Heavy snowfall in a warming world

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:29 PM GMT on February 08, 2010

Share this Blog
8
+

A major new winter storm is headed east over the U.S. today, and threatens to dump a foot or more of snow on Philadelphia, New York City, and surrounding regions Tuesday and Wednesday. Philadelphia is still digging out from its second top-ten snowstorm of recorded history to hit the city this winter, and the streets are going to begin looking like canyons if this week's snowstorm adds a significant amount of snow to the incredible 28.5" that fell during "Snowmageddon" last Friday and Saturday. Philadelphia has had two snowstorms exceeding 23" this winter. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the return period for a 22+ inch snow storm is once every 100 years--and we've had two 100-year snow storms in Philadelphia this winter. It is true that if the winter pattern of jet stream location, sea surface temperatures, etc, are suitable for a 100-year storm to form, that will increase the chances for a second such storm to occur that same year, and thus the odds have having two 100-year storms the same year are not 1 in 10,000. Still, the two huge snowstorms this winter in the Mid-Atlantic are definitely a very rare event one should see only once every few hundred years, and is something that has not occurred since modern records began in 1870. The situation is similar for Baltimore and Washington D.C. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the expected return period in the Washington D.C./Baltimore region for snowstorms with more than 16 inches of snow is about once every 25 years. This one-two punch of two major Nor'easters in one winter with 16+ inches of snow is unprecedented in the historical record for the region, which goes back to the late 1800s.


Figure 1. Car buried in Virginia by "Snowmageddon" on February 8, 2010. Image credit: wunderphotographer Brabus Cave.

Top 9 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. 15.1", Feb 28-Mar 1, 1941

The top 10 snowstorms on record for Baltimore:

1. 28.2", Feb 15-18, 2003
2. 26.5", Jan 27-29, 1922
3. 24.8", Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon)
4. 22.8", Feb 11-12, 1983
5. 22.5", Jan 7-8, 1996
6. 22.0", Mar 29-30, 1942
7. 21.4", Feb 11-14, 1899
8. 21.0", Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse)
9. 20.0", Feb 18-19, 1979
10. 16.0", Mar 15-18, 1892

The top 10 snowstorms on record for Washington, D.C.:

1. 28.0", Jan 27-28, 1922
2. 20.5", Feb 11-13, 1899
3. 18.7", Feb 18-19, 1979
4. 17.8" Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon)
5. 17.1", Jan 6-8, 1996
6. 16.7", Feb 15-18, 2003
7. 16.6", Feb 11-12, 1983
8. 16.4", Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse)
9. 14.4", Feb 15-16, 1958
10. 14.4", Feb 7, 1936

Heavy snow events--a contradiction to global warming theory?
Global warming skeptics regularly have a field day whenever a record snow storm pounds the U.S., claiming that such events are inconsistent with a globe that is warming. If the globe is warming, there should, on average, be fewer days when it snows, and thus fewer snow storms. However, it is possible that if climate change is simultaneously causing an increase in ratio of snowstorms with very heavy snow to storms with ordinary amounts of snow, we could actually see an increase in very heavy snowstorms in some portions of the world. There is evidence that this is happening for winter storms in the Northeast U.S.--the mighty Nor'easters like the "Snowmageddon" storm of February 5-6 and "Snowpocalypse" of December 19, 2009. Let's take a look at the evidence. There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S. This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, "The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity."

The strongest cold-season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent for the U.S.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change." This program has put out some excellent peer-reviewed science on climate change that, in my view, is as authoritative as the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In 2009, the USGCRP put out its excellent U.S. Climate Impacts Report, summarizing the observed and forecast impacts of climate change on the U.S. The report's main conclusion about cold season storms was " Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent".

The report's more detailed analysis: "Large-scale storm systems are the dominant weather phenomenon during the cold season in the United States. Although the analysis of these storms is complicated by a relatively short length of most observational records and by the highly variable nature of strong storms, some clear patterns have emerged (Kunkel et al., 2008).

