This photo and the other in my series were both take from the same spot ... just different directions and just a representative scene mirroring so many others here in the midwest. These were taken yesterday morning right after the thunderstorm front had gone through but the winds continued to increase in intensity as the barometer dropped ... to a record low in some midwest spots. The big Blow was the equivlant of a Cat 2 or Cat 3 hurricane and indeed a very unusual storm in the upper midwest for this time of the year.
I posted a video of continuous hits at youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpWF-dXwU
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
Looking forward to some rain!
It has been strangely dry for a couple of weeks (scattered showers, nothing heavy) which is unusual for now.
The strong upper level Westerly winds are doing a job on the area though...
Another wave coming off Africa as well. Good!
Throws Climatology right out the window............
You've used that word a lot. "Comment removed" doesn't qualify as not uttering it.
Please back this up with some facts!
I don't recall seeing a Socialist and Atheist only clause on Dr. Masters Blog.
Thank the Gods, for Rum....
BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA
939 PM EDT WED OCT 27 2010
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN WAKEFIELD HAS ISSUED A
* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
NORTHEASTERN ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
EXTREME SOUTHEASTERN YORK COUNTY IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
CITY OF HAMPTON IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
SOUTHEASTERN CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
SOUTHERN CITY OF POQUOSON IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
* UNTIL 1030 PM EDT
* AT 935 PM EDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO. THIS DANGEROUS
STORM WAS LOCATED NEAR SMITHFIELD...AND MOVING EAST AT 35 MPH.
* LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE...
LANGLEY AFB...HAMPTON...BATTERY PARK...RESCUE...BEACONSDALE...
NORTHAMPTON...FORT MONROE...BUCKROE BEACH...GRAND VIEW...BENNS
CHURCH...MOGARTS BEACH...CARROLLTON...HILTON VILLAGE...RALEIGH
TERRACE...LANGLEY VIEW...PHOEBUS...MESSICK...HALLWOOD AND FOX HILL.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
TAKE COVER NOW. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF A
STURDY BUILDING. AVOID WINDOWS. IF IN A MOBILE HOME...A VEHICLE... OR
OUTDOORS...MOVE TO THE CLOSEST SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER AND PROTECT
YOURSELF FROM FLYING DEBRIS.
My parents live on the Isle of Skye, on the north-west coast of Scotland (they are about 57.3 degrees north). Despite their latitude, they rarely get snow, and in fact, I believe there a palm trees growing just down the coast from them.
The climate on Skye (aside from being wet/windy most of the time) is remarkably clement/temperate for somewhere at that latitude - the result of the gulf stream ploughing into the UK.
The fact it is so clement there is not evidence of global warming. The fact that the palm trees were planted (if I recall correctly) in the 1800s is not evidence that Skye was warmer in the past, or that the 1800s were as warm as now.
Skye is just a small part of the global climate. It's an unusual part, and the effects of any putative climate change there will not be the same, necessarily, as the effects elsewhere. Similarly, the past history of Skye's climate, while interesting, are just a tiny part of the overall picture of global climate.
Now why have I gone off topic to such a degree? Well, I don't know much about Greenland - but as far as I remember, the areas that were inhabited in the past are a thin strip around the edge. A small area, therefore. It doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that such a small area may well have had a different climate in the past (and may even have been more clement, e.g. during the medieval warm period) than it is today. Most climate models actually show areas that will behave unusually if the planet warms.
---------------
Because I know I waffle on and get distracted, here's a TLDR summary :D
Climate data from small areas (whether it shows warming or cooling, or anything unusual) can't be used as an argument for, or against, global warming. It's the global changes that are important. It is quite possible that Greenland was warmer, and more habitable, 1000 years ago, than it is today. It's equally possible (say), that Skye was colder, and less habitable at that time. Both of them are small areas, single data points on a global picture. So one place being a bit warmer in the past (which is under debate) does not bring AGW arguments tumbling down, no more than the fact that palm trees can survive in north-west Scotland suggests that the 1800s were warmer than today.
Hope that makes some sense ;) Just bothers me intensely when people on either side of the GW argument use single small cases to argue the other side has to be wrong! We have to look at the big picture, not just focus on localised oddities - however interesting they are.
