2010: tied with 2005 for warmest year in history

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:23 PM GMT on January 16, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

The year 2010 was tied with 2005 as Earth's warmest year in history, according to separate calculations performed by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Temperatures during 2010 were 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. NOAA reported that the Northern Hemisphere had its warmest year on record in 2010, the Southern Hemisphere its 6th warmest, land areas their 2nd warmest, and the oceans their 3rd warmest. Global satellite-measured temperatures of the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere during 2010 were virtually tied with 1998 for warmest on record, according to the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The 1998 temperatures were 0.01°C warmer than 2010, but the difference is so small that the two years should be considered tied for first place. These measurements are very sensitive to the effect of major El Niño events that warm the waters and atmosphere over the Eastern Pacific. Thus the 1998 El Niño--the strongest such event ever recorded--set a global lower atmospheric temperature record that had been impossible to match until 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for 2010. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Earth's warmest temperatures in 2010, relative to average, occurred in western Greenland and eastern Canada, where record-duration sea ice loss contributed to temperatures that were 9°F (5°C) above average for the year (Figure 1.) The coolest temperatures, relative to average, were in central Siberia, 5.4°F (3°C) below average. In addition to being the warmest year on record globally, it was also the wettest (Figure 4.)


Figure 2. The latest rankings by NOAA of the hottest years globally since 1880. Earth's ten hottest years have all come since 1998, and the decade of the 2000s was by far the warmest decade in the historical record. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.


Figure 3. Global departure of temperature from average for 1880-2010, as computed by NASA.


Figure 4. Global departure of precipitation from average for 1900 - 2010. The year 2010 set a new record for wettest year in Earth's history. The difference in precipitation from average in 2010 was about 13% higher than that of the previous record wettest year, 1956. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

A record warm year during a deep solar minimum: an unusual occurrence
The 2010 record warmth was unusual in that it occurred during a period when energy from the sun was at its lowest levels since satellite measurements began in the 1970s. The 11-year sunspot cycle causes a 0.1% variation in the amount of energy reaching the Earth. White et al. (1997) found that sea surface temperatures varied by about 0.04 - 0.07°C on time scales of 11 - 22 years due to this change in solar energy, with temperatures lagging the sunspot cycle by 1.5 - 3 years (because the ocean is slow to heat up and cool down in response.) So, although solar activity began to pick up somewhat in 2010, the 1.5 - 3 year lag in ocean temperature response meant that the record low solar activity of 2008 - 2009 was what affected global temperatures in 2010. Given that the departure of Earth's temperature from average during 2010 was 0.62°C, this difference would have been perhaps 10% greater had we been 2 - 3 years past the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The previous global temperature record, set in 2005, occurred 3 - 5 years after the twin-peaked previous solar cycle. It is very difficult to get a record warm year during a deep solar minimum, making the 2010 record one likely to be broken later this decade as the sun begins to exert a greater warming influence on the planet.


Figure 5. During 2008 - 2009, the energy from the sun arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) as measured by satellites fell to its lowest value since satellite measurements began in 1978. Image credit: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center.

References
Skepticalscience.com has an in-depth discussion of Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Wunderground climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood has a comprehensive 5-part series on how the sun affects climate.

Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, 2010, "Solar Influences on Climate", Accepted in Rev. Geophys, 2010.

White, W.B., J. Lean, D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger (1997), Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255-3266.

Thunderstorms hurl antimatter into space
NASA announced this week that mature thunderstorms can produce antimatter when exceptionally powerful lightning bolts occur. The antimattter beams were detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The amount of antimatter produced is tiny, though, and probably not enough to help power a starship.

"Cap'n, we're running low on antimatter to power the warp engines. Can you fly in low over those thunderstorms to replenish our reserves? We'll use the transporters to gather the antimatter and funnel it into the antimatter containment vessel."

"OK, Scotty!"

I'll have a new post on Tuesday.

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: 125 - 75

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

People will Boo0hoo the NOAA Climate Data.