Storm tracks have shifted northward over the last 50 years as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of storms in mid-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, while high-latitude activity has increased. There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights".
The study also noted that we should expect an increase in lake-effect snowstorms over the next few decades. Lake-effect snow is produced by the strong flow of cold air across large areas of relatively warmer ice-free water. The report says, "As the climate has warmed, ice coverage on the Great Lakes has fallen. The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage. This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus heavier snowstorms. Among recent extreme lake-effect snow events was a February 2007 10-day storm total of over 10 feet of snow in western New York state. Climate models suggest that lake-effect snowfalls are likely to increase over the next few decades. In the longer term, lake-effect snows are likely to decrease as temperatures continue to rise, with the precipitation then falling as rain".


Figure 2. 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.

More heavy snowstorms occur in warmer-than-average years
Another interesting result from the Changnon et al. (2006) paper (Figure 2) is the relationship between heavy snowstorms and the average winter temperature. For the contiguous U.S. between 1900 - 2001, the authors found that 61% - 80% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters with above normal temperatures. In other words, the old adage, "it's too cold to snow", has some truth to it. 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 between 1901 - 2000. However, a separate paper by Houston and Changnon (2009), "Characteristics of the top ten snowstorms at First-Order Stations in the U.S.", found that there was no upward or downward trend in the very heaviest snowstorms for the contiguous U.S. between 1948 - 2001, as evaluated by looking at the top ten snowstorms for 121 major cities.

Commentary
One can "load the dice" in favor of events that used to be rare--or unheard of--if the climate is changing to a new state. It is quite possible that nature's weather dice have been loaded in favor of more intense Nor'easters for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, thanks to the higher levels of moisture present in the air due to warmer global temperatures. It's worth mentioning that heavy snow storms should be getting increasingly rare for the extreme southern portion of the U.S. in coming decades. There's almost always high amounts of moisture available for a potential heavy snow in the South--just not enough cold air. With freezing temperatures expected to decrease and the jet stream and associated storm track expected to move northward, the extreme southern portion of the U.S. should see a reduction in both heavy and ordinary snow storms in the coming decades.

The CapitalClimate blog has a nice perspective on "Snowmageddon", and Joe Romm of climateprogress.org has some interesting things to say about snowstorms in a warming climate.

References
Changnon, S.A., D. Changnon, and T.R. Karl, 2006, , "Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States", J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 45, 1141.1155.

Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, T.R. Karl, D.R. Easterling, B. Sun, and J.H. Lawrimore, 2004, "Contemporary Changes of the Hydrological Cycle over the Contiguous United States: Trends Derived from In Situ Observations," J. Hydrometeor., 5, 64-85.

Kunkel, K.E., P.D. Bromirski, H.E. Brooks, T. Cavazos, A.V. Douglas, D.R. Easterling, K.A. Emanuel, P.Ya. Groisman, G.J. Holland, T.R. Knutson, J.P. Kossin, P.D. Komar, D.H. Levinson, and R.L. Smith, 2008: Observed changes in weather and climate extremes. In: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands [Karl, T.R., G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, pp. 35-80.

Congratulations, New Orleans!
Congratulations to everyone in New Orleans, for the Saints' Super Bowl victory! It's great to the see the city celebrating after enduring so many years of hardship in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Jeff Masters

Holly Berry (DocBop)
Holly Berry
Wintry woods (photomaniac10)
Wintry woods

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: 462 - 412

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34Blog Index

Quoting Skyepony:
Can ya'll imagine the snow totals had that last storm been a slow mover?


Interesting article out Friday.. 300 Canadian scientists checked out the Northern Hemisphere sea ice & concluded it was melting much faster than anyone forecast..even by the most gloom & doom models. Ice free in the winter by 2100 forecast is past, the new prediction is somewhere between 2013 & 2030.
Today is the 8th of February and we still have not seen the sea ice go above the record low of 2006 .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
"I don't know,


1% to even feel any affect. That is roughly 12,000ppm.

We're at 387ppm and highest in the past 350million years has been 2100ppm.

Firstoff

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.

Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England's University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.

"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.

"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity."

Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been there for about 14 million years.

"Prior to that, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic," Tripati said.

Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said. Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier, said Tripati, who is working to push her data back much farther than 20 million years and to study the last 20 million years in detail.

More than 50 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on Earth, and there were expanded deserts in the subtropics, Tripati noted. The planet was radically different.

Co-authors on the Science paper are Christopher Roberts, a Ph.D. student in the department of Earth sciences at the University of Cambridge, and Robert Eagle, a postdoctoral scholar in the division of geological and planetary sciences at the California Institute of Technology.

