaining 60% stays in the atmosphere, which is why atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in hundreds or thousands, or even millions, of years. And that CO2 causes warming, as has been empirically proven again and again.

Second, scientists have closely examined the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere and found that as atmospheric CO2 has risen, the percentage of plant-based CO2 has fallen--meaning, of course, that the excess CO2 is, indeed, coming from us.

Most scientists--in fact, all of them worth their diplomas--believe the earth has been here for not millions but billions of years. And, yes, the climate has changed in the past. Many times, in fact. Previous major changes have been caused by such things as Milankovich cycles (slow change) or supercolossal volcanic eruptions (swift change). In short, the climate responds to whatever is forcing it to change--and humans are now the dominant force. (My analogy: a man may have lost weight many times over the years while intentionally dieting, but if he starts losing weight spontaneously though he's not dieting, it would be foolish of him to simply dismiss it by saying, "Well, I've lost weight before.")

The big takeaway: the current warming is occurring many times faster than it did during any of the past slow changes--and it's important to remember that even those slow changes brought about massive disruptions to the biosphere.
Thanks for breaking my questions down and making it easy to understand that side of it. Im going to have to get off the fence sooner than later with more research. I do my part in taking care of my small footprint and also teach my children the same. Reality for the present is OIL runs the world in too many aspects. I think with patience and some time....not too much.... we can have a cleaner world... but not without affordability for the masses. I like the idea on post 478 to help with the finacial challanges of clean energy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMarcus:
Not surprisingly, everyone in the scientific community isn't in agreement on this 'dire' set of predictions...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-20 93264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-N ASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html


Not surprisingly, you can only find nonsense like that in the Daily Mail, which is the equivalent of the Weekly World News as far as informative news sources go.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick to the scientific literature on the subject.
Member Since: Octubre 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1459
Quoting Neapolitan:
Being informed is the very best thing one can do, of course. Just remember, however, that not all sources of information are the same, so be careful what you accept and what you reject. IOW, consider the source; if it comes from a person or group funded by fossil fuel interests, it'll pay you to be extra vigilant while reading.
There are a couple of ways. First, it's helpful to know that manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, those natural CO2 emissions are--and have almost always been--balanced by natural absorption (by both the ocean and vegetation). But now our rising CO2 emissions have upset that natural balance. About 40% of anthropogenic emissions are being absorbed by the oceans (leading to acidification), while the remaining 60% stays in the atmosphere, which is why atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in hundreds or thousands, or even millions, of years. And that CO2 causes warming, as has been empirically proven again and again.

Second, scientists have closely examined the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere and found that as atmospheric CO2 has risen, the percentage of plant-based CO2 has fallen--meaning, of course, that the excess CO2 is, indeed, coming from us.

Most scientists--in fact, all of them worth their diplomas--believe the earth has been here for not millions but billions of years. And, yes, the climate has changed in the past. Many times, in fact. Previous major changes have been caused by such things as Milankovich cycles (slow change) or supercolossal volcanic eruptions (swift change). In short, the climate responds to whatever is forcing it to change--and humans are now the dominant force. (My analogy: a man may have lost weight many times over the years while intentionally dieting, but if he starts losing weight spontaneously though he's not dieting, it would be foolish of him to simply dismiss it by saying, "Well, I've lost weight before.")

The big takeaway: the current warming is occurring many times faster than it did during any of the past slow changes--and it's important to remember that even those slow changes brought about massive disruptions to the biosphere.


I still think more observations are necessary before making a conclusion....
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
Quoting hydrus:
Good morning Scott. There is some really good info out there about the current warming trend. Scientists are researching ALL the possible causes, and data is coming in at a good clip. The Earth has been warming since the last ice age with a few exceptions. The Little Ice Age being one of them. It was a cold period between 1550 and 1850. This is a good link about it..Link.It is my personal opinion that it will be core samples taken from the worlds oceans and land masses that will prove that humans are causing some of the warming here on Earth. The tricky part is there can be no fuzzy math so to speak, and this type of research is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Another interesting co-factor is now they have discovered that some of the pollution being emitted into our atmosphere may be reflecting some solar radiation back out into space, another variable in the equation that will have to be dealt with a great degree of accuracy. Suffice it to say, eventually they will pin down the source of the warming in a fashion that will prove or disprove man-kinds true impact on the atmosphere, research that is irrefutable and cannot be dismissed or explained away. You said in your post that people are concerned for the planet. We should be, the generations to come are counting on it, and there will be a few books written on it for sure..:)
Interesting post, thanks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting scott39:
Goodmorning everyone, After reading your post Dr. Masters, I can feel your concern for this planet. I always focus on the climate on where I live and loose focus on the planet as a whole. Your posts here on Wunderground helps put my focus back on our planet. I have a couple of questions concerning Climate change? I really dont know what to believe, so im trying to make an informed decision for myself.
Being informed is the very best thing one can do, of course. Just remember, however, that not all sources of information are the same, so be careful what you accept and what you reject. IOW, consider the source; if it comes from a person or group funded by fossil fuel interests, it'll pay you to be extra vigilant while reading.
Quoting scott39:
1)Is there a way to prove that man-made gases are the main culprit in modern day climate changes?
There are a couple of ways. First, it's helpful to know that manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, those natural CO2 emissions are--and have almost always been--balanced by natural absorption (by both the ocean and vegetation). But now our rising CO2 emissions have upset that natural balance. About 40% of anthropogenic emissions are being absorbed by the oceans (leading to acidification), while the remaining 60% stays in the atmosphere, which is why atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in hundreds or thousands, or even millions, of years. And that CO2 causes warming, as has been empirically proven again and again.