But hit F5 600 times to get dem NOAA Cane Numbers forecast posted here "furst" easily.


Phood fer thought.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Maybe the blogs are a conspiracy.

Wunderground gate?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:

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.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.



Boring.

How many times have you posted the same thing now.

10 times?

Sure seems like it.

Maybe you could find another source authority for a change?


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Quadrantid:


I'm afraid you're wrong, here. Science just doesn't work like that. It's one of the big failings of our education system -- science is taught as facts. Theories are taught as proven... etc. It's one of the big problems that drives a divide between the general public and scientists, and causes huge confusion in media reporting.

One of the key tennents to the philosophy of science is that [b]nothing can be proven[/b]. Full stop. The analogy I use all the time is apples falling. Newtonian gravitation predicts that an apple will fall to Earth. So you go and throw an apple up into the sky. Lo and behold, it falls back down. Does that prove Newtonian Gravitation? No -- it just fails to disprove it. I know it sounds like being picky, but it's a vital point, and something that I always have to keep in mind in my work (I'm an astronomer, but the basic principles of scientific method are the same).

You can throw a million apples into the air, and even if they all fall, Newtonian Gravitation isn't proved. You've just failed to disprove it so frequently that you acknowledge it is a good model to explain the world. You keep testing it though.


So - a theory is simply a model, a way to explain the world around us. Theories are tested to destruction - each subsequent test addressing the theory anew. The theory can never be proven, but all it takes is one clear, repeatable result that shows the model doesn't work to knock it down. When that happens, we find a better model.

That's exactly what happened with Newtonian Gravity. It's a remarkably good model for the world around us, but it has been proven wrong -- look up the precesion of Mercury's orbit, and the bending of light (gravitational lensing). When you get to those things, you have to use General Relativity - a better model. But for the kind of work I do, we still use Newtonian Gravity -- it is an approximation that is incredibly close to the truth, such that I can run my calculations for millions of years and still get reliable results.

Sorry for all that -- but my point is that the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the scientific method, and of how theories are made, used, and discarded, is one of the big thorns in science's side. It's one of the key things that causes people to stop trusting scientists... "You always told us this was fact, and now you've changed your mind? You lied to us! We can never believe anything you say!". I've seen that happen time, and time, and time again. It's depressing :(

And it gives a great big lever for people who are disingenuous, or want to sow confusion and discord, to pull to keep the status quo and obstruct progress and development. Politicians are great at it -- "AGW hasn't been proven yet -- so we need more data!". It can never be proven - just as any individual event can't be conclusively linked to it (or used against it, for that matter). What can happen, and, to my mind, already has, is that the weight of evidence against the other competing theories becomes so strong that it is accepted as the best explanation for the world as we see it. More data continues to roll in that makes that case even stronger - but it can never be solved absolutely.

Does that mean we should wait forever before taking action? I think not -- regardless of whether you believe in AGW, or believe it is all a hoax, surely it is prudent, for many other reasons, to start researching alternative, greener fuels? You can argue we aren't warming the climate, but you can't disagree, surely, with the fact that we're burning our natural resources at an insane rate, and will one day run out. If we can move to renewable energies, we preserve the resources we have, which can be used for other things (making plastics, drugs, etc.). The research (as with all R&D) will create jobs, build expertise, and lead to a gradual and continual increase in the general standard of living -- that's how science works.

Argle -- another epic rant -- sorry!


Lets get down to the nitty gritty shall we.

The real fact is that you really didn't have to mention AGW at all. It has no place in the discussion regarding what we should be doing about the future of our civilization.

We are using up our resources at an alarming rate.

Our population, globally, is growing at an alarming rate too.

We pollute this planet in such a way as to show utter disregard for the gift that it gives us every day.

LIFE !!!

Developing and distributing energy sources, worldwide, that do not deplete our resources, like photovoltaic must be made a priority.

Nuclear could serve as a limited time energy solution that everyone would agree to terminate in say thirty years or less.

As the US Bureau of Statistics claims, the global population will exceed 18 billion by 2070 and no one is talking about how to deal with that many people. Talk about pollution...how about feeding all those people.