The research was funded by UCLA's Division of Physical Sciences and the United Kingdom's National Environmental Research Council.

Tripati's research focuses on the development and application of chemical tools to study climate change throughout history. She studies the evolution of climate and seawater chemistry through time.

"I'm interested in understanding how the carbon cycle and climate have been coupled, and why they have been coupled, over a range of time-scales, from hundreds of years to tens of millions of years," Tripati said.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting Bordonaro:

Please, please, please say that the 6" of snow forecasted per computer models is not true. We are about -4.5F normal for the month already with 21% of the possible sunshine, just tell me it'a a bad dream, I'll wake up and it July 16, 2010 and its 100F with a nice SW breeze!

That would be so nice!

Winter Weather Expected On Thursday

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORT WORTH TX
330 PM CST MON FEB 8 2010

TXZ091>095-100>107-115>123-129>135-141>148-156>162-174-175-090600-
MONTAGUE-COOKE-GRAYSON-FANNIN-LAMAR-YOUNG-JACK-WISE-DENTON-COLLIN-
HUNT-DELTA-HOPKINS-STEPHENS-PALO PINTO-PARKER-TARRANT-DALLAS-
ROCKWALL-KAUFMAN-VAN ZANDT-RAINS-EASTLAND-ERATH-HOOD-SOMERVELL-
JOHNSON-ELLIS-HENDERSON-COMANCHE-MILLS-HAMILTON-BOSQUE-HILL-
NAVARRO-FREESTONE-ANDERSON-LAMPASAS-CORYELL-BELL-MCLENNAN-FALLS-
LIMESTONE-LEON-MILAM-ROBERTSON-
330 PM CST MON FEB 8 2010

...COLD TONIGHT THEN WINTRY WEATHER EXPECTED ACROSS MUCH OF NORTH
TEXAS EARLY THURSDAY INTO THURSDAY NIGHT...

A STRONG COLD FRONT WILL MOVE THROUGH NORTH TEXAS TONIGHT WITH
NORTH WINDS INCREASING TO 15 TO 25 MPH. ALL OF THE PRECIPITATION
WILL HAVE MOVED EAST OF THE AREA BY THE TIME TEMPERATURES FALL TO
BELOW FREEZING DURING THE OVERNIGHT HOURS. LOW TEMPERATURES WILL
FALL TO BETWEEN 24 AND 29 DEGREES ACROSS MOST OF NORTH TEXAS...SO
ANY RESIDUAL WATER ON AREA ROADS WILL LIKELY FREEZE. PATCHY ICE IS
LIKELY TO FORM DURING THE OVERNIGHT AND EARLY MORNING
HOURS...MAKING ROADS SLICK. WIND CHILLS WILL BE IN THE LOW TEENS
EARLY TUESDAY MORNING.

ANOTHER STORM SYSTEM WILL APPROACH THE AREA BY MIDWEEK WHILE
TEMPERATURES REMAIN COLD ACROSS THE REGION. IT APPEARS AT THIS
TIME THAT SUFFICIENT MOISTURE WILL MOVE NORTHWARD IN ADVANCE OF
THIS SYSTEM FOR SNOWFALL TO OCCUR ACROSS MUCH OF NORTH TEXAS
DURING THE DAY THURSDAY INTO THURSDAY EVENING. WHILE THERE IS
STILL SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE SPEED AND TRACK OF THE EVOLVING
SYSTEM...WHICH COULD SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE THERMAL PROFILE
FAVORABLE FOR SNOW PRODUCTION...OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN THIS STORM
SYSTEM IS INCREASING.


AREAS NORTH OF A KILLEEN TO WACO TO ATHENS LINE APPEAR TO HAVE
THE BEST CHANCE FOR ACCUMULATING SNOWS DURING THE DAY THURSDAY.
TEMPERATURES AT THE SURFACE WILL BE AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FREEZING
AT THE ONSET OF THE EVENT...WHICH MEANS THAT SNOW WILL LIKELY MELT
INITIALLY...THEN ACCUMULATE AS HEAVIER BANDS DEVELOP. AT THIS TIME
IT APPEARS THAT ACCUMULATIONS OF 1 TO 3 INCHES WILL BE POSSIBLE.
UNCERTAINTY IN THE EXACT TRACK AND SPEED OF THIS SYSTEM COULD
SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT SNOWFALL ACCUMULATION TOTALS.