Second, scientists have closely examined the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere and found that as atmospheric CO2 has risen, the percentage of plant-based CO2 has fallen--meaning, of course, that the excess CO2 is, indeed, coming from us.

Quoting scott39:
And if so, what has me confused the most is....how do scientists know for sure....due to the fact that the Earth has been here for thousands, and most scientists believe millions of years. They also believe that the Earth went through many changes climatology speaking over those millions of years.
Most scientists--in fact, all of them worth their diplomas--believe the earth has been here for not millions but billions of years. And, yes, the climate has changed in the past. Many times, in fact. Previous major changes have been caused by such things as Milankovich cycles (slow change) or supercolossal volcanic eruptions (swift change). In short, the climate responds to whatever is forcing it to change--and humans are now the dominant force. (My analogy: a man may have lost weight many times over the years while intentionally dieting, but if he starts losing weight spontaneously though he's not dieting, it would be foolish of him to simply dismiss it by saying, "Well, I've lost weight before.")

The big takeaway: the current warming is occurring many times faster than it did during any of the past slow changes--and it's important to remember that even those slow changes brought about massive disruptions to the biosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Not surprisingly, everyone in the scientific community isn't in agreement on this 'dire' set of predictions...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-20 93264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-N ASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Yes, but your scenario is unrealistic. The melt rate cannot keep doubling every 5 years, or even every 10 years. It's not physically possible. Even with "carbon bombs", you'd need to eventually maintain melting all year round (and quite a lot of it) to drain Greenland of its ice. Unless our atmosphere thickens considerably (runaway greenhouse), the arctic winter will prevent year round melting.

The temperature response to CO2 isn't exponential or even linear. Current best estimates show that every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by 3 C. In other words, the more you add, the less effective it becomes.

That being the case, even at 1000ppm the temperature the current worst case would be somewhere between 6C-9C. That's nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but it is far from enough heat to melt Greenland by the end of the century, let alone in 17 years no matter how extreme the scenario.

Or too put it another way, if a scenario arises where the Greenland melts entirely within the century, most of us won't be around to care about it and coastal flooding would be the least of your concerns.
Well put. And, as a corollary, I think it's important to note that Greenland's ice needn't vanish in its entirety to cause problems. It's currently losing just under 300 gigatonnes a year of ice--and that's more than enough to warrant concern.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1911maker:


The folloing links will give you info on basic CO2 "stuff". My back ground is engineering so I am not qualified to judge if this is good bad or other wise.
If you slog through it, you will have a better handle on how CO2 absorbs Sun light etc.

The first lecture introduces the scientific versus not method and how it applies to climate issues.

This link gets you the list of class outlines
Link

From page one:
Meteo 1020 Lecture 1
Introductory Material:
The Scientific Method: The method of practiced skepticism
•􀀁 We need to contrast science from non-science
•􀀁 It is important that you can distinguish the difference
between actual science, the current popular batch of
pseudo sciences and even the fundamental difference
between science and religion

The link gets you the PDF for lecture 1
Link

I hope this helps.
I will read through, and see what I can learn from it. Thanks for the help.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
so hows all the nut bars this sunday morning hope ya doing well