Stopping pollution should be considered a life or death problem that causes AGW concerns to pale in comparison.

Population explosion, pollution explosion and depletion of resources are far more important than AGW.

AGW belongs on the back burner for a very long time. Imagine this, people are starving due to lack of adequate food production, pollution is poisoning every thing everywhere; but, hey, we sure are getting handle on AGW.

AGW is basically being supported by people whose level of self-aggrandizement is astonishing.

Shame on them all.


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.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
Interesting read

A new, lower value of total solar irradiance:
Evidence and climate significance
Greg Kopp and Judith L. Lean, 1-14-11
.

That dense article should comfort both adherent and contrarian alike; it's good to know that climate researchers are striving for the most accurate data possible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising

Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.."Well the Sun is the same in a relative way but yer older, and shorter of breath and one day closer to death"..






Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased




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



The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"... no science, weather, climate, or reason." Kinda like 2/3 of yours?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As the solar minimum has become more pronounced, the temperature has continued to rise.

__________________________________________________

The solar minimum has been more pronounced for 18 months, 2 years at most.

We have no way of knowing precisely how long its' effects take to kick in. We may be about to find out......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
114. G8GT
Six tenths of one degree, over the course of 140 years. Yep. We're all going to roast.

When will everyone just calm down and accept the fact that we haven't yet and probably will not ever, melt the polar ice caps, flood the world and die from any man-made contribution to the "not-so-global" warming?

The temperatures on the middle planets of our solar system have increased by identical numbers, and they have no known industrialization.

So, breathe, take a nice pill, and stop worrying so much.

Man's contribution to this issue is miniscule, and we can't even stop it from raining on a given day, let alone stop the sun from warming the planet, or stop the oceans from producing C02 (or stop cows from producing methane, for that matter!)

Maybe cow Bean-O?

Live in peace, all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


If you link to the NWS or have its logo in its post It needs to be from the NWS.

If you photo shopped a radar map, in a severe thunderstorm, a satellite map in a hurricane you would be banned.

If you went to a beach and covered a undertow sign you would be arrested.

Even if no one gets hurt people deserve access to factual information for important decisions especially if they are to make them for others.

Is there any errors in that argument or analogy?


If you do what many bloggers do on here during hurricane season and they make their own maps suggesting a storms direction with the variables that the NHC uses you WON'T get banned. Again as Keeper mentioned it's in the guidelines. You rely on somebody of higher power than a blogger that has no education on the subject just using his powers of free speech.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well..if ya just use the iggy, Hide and ignore features on posts and posters that are obviously BS..

and some refrain from Quoting the obvious dubious post,..ya may glide along with the flow of the debate in a sensible way..

Its the Fremin way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Wunderground now has a couple of Google Chrome extensions, iGoogle apps, and apps for iPhone, iPad and Android.

I'm using both the Chrome extensions and the Android mobile app. Excellent additions, in my book.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
The FIRST posts on the last three of Dr Ms blogs have ALL been from deniers and related to ridiculing climate science. (none sourced)

For people that honesty don't wish to discus it, that is rather strange.


Quoting HaloReachFan:
Yes a new blog and nothing like the last one YAY


Yes this was the first post from the last blog. I know it cause I posted it. Where in there am I ridiculing climate science (not sourced)? I'll wait for an answer JFLORIDA as I am sure I will just get intimidated (rule 2)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting rogervball:
Contrary to your post, the protracted solar minimum. and the possible flip of the PDO into a cooling mode may be indications that the current warming phase is about to come to an end....

Time will tell.

As the solar cycles have come and gone, the temperature has continued to rise. As the solar minimum has become more pronounced, the temperature has continued to rise. As the PDOs have ebbed and flowed, the temperature has continued to rise. Yes, it's possible some other unknown mechanism will kick in and start cooling things off. But, so far, the heat being trapped by GhGs has been far more than enough to override the cooling effects of both the PDO and the solar cycle, and any other mechanism that might be present.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DEKRE:


Sorry to contradict you. A hypothesis is speculative - really an educated guess.
Contrary to popular usage, a theory is a proven relationship. The theory of relativity is proven, the law of Hagen-Poisseuil is a theory, etc. The law is exact (this doesn't necessarily mean you can solve the equations).