RESIDENTS OF NORTH TEXAS AND MOTORISTS TRAVELING ACROSS THE
REGION ON THURSDAY SHOULD STAY INFORMED OF THE LATEST WEATHER
INFORMATION AND FORECASTS BY VISITING OUR WEBSITE AT
WWW.WEATHER.GOV/FORTWORTH
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The blog is a much more enjoyable place without discussion of AGW. Each side has their evidence and will stick to it until the end of time.

Also, I think we all put ourselves out here to be made fun of day in and day out. If someone gets offended by the treatment of an anonymous blogger then they need thicker skin I'm afraid.

I'm gay and have been called all sorts of names on this blog and other places. It doesn't bother me anymore. When I don't want to get made fun of or called names, I stop telling people I'm gay on here. Now, I just frankly don't care if someone wants to call me names. Have at it! :)
Member Since: April 26, 2009 Posts: 3 Comments: 3667
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Please get rid of the denialist.


"Get rid of the denialist."

There you go. Not only are you proposing the revocation of my 1st Amendment Human Rights...but you are also echoing voices of the past that also called for "getting rid" of "people of difference."

This blogger advocates "getting rid of people" where I have advocated not to get caught up in a hoax.

Those of you who are historically savvy can clearly see what mindset drives these people from his very own words. People like him have been voted into real power over us. Prepare for the worst, unless you handle a life without liberty well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Minniemike - I'm not trying to be combative. I just can't remember any post that fits what you are saying.

Please show me. That's all.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


The Audi commercial with the "Green Police".


i must of missed it, dont remember
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Skyepony:
Can ya'll imagine the snow totals had that last storm been a slow mover?


Interesting article out Friday.. 300 Canadian scientists checked out the Northern Hemisphere sea ice & concluded it was melting much faster than anyone forecast..even by the most gloom & doom models. Ice free in the winter by 2100 forecast is past, the new prediction is somewhere between 2013 & 2030.


maybe the core is heating the mantle and transporting the heat under the oceans and melting the ice.... and then 2012 comes and boom goodbye folks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting swampdawg:
bottom line......the people who believe global warming is happening, BELIEVE IT. the people who don't, TOTALLY DON'T. (and HERE is where they voice their 'opinions' on that subject). this arguement will continue until the cows come home....
Wrong, because we have now reached the point when it starts to effect everybody. Soon you will find it hard to buy stuff in your local supermarket. Or you are a victim of a disaster (flood, storm, drought etc etc ).
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
431 Minniemike

Quote: "I don't know, false claims that human CO2 emissions are a pollutant" -source that from an objective site.

Huh?

1% to even feel any affect. That is roughly 12,000ppm.

We're at 387ppm and highest in the past 350million years has been 2100ppm.

It's not even questionable. Amazing I even have to write this.

I didn't have to look anything up. Been common knowledge, well, forever.

Try to prove me wrong, but that's impossible.

Modified: Mis-spoke - did have to look up the 2100. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1900hurricane:
Hey, what are y'all's thoughts on the GFS's snowstorm for NTX?




Please, please, please say that the 6" of snow forecasted per computer models is not true. We are about -4.5F normal for the month already with 21% of the possible sunshine, just tell me it's a bad dream, I'll wake up and it July 16, 2010 and its 100F with a nice SW breeze!
Member Since: August 25, 2009 Posts: 20 Comments: 6785
Quoting RitaEvac:


i cant open it which one was it of?


The Audi commercial with the "Green Police".
Member Since: April 26, 2009 Posts: 3 Comments: 3667
Quoting CaneWarning:


I said the same thing last night to everyone who was at my Super Bowl party. It's funny to laugh at, but many people want that commercial to be reality.


i cant open it which one was it of?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
449. Skyepony (Mod)
Can ya'll imagine the snow totals had that last storm been a slow mover?