I'm doing quite well, actua..... wait.....
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
so hows all the nut bars this sunday morning hope ya doing well
Good, and back at you nutty buddy!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting scott39:
Goodmorning everyone, After reading your post Dr. Masters, I can feel your concern for this planet. I always focus on the climate on where I live and loose focus on the planet as a whole. Your posts here on Wunderground helps put my focus back on our planet. I have a couple of questions concerning Climate change? I really dont know what to believe, so im trying to make an informed decision for myself. 1)Is there a way to prove that man-made gases are the main culprit in modern day climate changes? And if so, what has me confused the most is....how do scientists know for sure....due to the fact that the Earth has been here for thousands, and most scientists believe millions of years. They also believe that the Earth went through many changes climatology speaking over those millions of years. Which the last statement brings me no comfort either, because man or no-man made.... millions of years ago, wasnt a pleasant expierence. You have probably explained all this before and I missed it. If you have,then hopefully you can post something again on it soon. Anyone else on here this morning that can give some info on the questions I have asked....my mind is clear and I have my glasses on. Thanks Scott


The folloing links will give you info on basic CO2 "stuff". My back ground is engineering so I am not qualified to judge if this is good bad or other wise.
If you slog through it, you will have a better handle on how CO2 absorbs Sun light etc.

The first lecture introduces the scientific versus not method and how it applies to climate issues.

This link gets you the list of class outlines
Link

From page one:
Meteo 1020 Lecture 1
Introductory Material:
The Scientific Method: The method of practiced skepticism
•􀀁 We need to contrast science from non-science
•􀀁 It is important that you can distinguish the difference
between actual science, the current popular batch of
pseudo sciences and even the fundamental difference
between science and religion

The link gets you the PDF for lecture 1
Link

I hope this helps.
Member Since: Febrero 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Yes, but your scenario is unrealistic. The melt rate cannot keep doubling every 5 years, or even every 10 years. It's not physically possible. Even with "carbon bombs", you'd need to eventually maintain melting all year round (and quite a lot of it) to drain Greenland of its ice. Unless our atmosphere thickens considerably (runaway greenhouse), the arctic winter will prevent year round melting.

The temperature response to CO2 isn't exponential or even linear. Current best estimates show that every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by 3 C. In other words, the more you add, the less effective it becomes.

That being the case, even at 1000ppm the temperature the current worst case would be somewhere between 6C-9C. That's nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but it is far from enough heat to melt Greenland by the end of the century, let alone in 17 years no matter how extreme the scenario.

Or too put it another way, if a scenario arises where the Greenland melts entirely within the century, most of us won't be around to care about it and coastal flooding would be the least of your concerns.


You are certainly correct in saying it can't continue exponentially indefinitely.

But there are certainly other positive feedbacks involved, such as albedo, which can theoretically continue getting worse right up until the Earth reaches minimum albedo.

Mid-lattitude albedos from snowpacks, mountain glaciers, and lake and river ice in winter effects a very large portion of the planet.

Daily Arctic Sea Ice

Look how much bigger the snowpack area is compared to arctic sea ice and greenland ice cap.

All of that is potential positive albedo feedback, since in terms of net WINTER ice loss for AREA, which effects albedo, the snow pack is actually much, much more fragile,e asier to melt, and effects a much, much larger area, over lower lattitudes with more direct sunlight, and hence a much larger daily change in net albedo.


So albedo feedback can go right off the scale long before Greenland or the winter sea ice is removed, particularly during winter, late autumn, and early spring.

The annual melting days anomaly for the NH above 60N is something like plus 16 for NA, +8 for the ocean, and +12 for Greenland and Eurasia.

Since the number of days in a year doesn't change, every melting day you add is a freezing day you lose. It's like a turnover in basketball. It isn't worth one score, it's worth two scores: The opponent lost a basket and you gained a basket, etc.


Since north America is gaining an average of 1.6 annual melting days per year, or 16 per decade, this means that after just 20 years you'll literally lose an entire month's worth of winter.

Now imagine how big a change this is going to be on the positive albedo feedback, just on the North American continent, when a month's worth of snow and ice EVERY YEAR never happens.

If this continues for just another 10 or 20 years, the consequences are going to be absolutely shocking, even if it slows to just +10 annual melting days per decade, it would only take 3 decades to erase an entire month of winter from the calendar.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
so hows all the nut bars this sunday morning hope ya doing well
Member Since: Julio 15, 2006 Posts: 169 Comments: 53296
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
Nope. Greed.



