Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:13 PM GMT on February 10, 2011 | +7 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
76 °F
Mostly Cloudy
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Get Free Weather Stickers® |
 |
Upload Your Photos |
 |
Weather™ API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Become a Site Member |
 |
Find us on Facebook |
 |
Follow us on Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | About Us - Contact - Support - Employment - Press Releases - Terms of Service - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index
Awoke to forecast of partly cloudy and temps in the 40s... it is now sleeting on the Carolina Coast !!!!!!!
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #10
TEMPETE TROPICALE MODEREE BINGIZA (05-20102011)
16:00 PM Reunion February 11 2011
=====================================
At 12:00 PM UTC, Moderate Tropical Storm Bingiza (993 hPa) located at 14.7S 53.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 40 knots with gusts of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south at 4 knots.
Gale Force Winds
===============
40 NM from the center
Near Gale Force Winds
======================
70 NM from the center extending up to 100 NM in the western semi-circle
Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/3.0/W0.5/24 HRS
Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 14.8S 53.7E - 40 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
24 HRS: 15.1S 53.8E - 45 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
48 HRS: 15.3S 52.8E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 15.9S 50.6E - 80 knots (CYCLONE Tropical)
Additional Information
======================
BINGIZA is located about 380 NM north northwest of Réunion and 250 NM east northeast of Sainte-Marie Island, Madagascar. Cloud pattern remains the same than previously but vigorous convection has started near the center recently. A slow southeastward then southward at 4-5 knots has been observed today. System still remains in a weak steering flow environment with a barometric col to it south and a mid level equatorial ridge to its northeast. This synoptic pattern should continue tomorrow and so for the expected motion of the system.
Saturday, all dynamical guidances from 0:00z are still in rather good agreement for a rebuilding ridge to the south (although it does not appear very strong) and a more west southwestward to southwestward track towards the eastern coast of Madagascar with a landfall likely on Monday or Monday night between Antalaha and Mahanoro. In fact, at present time, the threat seams higher for the areas between Cao Masoala and Toamasina.
Due to southeasterly shear and potential of cooler sea surface temperatures, BINGIZA has slightly weakened. This appears to be very temporarily as latest guidance suggest a weaker wind shear tomorrow and good upper level divergence polewards Sunday. Present intensity forecast shows a gradual re-intensification up to 24 hours and then steady intensification until landfall. It is worth noting that all guidance show a strong and potentially dangerous system by that time.
THE THREAT IS GETTING STRONGER FOR THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR AND IT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT FOR UNHABITANTS OF THIS REGION TO CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.
The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 18:30 PM UTC..
Have you learned anything from the NOAA info?
And does yer spouse know you have this Love fer me?
LOL
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW 15U
10:00 PM WST February 11 2011
============================================
At 9:00 PM WST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 20.5S 103.5E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The low is reported as moving west at 12 knots.
Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/2.5/D1.0/24HRS
Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 21.1S 100.6E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 21.6S 98.4E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 22.0S 94.9E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 22.0S 91.9E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
Additional Information
======================
Position based on animated VIS/near IR, aided by a tc_ssmis microwave image at 11:00 UTC.
Deep convection remains persistent to the northwest of the LLCC in a strongly sheared environment [CIMSS estimate at 12:00 UTC 30-40 kt]. However weaker shear exists just southwards of the system under the upper level ridge axis. Outflow remains good to the north. Recent satellite imagery suggest outflow could be improving to the south.
Dvorak DT=2.5 based on shear pattern with <.75deg separation between LLCC and cold cloud. FT=2.5 [MET=2.0 adjusted +0.5 by PAT].
Forecast track based on a consensus of models steering the system to the west southwest under the influence of a mid-level ridge to the south of the system. This moves the system closer to the upper level ridge, so shear is forecast to decrease during the next 24 hours. The low is forecast to intensify slowly, becoming a TC early Saturday, before weakening later during the weekend as it moves further WSW over colder waters [west of about 100E].
The next tropical cyclone bulletin on Tropical Low 15U will be issued at 19:00 PM UTC..
April 18-22|Hyatt Regency Atlanta|Atlanta, GA
The nation's forum for education and professional training in hurricane and disaster preparedness!
Purpose of the Conference
The primary goal of the National Hurricane Conference is to improve hurricane preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation in order to save lives and property in the United States and the tropical islands of the Caribbean and Pacific. In addition, the conference serves as a national forum for federal, state and local officials to exchange ideas and recommend new policies to improve Emergency Management.
To accomplish these goals, the annual conference emphasizes:
* Lessons Learned from Hurricane Strikes.
* State of the art programs worthy of emulation.
* New ideas being tested or considered.
* Information about new or ongoing assistance programs.
* The ABC's of hurricane preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation -- in recognition of the fact that there is a continual turnover of emergency management leadership and staff.
No. Not even close. In fact, to use your own analogy, relying on a meteorologist for long-term climate predictions would be like insisting the FBI look at crime statistics for just a single day, then use that to predict crime ten years from now.