Interesting article out Friday.. 300 Canadian scientists checked out the Northern Hemisphere sea ice & concluded it was melting much faster than anyone forecast..even by the most gloom & doom models. Ice free in the winter by 2100 forecast is past, the new prediction is somewhere between 2013 & 2030.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1900hurricane:
Hey, what are y'all's thoughts on the GFS's snowstorm for NTX?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In response to the concerned user 396
If It's That Warm, How Come It's So Darned Cold?
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100129/if-its-warm-how-come-its-so-darned-cold


What about the claim that the Earth’s surface has been cooling over the past decade? That issue can be addressed with a far higher degree of confidence, because the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements becomes much smaller when averaged over several years. The 2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 2, is about a factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is about 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler.

Why are some people so readily convinced of a false conclusion, that the world is really experiencing a cooling trend? That gullibility probably has a lot to do with regional short‐term temperature fluctuations, which are an order of magnitude larger than global average annual anomalies. Yet many lay people do understand the distinction between regional short‐term anomalies and global trends. For example, here is comment posted by “frogbandit” at 8:38p.m. 1/6/2010 on City Bright blog:

“I wonder about the people who use cold weather to say that the globe is cooling. It forgets that global warming has a global component and that its a trend, not an everyday thing. I hear people down in the lower 48 say its really cold this winter. That ain’t true so far up here in Alaska. Bethel, Alaska, had a brown Christmas. Here in Anchorage, the temperature today is 31[ºF]. I can’t say based on the fact Anchorage and Bethel are warm so far this winter that we have global warming. That would be a really dumb argument to think my weather pattern is being experienced even in the rest of the United States, much less globally.”

What frogbandit is saying is illustrated by the global map of temperature anomalies in December 2009 (Figure 5a). There were strong negative temperature anomalies at middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, as great as ‐8°C in Siberia, averaged over the month. But the temperature anomaly in the Arctic was as great as +7°C. The cold December perhaps reaffirmed an impression gained by Americans from the unusually cool 2009 summer. There was a large region in the United States and Canada in June‐July‐August with a negative temperature anomaly greater than 1°C, the largest negative anomaly on the planet.





The magnitude of monthly temperature anomalies is typically 1.5 to 2 times greater than the magnitude of seasonal anomalies. So it is not yet quite so easy to see global warming if one’s figure of merit is monthly mean temperature. And, of course, daily weather fluctuations are much larger than the impact of the global warming trend. The bottom line is this: there is no global cooling trend. For the time being, until humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one. Weather fluctuations certainly exceed local temperature changes over the past half century. But the perceptive person should be able to see that climate is warming on decadal time scales.

This information needs to be combined with the conclusion that global warming of 1‐2°C has enormous implications for humanity. But that discussion is beyond the scope of this note.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
That is why i have started my own blog and it is only for the current storms. Keep global crap out of it.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/mikester/comment.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CycloneOz:
The Audi TDI commercial that played during the 2010 Super Bowl is a howl!

This is exactly what will happen to America if those who are perpetrating the global warming hoax have their way. So far, they've been able to sell their hoax to millions of people, who are so brain-washed by it now (from indoctrination in school and are now entering society as adults) that they will be willing to give up their liberties to these "purveyors of eco-doom."


I said the same thing last night to everyone who was at my Super Bowl party. It's funny to laugh at, but many people want that commercial to be reality.
Member Since: April 26, 2009 Posts: 3 Comments: 3667
bottom line......the people who believe global warming is happening, BELIEVE IT. the people who don't, TOTALLY DON'T. (and HERE is where they voice their 'opinions' on that subject). this arguement will continue until the cows come home....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
#411, when I follow your links, they lead me to sources that cater to denying AGW arguments. It's always to the same handful of sites.

I do get frustrated with drg using lot's of wiki page sourcing, despite how those are crosschecked and updated constantly. However it is that you feel about drg, believe me, I feel the same of you when viewing your sourced material. There are key indicators as to whether something is written subjectively or objectively. Your sourcing is subjective by and large.

"I don't know, false claims that human CO2 emissions are a pollutant" -source that from an objective site.

Look, I'm not on the fence here, I strongly believe we are capable of impacting climate as a species by the activities currently going on worldwide. I'm also aware that all indicators of global mean temperatures points to a warming climate. What I don't believe in is that any singular, or subgroup of data/information will settle the debate of AGW. That is why I personally do not source studies to make a case on this blog; for me to do so would be a fruitless effort. I am not a climate scientist so I do not think it is my responsibility to peg the final answer down. I am a voter, as most of us here are, so my responsibility lies in gaining a better understanding of the situation so that I may vote accordingly; because I DO care about the environment and future generations.