"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of man." Abbot Nanrei Kobori

"Just to be alive billions of years after the origin of life, a being must be tough, resourceful, and lucky: There have so many hazards along the way."
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Iggy...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting scott39:
Goodmorning everyone, After reading your post Dr. Masters, I can feel your concern for this planet. I always focus on the climate on where I live and loose focus on the planet as a whole. Your posts here on Wunderground helps put my focus back on our planet. I have a couple of questions concerning Climate change? I really dont know what to believe, so im trying to make an informed decision for myself. 1)Is there a way to prove that man-made gases are the main culprit in modern day climate changes? And if so, what has me confused the most is....how do scientists know for sure....due to the fact that the Earth has been here for thousands, and most scientists believe millions of years. They also believe that the Earth went through many changes climatology speaking over those millions of years. Which the last statement brings me no comfort either, because man or no-man made.... millions of years ago, wasnt a pleasant expierence. You have probably explained all this before and I missed it. If you have,then hopefully you can post something again on it soon. Anyone else on here this morning that can give some info on the questions I have asked....my mind is clear and I have my glasses on. Thanks Scott
Good morning Scott. There is some really good info out there about the current warming trend. Scientists are researching ALL the possible causes, and data is coming in at a good clip. The Earth has been warming since the last ice age with a few exceptions. The Little Ice Age being one of them. It was a cold period between 1550 and 1850. This is a good link about it..Link.It is my personal opinion that it will be core samples taken from the worlds oceans and land masses that will prove that humans are causing some of the warming here on Earth. The tricky part is there can be no fuzzy math so to speak, and this type of research is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Another interesting co-factor is now they have discovered that some of the pollution being emitted into our atmosphere may be reflecting some solar radiation back out into space, another variable in the equation that will have to be dealt with a great degree of accuracy. Suffice it to say, eventually they will pin down the source of the warming in a fashion that will prove or disprove man-kinds true impact on the atmosphere, research that is irrefutable and cannot be dismissed or explained away. You said in your post that people are concerned for the planet. We should be, the generations to come are counting on it, and there will be a few books written on it for sure..:)
Member Since: Septiembre 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20546
Quoting RTSplayer:


Once on a large enough scale, the Laws of thermodynamics requires that "eventually" ice must be heated and melted before SST and atmospheric temperatures can continue to rise.

That whole "It's not easy to move heat from a cold sink to a warm sink" thing is at play.

The specific heat capacity of Ice is much higher than air, but lower than liquid water.

The Heat of Fusion for the phase change from ice to liquid water is roughly 80 times greater than the Specific Heat capacity of liquid water, and at least by mass, it's something like 320 times greater than the specific heat capacity of air.


In short, once most of the ice is melted, the SST and air temps in the surrounding regions will increase perhaps many, many times faster.


But don't worry, you have to take a big chunk out of Greenland before that becomes a factor.

The fastest Greenland can possibly melt is 17 years under the worst realistic carbon bomb imaginable.

The fastest it will melt with business as usual and population groth is 70 years, give or take a few.

the IPCC projections for sea level rise suggest they think Greenland will survive for 300 to 500 years.

I find that highly unlikely, since it would totally melt in 7500 years even if the melt rate was constant and linear equal to the average of the past 5 years. It's not. I has been doubling every 5 years for at least the past 10 years.

If the rate of increase in the rate of melting slowed down, so that it doubled only once every 10 years, instead of once every 5 years, it would still be possible for Greenland to totally melt within 100 years.


It is now known that there is a carbon bomb in the arctic and permafrost equivalent to 2 to 4 times the amount of CO2 that man has made in his existence, and this will begin release within the next few decades, certainly since the sea ice will all be gone in summer in 5 or 6 years or so.


We're supposed to hit 700PPM CO2 by the end of the century, even without counting carbon bombs.

With all carbon bombs, it could easily exceed 1000PPM by 2100.


Even if we stopped making CO2 all together, we have a net excess, and Greenland would eventually melt, in 7500 years, AND the carbon bombs would be released anyway. yeah.

What is required to stop global warming is to not only STOP increasing the Keeling Curve, but to lower it back down to pre-industrial levels, and about half of that needs to be done in the next couple decades, BEFORE the carbon bombs get released, else you'll be dealing with another 200 to 400 PPM CO2 on top of what we already have.


Yes, but your scenario is unrealistic. The melt rate cannot keep doubling every 5 years, or even every 10 years. It's not physically possible. Even with "carbon bombs", you'd need to eventually maintain melting all year round (and quite a lot of it) to drain Greenland of its ice. Unless our atmosphere thickens considerably (runaway greenhouse), the arctic winter will prevent year round melting.

The temperature response to CO2 isn't exponential or even linear. Current best estimates show that every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by 3 C. In other words, the more you add, the less effective it becomes.

That being the case, even at 1000ppm the temperature the current worst case would be somewhere between 6C-9C. That's nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but it is far from enough heat to melt Greenland by the end of the century, let alone in 17 years no matter how extreme the scenario.