A calculated result is a theoretical result, if it is measured on hardware, its empirical.


I'm afraid you're wrong, here. Science just doesn't work like that. It's one of the big failings of our education system -- science is taught as facts. Theories are taught as proven... etc. It's one of the big problems that drives a divide between the general public and scientists, and causes huge confusion in media reporting.

One of the key tennents to the philosophy of science is that [b]nothing can be proven[/b]. Full stop. The analogy I use all the time is apples falling. Newtonian gravitation predicts that an apple will fall to Earth. So you go and throw an apple up into the sky. Lo and behold, it falls back down. Does that prove Newtonian Gravitation? No -- it just fails to disprove it. I know it sounds like being picky, but it's a vital point, and something that I always have to keep in mind in my work (I'm an astronomer, but the basic principles of scientific method are the same).

You can throw a million apples into the air, and even if they all fall, Newtonian Gravitation isn't proved. You've just failed to disprove it so frequently that you acknowledge it is a good model to explain the world. You keep testing it though.


So - a theory is simply a model, a way to explain the world around us. Theories are tested to destruction - each subsequent test addressing the theory anew. The theory can never be proven, but all it takes is one clear, repeatable result that shows the model doesn't work to knock it down. When that happens, we find a better model.

That's exactly what happened with Newtonian Gravity. It's a remarkably good model for the world around us, but it has been proven wrong -- look up the precesion of Mercury's orbit, and the bending of light (gravitational lensing). When you get to those things, you have to use General Relativity - a better model. But for the kind of work I do, we still use Newtonian Gravity -- it is an approximation that is incredibly close to the truth, such that I can run my calculations for millions of years and still get reliable results.

Sorry for all that -- but my point is that the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the scientific method, and of how theories are made, used, and discarded, is one of the big thorns in science's side. It's one of the key things that causes people to stop trusting scientists... "You always told us this was fact, and now you've changed your mind? You lied to us! We can never believe anything you say!". I've seen that happen time, and time, and time again. It's depressing :(

And it gives a great big lever for people who are disingenuous, or want to sow confusion and discord, to pull to keep the status quo and obstruct progress and development. Politicians are great at it -- "AGW hasn't been proven yet -- so we need more data!". It can never be proven - just as any individual event can't be conclusively linked to it (or used against it, for that matter). What can happen, and, to my mind, already has, is that the weight of evidence against the other competing theories becomes so strong that it is accepted as the best explanation for the world as we see it. More data continues to roll in that makes that case even stronger - but it can never be solved absolutely.

Does that mean we should wait forever before taking action? I think not -- regardless of whether you believe in AGW, or believe it is all a hoax, surely it is prudent, for many other reasons, to start researching alternative, greener fuels? You can argue we aren't warming the climate, but you can't disagree, surely, with the fact that we're burning our natural resources at an insane rate, and will one day run out. If we can move to renewable energies, we preserve the resources we have, which can be used for other things (making plastics, drugs, etc.). The research (as with all R&D) will create jobs, build expertise, and lead to a gradual and continual increase in the general standard of living -- that's how science works.

Argle -- another epic rant -- sorry!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
So you did make it up. I thought so.



I guess you aren't a big boy after all.

Holding you hand is not something I am willing to do.

That is for your girl friend or your mother.

Don't cry too much, its all there for you in black and white...in the news and on the world wide web, you just have to get your hands dirty.

Have at it. :-)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wunderground now has a couple of Google Chrome extensions, iGoogle apps, and apps for iPhone, iPad and Android.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I THINK. I dont know you. Are you a climate expert, a artist like me, a librarian, a meteorologist?

I think you are right BTW at least partially.

__________________________________________________

I wouldn't describe myself as a "climate expert" but I did study Climate Change to MSc level, so I like to think I know something on the subject.