I'll say this again: long-term trends are what's important. A cold day, week, or even month doesn't disprove AGW any more than a hot day, week, or month proves it.
Define long term trend then....
Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?
That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.
How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?
A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.
Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
Technically we were already sliding back into a cold period until industrialization went into full force. We should be heading into a glacial period right now if past natural cycles hold true.
Scientists admit fully that the system is complex. However, the bulk of the research according to our best science shows that the planet is warming and that we are contributing to it. These results are provided with a high confidence level.
To date, NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS SCIENCE. This is the fundamental problem with stating that there is no AGW. Without someone providing peer reviewed science for your point of view, it's just personal speculation.
It would honestly be awesome if one or more scientists could show all this warming was just some flight of fancy. It really would. It wouldn't absolve us from preparing for the consequences of the warming, but we could rest easier knowing that at least we weren't making it worse. But other than crank sites and idle blog posts, no scientist or group of scientists has managed to muster any reviewed research indicating that the current research and thinking is wrong.
You seem 100% convinced that there is no AGW. You also seem to be an intelligent individual and motivated. My recommendation to you would be to write a paper and get it peer reviewed. You don't need to be a Ph. D to do this. You could get one of your professors to back you in an independent study. Get your paper published and you could very well win a Nobel for your work.
No. That's a very false equivalence due to the fact that long-term climate trends are visible over yearly and decadal scales.
Atmospheric CO2 for January 2011
Preliminary data released February 7, 2011 (Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)
Really? Can you please provide references and citations of any AGWT scientists who said last year's all-time LA heat record was "proof of AGW"?
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.
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.
GIGO
Ever heard of proxy data? And before you dismiss it, I'd ask you whether you believe dinosaurs ever existed. After all, no one ever saw a dinosaur; all paleontologists have are fossils and a scattering of footprints.
Gotcha. ;-)
Then you tell me the periods your using then. If you don't like my numbers, what numbers should I look at?
I gave you two examples, which one is it.
I just gave you an example of 100 years of the last 2011. You tell me what I should be comparing the last 100 years to... or the last 50, 10 or 1?
Your the one trying to tell us the last 100 shows global warming.. in comparison to what??
For the first 1800 or so years of that 2000 year period, humans were not altering the planet in any noticeable way. We were not increasing GHG concentrations, nor clear cutting millions of acres of forest land, nor spewing billions of tons of other chemical into the atmosphere and the environment.
Your statements about the statistical significance of relative time periods are entirely incorrect. You may want to review a book or two on statistics and probability theory to see why from a mathematical stand point.
However, even without the mathematical issues, a month is not climatologically significant. Even a decade is too short as there is still too much noise induced by meteorological variation. Any good undergraduate text on climatology can give you a thorough explanation on the topic.
Coldest January since 1994
The average temperature in January 2011 was 30.0 F. This was -0.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 37th coolest January in 117 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
1.48 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.74 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 9th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.
Try this one then.
It covers your er,,lack of reasoning.
But I bet you can tie a Hell ofva a Knot when in a pinch.
The Psychology of Climate Change Denial
* By Brandon Keim Email Author
* December 9, 2009
Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.
“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”
Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC’s predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.
Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.
Wired.com: Why don’t people seem to care?
Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.
That’s extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It’s been about people who believe in science, who aren’t out to question whether science has a place in society.
Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What’s their response?
Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.
For relatively privileged people like myself, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.
Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?
Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we’re constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.
Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?
Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.
If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.
Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?
Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.
Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.
Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.
That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.
Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?
Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.
Oyster Po-boys and Oyster Rockefeller is on da menu in da Big Easy today and tonight.
ENjoy the next entry.
Ciao
In the United States, yes. But January 2011 was tied for the 11th warmest globally January since 1880. They don't call it "Global Warming" for nothin'... ;-)
OK, your own math again
130 years.... tied for the 11th warmest...
I wonder what it would be out of the last 2011 years?
Would it still be the 11th, or would it be lucky to make it into the top 50? WE DON'T KNOW. We have semi reliable data for 130 years...so you use that as the base line.
If we actually reach that 900ppm level by the year 2100, I'll personally apologize to everyone here. Of course, I'll be 148 years old, but hey, that's only a blink of an eye compared to the last 800,000 years.
We're seeing one of the ways the "scare" is induced - show drastic scenarios, but make the projections so far in the future that nobody currently alive will be able to verify it.
Like to see that, myself.
Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.
Whre did the other 300ppm come from?
Perhaps we should call you guys oscillationists, believers in the ying and yang of the cosmos. Cold, wet vs. hot, dry. Male vs. female. Etc.
The other 300 ppm is more or less a baseline amount created by the carbon cycle. It includes the sequestration of carbon dioxide in rock and the expulsion of carbon dioxide by volcanoes.
The graph posted by Patrap illustrates the situation.
Weren't you listening earlier? Shame on you for not listening.
Viewing: 551 - 587
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index