There's excellent reason for skepticism, but not denial!


Really? Please source that.

Why no sources?

Edited: Show me the post.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jeffs713:
Whenever the GW debate gets rolling, is anyone else reminded of 3-5 year olds fighting over a toy?

yes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey, what are y'all's thoughts on the GFS's snowstorm for NTX?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Squall line forming in TX
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
*** NOTE OF CONCERN!! ADMIN PLEASE READ! ***

Dr. Masters and fellow bloggers. I have posted here before and post daily over at sullivanweather's Northeast Weather Blog which is featured on Dr Masters' blog on the front page.

Those of us who post there on Thomas Sullivan's weather blog are growing concerned about Thomas.
He has not posted a new weather prediction since January 15th and the last post from him (I think it was on the 19th or so) said his computer had crashed but he hoped to have a new one in place "by Friday" (presumably January 22nd).

If anyone has a way to reach Thomas just to check in and be sure he's all right, we would be very grateful. Then please come post as much over on sullivanweather:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/sullivanweather/show.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
alf!!!!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just to clear things up, I only use on handle on here. I had a previous handle, and stopped coming after hurricane season and forgot it and my password, so I created a new one.
Member Since: April 26, 2009 Posts: 3 Comments: 3667
I always listen to Neil Frank
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
I'll make my final decision in 10 yrs
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#411, when I follow your links, they lead me to sources that cater to denying AGW arguments. It's always to the same handful of sites.

I do get frustrated with drg using lot's of wiki page sourcing, despite how those are crosschecked and updated constantly. However it is that you feel about drg, believe me, I feel the same of you when viewing your sourced material. There are key indicators as to whether something is written subjectively or objectively. Your sourcing is subjective by and large.

"I don't know, false claims that human CO2 emissions are a pollutant" -source that from an objective site.

Look, I'm not on the fence here, I strongly believe we are capable of impacting climate as a species by the activities currently going on worldwide. I'm also aware that all indicators of global mean temperatures points to a warming climate. What I don't believe in is that any singular, or subgroup of data/information will settle the debate of AGW. That is why I personally do not source studies to make a case on this blog; for me to do so would be a fruitless effort. I am not a climate scientist so I do not think it is my responsibility to peg the final answer down. I am a voter, as most of us here are, so my responsibility lies in gaining a better understanding of the situation so that I may vote accordingly; because I DO care about the environment and future generations.

There's excellent reason for skepticism, but not denial!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jeffs713:
Whenever the GW debate gets rolling, is anyone else reminded of 3-5 year olds fighting over a toy?
This is a weather and climate blog. There is no data suggesting that climate change is not happening or that thousands of thousands of studys since around 100 years on climate science are wrong. I look forward to a bann of the denialist crowed, they have obviously no arguments. Just strawman arguments, they discredit climate science, personal bickering and doing cherry picking of data, which has nothing todo with science. Please get rid of the denialist.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Anyone interested in talking about the current storm feel free to visit my blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
That would be 10 yrs with no carbon tax to tax us. It has to be implemented now
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


MY Gosh we don't have time to wait 10years. I could be underwater by many accounts on here by then......LOL.
I'm going on a long bike ride to work off some of that GW stuff. I don't want to be accused of causing GW....Be good all.

You mean 50% underwater (old joke)? XD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
412. CycloneOz

Patience OZ. My animations (fully sourced, btw) represent the UAH record.

Completely objectively.

As I've said before, another 10 years should do it. There will be way too much temp to make up for the IPCC to be correct, imo.

Just have to wait and see.


MY Gosh we don't have time to wait 10years. I could be underwater by many accounts on here by then......LOL.
I'm going on a long bike ride to work off some of that GW stuff. I don't want to be accused of causing GW....Be good all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
dual no my friend lets make it a triple barrel system with first secondary then prime


Oh yeah forgot about that third low in the picture. Hmm things could go downhill for anyone near the shore or near any of these low's.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
The Audi TDI commercial that played during the 2010 Super Bowl is a howl!