Very complex subject. "Partially right" is probably about as good as it gets, so I'll take it as a compliment (:-
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

Oil reservoir modeling?


Natural gas these days :)

Well, I have been known to do oil also.

And CO2 floods with a four phase solution.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Cochise111 (comment #83):
The Trenberth article contains so many glaring errors and biased assumptions, it%u2019s hard to know where to start.

First of all, the difference between theory and hypothesis...


...Their unceasing drum-beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth.

If you're going to quote something someone else wrote--even unscientific gibberish from a contrarian--you should say that's what you're doing by properly attributing it. If you don't, people will believe you're trying to pass it off as your own--especially when you change just enough words from the original text to make it sound like your own.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Brazilian authorities are struggling to cope with the aftermath of flooding and landslides in the country's southeast, where the death toll has risen to 610 people.

Some families have lost everything and officials are warning of even more wet weather in the coming days.

Craig Mauro reports for Al Jazeera from one shelter in Teresopolis.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Cochise111:
The Trenberth article contains so many glaring errors and biased assumptions, it’s hard to know where to start.

This is from the non science nonsense blog WUWT and the well-known denier and cherry picking Willis Eschenbach!

More non science nonsense Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Has to do with what they call hindcasting (in my field it is called history matching).

Oil reservoir modeling?
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6093
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54858


18z GFS
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

What does that actually mean?


Has to do with what they call hindcasting (in my field it is called history matching).

Let's say you have a series of measurements and you want to make a model that matches them. Furthermore, they are very noisy measurements. Furthermore, there are a whole lot of various knobs one can turn.

The hindcasting exercise will produce a series of potential solutions to the problem... which may not be unique.

Thus the range of uncertainty in the IPCC predictions (something like 2 min 1 max 4).

Given the uncertainties in what are known in my field as the "interaction parameters"--aerosol forcings and water vapor interactions--you cannot drive down that uncertainty level.

I am not bringing this up so as to suggest we don't need to be looking at energy for other reasons, but simply to clarify the nature of the science.

It is uncertain. There are large error bars.

I don't know. I am ignorant
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Grothar:
New storm for the NE next week??



we have a special statement flying for it

WOCN11 CWTO 162027
Special weather statement
Issued by Environment Canada Ontario region. 3:27 PM EST Sunday
16 January 2011.

Special weather statement issued for..
City of Toronto
Windsor - Essex - Chatham-Kent
Sarnia - Lambton
Elgin
London - Middlesex
Simcoe - Delhi - Norfolk
Dunnville - Caledonia - Haldimand
Oxford - Brant
Niagara
City of Hamilton
Halton - Peel
York - Durham
Huron - Perth
Waterloo - Wellington
Dufferin - Innisfil
Grey - Bruce
Barrie - Orillia - Midland
Belleville - Quinte - Northumberland
Kingston - Prince Edward
Peterborough - Kawartha Lakes
Stirling - Tweed - South Frontenac
Bancroft - Bon Echo Park
Brockville - Leeds and Grenville
City of Ottawa
Gatineau
Prescott and Russell
Cornwall - Morrisburg
Smiths Falls - Lanark - Sharbot Lake
Parry Sound - Muskoka
Haliburton
Renfrew - Pembroke - Barry's Bay
Algonquin
Burk's Falls - Bayfield Inlet.

..Very cold temperatures tonight..Then the potential for rain,
Freezing rain and more snow late Monday and on Tuesday..

Lake effect snow to the lee of Georgian Bay and Southern Lake Huron
will not end until early this evening when a ridge of high pressure
builds in from the west. Motorists travelling over the
Collingwood-Barrie-Hillsdale region, southern Bruce county, Huron and
Perth counties, London and Middlesex county and Watford-Pinery
park-eastern Lambton county are advised to exercise caution and be
prepared for sudden changes in road and visibility conditions due to
heavier bursts of flurries and local blowing or drifting snow.