Well, then, I guess you and I will have to disagree here, if on no other point than on our own personal definitions of the word "reputable". Cheers...
The Earth will go on, as everyone probably agrees.
What will happen to humanity is the subject under discussion. And that depends upon what actions, if any, we undertake to alleviate the problem.
My personal guess is that we won't do much until it is too late to avoid some pretty serious consequences...unless we get "lucky" and some sort of limited disaster forces us to face facts. If we don't get "lucky", then my guess is that in the 2030s civilization will begin to collapse due to massive food and water shortages. (Again, my guess based on the science.)
Anyone who thinks that the ideas proposed to deal with AGW are tyranny...well, just wait until you see the outcome of NOT dealing with AGW now.
Brilliant.
But you do realize that you are calling on The People to close down the Party, right?
I am afraid that it will not happen.
Even if things get progressively worse, it aint our fault....
Prepare....
You show yourself for who you are. Circumventing a perma-ban is a no-no. Do you live on Simon's Island? Gottcha. Admin, please take note.
Indeed!
Looking to see how those westerlies in the upper levels behave over the next couple of days.
Science doesn't "prove" things.
That said, virtually all of the science is on one side of this issue --the current warming is largely the result of human activity. To believe anything else one must discount the science and believe in half-formed fairy tales.
It is a fact that the Earth has a radiation imbalance, making it warmer.
It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
It is a fact that CO2 is a by-product of combustion of fossil fuels.
It is a fact that we are burning large amounts of fossil fuels.
It is a fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased by >30% over the last 150 years or so.
It is a fact that the isotopic ratio of C13/C12 is decreasing --indicating an increase in "old" carbon.
All of that is consistent with AGW theory.
It is also a fact that no other explanation is scientifically plausible.
Just a minor pedantic point... one of the problems with the presentation of science these days is the whole issue of proof.
The problem is that, when you're at school (certainly, when I grew up in the UK), you're presented with science as fact, and talk about things being proved (e.g. Newtonian gravity has beeen proved). Similarly, when you see science portrayed in the media, you get the same thing ("Global warming proved by new result!" "Global warming disproved by new results!"). It makes for good, combative stories, and all seems straight forward.
The problem is, at least from where I stand, that science just doesn't work that way. You can never prove a theory.
So - gravity. Good example. We have the theory of Newtonian Gravitation. Good old F = GMm/r^2 -- what you throw up, will fall down. You're taught this at school as fact. It happens. Go on -- throw an apple in the air. Using Newtonian physics, you can predict how high it'll go, how far you'll throw it, all the rest (ballistics, basically).
Well, there are two points with that -- firstly, it's a theory, not a fact. The difference is a fact (something proven) is absolute, while a theory is something that needs testing to destruction. You throw apples in the air time and time again, and each time they behave as you expect, that's another boost to the theory, meaning you can place more weight on it, and people are more confident using it to make predictions. However, all you need is for one apple to behave differently, and the theory comes crashing down, and you need to develop a new one.
That's where the whole media "proof/certainty" thing becomes a real bugbear of mine (and hence caused this rant - sorry folks!). The minute the apple behaves differently, scientists go "Oooh -- interesting... something we need to investigate. We need a new theory". The media goes "Scientists proved wrong!" "Scientists lied to us!", and build conflict. People's trust of scientists goes down ("If they were wrong on this, how can we EVER trust them"), and that opens the door for cranks, crackpots, and contrarians to play on that. It upsets me (had you guessed? :D).
So, a theory can never conclusively be "proved", but it can be shown to be flawed, or an incomplete explanation of the facts, or just plain wrong.
It's also the difference between science and faith, but that's a whole different argument, and I'm staying well clear ;)
Oh, and for the record, Newtonian physics has been proved wrong. The apple did misbehave. Or, rather, Mercury did. The rate at which Mercury's orbit precesses (think a spinning top slowing down - it's axis precesses, and the top wobbles) doesn't fit with that predicted by Newtonian Physics. So we need a better model. Fortunately, we have one -- General Relativity. When you take into account the effect of relativity, the precession rate of Mercury drops out perfectly (or, rather, is accurate to the best precision we can measure it). The reason we still use Newtonian physics (which I use all the time in my Solar system dynamics work) is that it is far, far simpler, and, in most cases (when relativity isn't important) gives results that are indistinguishable from the real world.