This is exactly what will happen to America if those who are perpetrating the global warming hoax have their way. So far, they've been able to sell their hoax to millions of people, who are so brain-washed by it now (from indoctrination in school and are now entering society as adults) that they will be willing to give up their liberties to these "purveyors of eco-doom."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Whenever the GW debate gets rolling, is anyone else reminded of 3-5 year olds fighting over a toy?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pentagon Considers Climate Change a National Security Threat
Thankfully, for the sake of those of us relying on them for our safety, the U.S. Department of Defense seems to understand both the difference between climate and weather and that an attempted assassination by 1,000 cuts cannot change the underlying truths of the IPCC's 2007 climate assessment.

In its recently released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the DoD states, "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." No debate. According to the U.S. security apparatus, these are issues that the U.S. security apparatus will have to deal with.

The QDR states two "broad" ways in which climate change will affect U.S. security. Global warming will "shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake", and DoD will be forced to deal with "the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities."

The QDR doesn't blink:

The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.

What effects does this have on American national defense? The QDR continues:

Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.

Note the certainty. Climate change "will" cause resource scarcity and "will" cause the spread of disease. For the DoD, these changes have a two-pronged effect, as an "accelerant" of instability and conflict, as well as an increased burden on the military to engage in humanitarian assistance, limiting its ability to focus solely on defense.

Second, not only will our defense apparatus be forced to deal with more, increasingly complex, security issues, our defense infrastructure is at risk. As an example, "In 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels." Among other things, this is a security risk -- "DoD%u2019s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space."

What's encouraging is that the U.S. security apparatus not only recognizes the risk but is also prepared to act to help mitigate that risk.

1. First, they're going to improve assessment: "Domestically, the Department will leverage the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, a joint effort among DoD, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop climate change assessment tools."
2. Second, the DoD is going to help others adapt to the effects of climate change that we now can't avoid in an attempt to reduce the humanitarian burden when disaster strikes.
3. Third, the DoD is going to share technology: "The Department will also speed innovative energy and conservation technologies from laboratories to military end users. The Environmental Security and Technology Certification Program uses military installations as a test bed to demonstrate and create a market for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies coming out of the private sector and DoD and Department of Energy laboratories."
4. Finally, the DoD is going to get its own house in order by pushing efficiency and renewable energy projects at military installations through the "Energy Conservation Investment Program."

http://www.undispatch.com/node/9545
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Reported for accusations and irrational claims.


Did you report yourself also for this middle of the night item from the last blog? I'm just sayin....... gheeze !

644. drg0dOwnCountry 1:58 AM EST on February 08, 2010

You have to consider that it is already to late for most of us.
Soon earth can only feed 1 billion - in most positive scenarios. Worst cases?

Forget about the 3rd world, china, australia ...
China will try to move more northern and clash with russia. Nuclear wars could erupt and anarchy on the local level all over the planet.
There will be a few bases and than is the question - will it further accelerate?

I belive that we can still survive - on the most primitive levels you can imagine. Like living in caves again. If you lucky you end up in an arche ...

The best would be to form a global government and force everybody to adapt. We need a overal directive order under which every task needs to be weighten. There are still options on the table. But if it will not start in the coming month in the fullest ... than we can say goodbye civilization.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting mikester:
Man the winter storm warning are going crazy now. Most of michigan is in it. This why i tell people to watch these dual low systems that come this far north with these temps we have now.
dual no my friend lets make it a triple barrel system with first secondary then prime
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why can't one state his opinion without a source.....this crazy......then the sources that people do source is not even factual true resources but, opinions also....GET REAL everyone!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
WHEE!

I go to lunch, and now people are throwing accusations, reports, and names at each other! If I wasn't so tired of everyone's emotions becoming entangled with their opinions, and strangling their brain, I would say this is entertaining.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
412. CycloneOz

Patience OZ. My animations (fully sourced, btw) represent the UAH record.

Completely objectively.

As I've said before, another 10 years should do it. There will be way too much temp to make up for the IPCC to be correct, imo.

Just have to wait and see.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CycloneOz:


Is that data from one of them there ?"

Another attempt to discredit the science, and no the data is correct if you check. No Al Gore bashing anymore?
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Minniemike -

And speaking of sourcing, please source your comments regarding me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
In response to the concerned User 396
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"


http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/hottest-january-in-uah-satellite-record-roy-spencer-global-wa rming/


Is that data from one of them there "malfunctioning satellites?"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 462 - 412

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34Blog 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

Partly Cloudy
32 °F
Partly Cloudy