Or too put it another way, if a scenario arises where the Greenland melts entirely within the century, most of us won't be around to care about it and coastal flooding would be the least of your concerns.
Member Since: Octubre 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1459
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Yes, and the Northeast will get significantly colder and snowier next week.


That combined with the current PNA and the forecasted -NAO looks very good for snow lovers like myself!

What do you think of the snow possibility next weekend?
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Look at the crash in the SOI values in the past few days.

24 Jan 2012 1012.38 1000.25 35.43 10.43 14.40
25 Jan 2012 1012.78 998.40 46.03 10.59 14.78
26 Jan 2012 1013.96 1000.50 41.70 10.98 15.12
27 Jan 2012 1012.88 1003.80 21.06 10.77 15.27
28 Jan 2012 1010.91 1004.70 7.54 10.40 15.23
29 Jan 2012 1010.15 1005.25 1.37 10.13 15.13

Source for SOI values

Yes, and the Northeast will get significantly colder and snowier next week.
Member Since: Julio 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31554
Look at the crash in the SOI values in the past few days.

24 Jan 2012 1012.38 1000.25 35.43 10.43 14.40
25 Jan 2012 1012.78 998.40 46.03 10.59 14.78
26 Jan 2012 1013.96 1000.50 41.70 10.98 15.12
27 Jan 2012 1012.88 1003.80 21.06 10.77 15.27
28 Jan 2012 1010.91 1004.70 7.54 10.40 15.23
29 Jan 2012 1010.15 1005.25 1.37 10.13 15.13

Source for SOI values
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
Goodmorning everyone, After reading your post Dr. Masters, I can feel your concern for this planet. I always focus on the climate on where I live and loose focus on the planet as a whole. Your posts here on Wunderground helps put my focus back on our planet. I have a couple of questions concerning Climate change? I really dont know what to believe, so im trying to make an informed decision for myself. 1)Is there a way to prove that man-made gases are the main culprit in modern day climate changes? And if so, what has me confused the most is....how do scientists know for sure....due to the fact that the Earth has been here for thousands, and most scientists believe millions of years. They also believe that the Earth went through many changes climatology speaking over those millions of years. Which the last statement brings me no comfort either, because man or no-man made.... millions of years ago, wasnt a pleasant expierence. You have probably explained all this before and I missed it. If you have,then hopefully you can post something again on it soon. Anyone else on here this morning that can give some info on the questions I have asked....my mind is clear and I have my glasses on. Thanks Scott
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HurrikanEB:


.LONG TERM /THURSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY/...
THE FAST MOVING PATTERN CONTINUES WITH A SHORT WV MOVING THROUGH
THUR TRIGGERING ISOLD TO SCT -SHSN...MORE NEAR THE LAKE. HIGH
PRESSURE RIDGES SOUTH TO END THE WEEK WITH DRY CONDS...THEN THE
MODELS TAKE THE BIG DIVERGE. THE GFS PRODUCES A SIGNIFICANT
COASTAL LOW...AS USUAL BASED ON THE PHASING OF SHORT WAVES THAT
ARE SCATTERED ALL OVER EAST ASIA. THE ECMWF TAKES THIS STORM...NOT
UP THE EAST COAST...BUT UP THE ST LAWRENCE VLY. THE MODEL SUITE
HAS BEEN ALL OVER WITH THIS SYSTEM FROM IN THE WEST ATLC. FOR NOW
CARRIED CHC OR SLIGHT CHC. THERE`S 6 DAYS TO THE MODELS TO DEBATE
WITH THEMSELVES HOW THE SHORT WVS WILL PHASE.
TEMPS DURING THE EFO
WILL BEGIN ABV NORMALS THU AND END THE PERIOD NEAR NORMAL.
Link



My area forecast discussion doesn't mention anything besides the chance for a storm:

.LONG TERM /TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY/...
H9 TEMPS WILL INCR DRASTICALLY ON TUE AND WED AS H9 FLOW INCRS
AHEAD OF SFC LOPRES IN GRTLKS RGN. SOME SUN AND INCRG SLY LOW-LVL
FLOW WILL PROMOTE DP MIXING AND WARMTH...WITH MAXIMA IN THE 60S
BOTH TUE AND WED DESPITE CLD CVR ON THE LATTER DAY.

SHWRS MAY FORM ALONG A SFC TROF THAT WILL MOVE EWD ACRS FCST AREA
ON WED. CDFNT FOLLOWS BEHIND THIS BNDRY...WITH HIPRES FOR RMNDR OF
THE WORK WK. STORM SYSTEM MAY AFFECT RGN BY THE WKEND.
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468

Viewing: 533 - 483

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Clear
53 ° F
Despejado