---------------------
Long rant, and very off topic, I'm sure -- but the whole scientific proof/scientific fact thing really bugs me, and the disparity between how we're taught, and how things actually works, is one of the most widely used tools in the scientific denier's armoury (whether it's creationists arguing against evolution, astrologer's arguing for their trade, or professional deniers arguing against AGW).
AGW is a theory, and it does a far better job of explaining all the observations than any other theory out there. For that reason, I, personally, think we should be seriously looking into the possible effects of climate change, and doing all we can to minimise our future influence on the Earth's climate.
It might well be that, in a month, or a year, or a decade, results/observations come in that conclusively disprove AGW. In that case, I'll hold my hat up, admit I was wrong, and hope people find a better theory that explains the data. That's how science works :)
LEARN a little bit about atmospheric chemistry and calculate the molecular weight of air by taking a weighted average of its main componenets and fractional element ratios to the molecule. Off course I'm not going to give you the elements, fractional ratios, formulas, Or M(kg / mole values). If you wanna learn get a book! Anyways, after you do all this and find the molecular weight of CO2 you will realize that the greater molecular weight of CO2 WILL NOT allow it to levitate over the air we breathe as we know it and will stay down on the bottom for plants to use as food for photosynthesis. So your greenhouse effect just got flushed down the toilet. These liberals go as far as saying that the CO2 exhaled by breathing living organisms is contributing to this. I love them!
Wanna argue about oxygen displacement by proportionate CO2 molecule production? Maybe true, some studies support that BUT more studies have suggested that a large fraction of this CO2 is absorbed by oceans. Plants use CO2 for basic photosynthesis and guess what the waste product is you guessed it! Oxygen..... Believe you me, if we were in such a high risk someone would have figured out the proportional CO2 to O2 displacement and there would be a very accurate time frame before O2 depletion would get below acceptable values for human substincense so everyone could walk around with an oxygen tank.
I notice the liberals never mention when a record low temp pops up but that is expected from their manipulating propaganda.
Climate is changing? Sure it is! How many times in earth's history has this happened before? Again, go get a book!
What other arguments do you all make? I'm asking fact based arguments not opinions made in the Clinton News Network (CNN)
Greenland was a tropical country because it was located near the tropics during the Cretaceous and was moving northward due to plate tectonics. Animations of the plate motions can be found Link" target="_blank">here
All I am saying is that the tropical fauna in that article was described as being Cretaceous in age, which is very consistent with where Greenland was at that time (over 65 million years ago) and has no relavence to the current GW debate.
I realize that it is inferred that the party must close down. But that inference displays a remarkable lack of imagination and confidence, imo.
But even if it does indicate that the party must end...well, most parties do end once the house catches fire. Even the good parties.
@476 -- wow -- the eye is amazing! awesome images!
Oh, I think I hit the mark. Methinks thou doth complain too much. I see you sport.
FL weather still very humid.
Which reminds me of a story--
A man got down on his knees and prayed, to win the lotto.
He did not win.
He prayed again.
Ditto.
This went on for several weeks.
Then a Loud Voice addressed him and said "Man, I am prepared to help, you know. But you HAVE to buy a ticket"
God helps those that help themselves.
Just a thought....
I'll take my chances.
KOG that's easy. Everyone knows that half of Canada vacations in Florida. They obviously brought some species back with them.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HEY RICH...THE GAME IS UP..YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL TROLL...BUSTED!!!
LOL
Don't get me started on God! ;)
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
And if GHGs don't cause warming...who's gonna tell the physicists?
Fear not!
That was an Excellent post, and one that many people around here should read.
WE ARE ALOT A LIKE IN MANY WAYS YOU AND I EXCEPT ONE
THERE ARE
BILLIONS OF YOU
YET
ONLY ONE OF ME.......
Viewing: 451 - 501
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index