In addition, under relatively clear skies and light winds,
temperatures are expected to drop sharply after sunset. By early
Monday morning, areas east of a line from Barrie and Toronto will see
temperatures plunging down to the minus 20 to minus 25 degree range.
The coldest temperatures are expected to be over the Algonquin and
Bancroft regions where minus 30 degrees are likely.

A complex low pressure system developing over the Prairies and mid
western states this afternoon is expected to track eastward through
Ontario on Tuesday bringing with it a combination of snow..Rain..And
freezing rain.

Indications right now suggest that the snow will move into the
western parts Monday evening and spread to the northern parts
overnight and over all regions by Tuesday morning. In addition, as
the low pressure system approaches, warm air associated with this low
will spread in and raise temperatures to above freezing over the
southern parts. As a result, the snow is expected to change to rain
over the extreme southwest Monday night and to the eastern parts on
Tuesday. During the transition from snow to rain, freezing rain and
freezing drizzle are possible. While there is still considerable
uncertainty with regards to the location, timing and duration of the
freezing rain, there is the potential for it to last a number of
hours in some locales before the cold air is flushed out.
Current indications are that areas from Sarnia to Toronto and
northeast to the Ottawa Valley could all be affected at some point by
freezing rain. Areas further north, where the precipitation remains
As all snow.. Have the potential to receive up to 15 cm of the white
stuff from this system.

Environment Canada will continue to monitor the situation and will
issue any watches and warnings as necessary.

Listen for further statements. Additional information may also be
found by consulting the latest public forecast. The next public
forecast will be issued by 5.30 AM.

END/OSPC
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54858
I saw birds on the Tampa radar around 7:20 this morning.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Cochise111:
... the difference between theory and hypothesis:








Sorry to contradict you. A hypothesis is speculative - really an educated guess.
Contrary to popular usage, a theory is a proven relationship. The theory of relativity is proven, the law of Hagen-Poisseuil is a theory, etc. The law is exact (this doesn't necessarily mean you can solve the equations).

A calculated result is a theoretical result, if it is measured on hardware, its empirical.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New storm for the NE next week??



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
59 Oh, but wait: for years contrarians have been stating that those solar cycles were the primary force behind the warming of the past several decades...but now that the planet has continued to warm despite the solar minimum, the best those contrarians can come up with is saying that they didn't mean those solar cycles, they meant those other solar cycles?

_______________________________________________

You misunderstood my point somewhat. It is the high levels of sunspot activity which have persisted throughout the 2nd, half of the 20th. century (see here):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zurich_sunspot_number_since_1750.png

which I believe has been responsible for at least some of the observed warming. This belief looks like it may be put to the test in the next couple of decades, and I am looking forward to that.

Contrary to your post, the protracted solar minimum. and the possible flip of the PDO into a cooling mode may be indications that the current warming phase is about to come to an end....

Time will tell.

As to JFLORIDA : Please point out any explicit inaccuracies you think you have found in my post. And embrace the fact that people with differing opinions are posting on this blog. If everybody sat around earnestly agreeing with everyone else, it would make very dull reading indeed....
_______________________________________________
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


No one is talking about information presented in good faith, as being reasonably truthful and from reputable sources and you dont clam to be the author of those maps.

If there were fake radar sources, a fake NWS and fake satellite maps - how would you feel about posting those?
i would not post it simple
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54858
Quoting JFLORIDA:


If you link to the NWS or have its logo in its post It needs to be from the NWS.

If you photo shopped a radar map, in a severe thunderstorm, a satellite map in a hurricane you would be banned.

If you went to a beach and covered a undertow sign you would be arrested.

Even if no one gets hurt people deserve access to factual information for important decisions especially if they are to make them for others.

Is there any errors in that argument or analogy?
of coarse not jf i strive to make sure all info i post on my page to be as correct as possible and all images or other info is label with the point of soure on it come on jf before i ever began with a blog page that was the one thing i make sure of its official information for unoffcial uses
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54858
Link

above link is for my blog page it is located at the top of the page below weather station image and cam shot of my local area
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54858

Viewing: 125 - 75

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