Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 6:26 AM GMT on July 19, 2011

Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:

In the last article I wrote that the extreme events of 2011 were providing us with the opportunity to think about climate and how to cope with a warming world. The U.S. is experiencing an extreme heat event this week (Masters @ WU). This heat wave is the consequence of a strong, stationary high pressure system over the central U.S., and it will move to the east over the next few days. Back on July 14th The Capital Weather Gang did a nice write up on the forecast of the heat wave. At the end of this blog are links to my previous blogs on heat waves and human health.

When thinking about weather, climate, and extreme events an important idea is “persistence.” For example, a heat wave occurs when there are persistent high temperatures. Persistent weather patterns occur when high and low pressure systems get large and stuck; that is, they don’t move. In the Figure below, you need to imagine North America and the United States. There is a high pressure center over the proverbial Heartland. With blue arrows I have drawn the flow of air around the high pressure system, and in this case moist air. There is moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico and, in fact on the date when this was drawn, from the Pacific. This is common in the summer to see both the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific as sources of continental moisture.

Figure 1: Schematic of a high pressure system over the central United States in July. While generic, this is drawn to represent some of the specifics of 2011. The green-shaded area is where there have been floods in 2011. The brown-shaded area represents sustained drought in the southern part of the nation.

At the center of this high pressure system there is a suppression of rain, because the air is moving downward. This sets up a situation where the surface heats from the Sun’s energy. There is not much mixing and cooling, because of the suppression of the upward motion that produces rain. Hence, if this high pressure system gets stuck, then there is persistent heat. This is a classic summer heat wave.

Let’s think about it some more. There is lot of moisture being drawn around the edge of the high pressure system, and this moisture contributes to the discomfort of people. People – just a short aside about people: if we think about heat and health, then we are concerned about people’s ability to cool themselves. It is more difficult to cool people when it is humid because sweat does not evaporate. Suppose that in addition to this moisture, there is a region where the ground is soaked with water from flooding. Then on top of already moist air coming from the Gulf, there is local evaporation into the air being warmed by the Sun. If on the interior of the high, where the rain is suppressed, there is hot, wet air, then it becomes dangerous heat.

It’s not easy to derive a number that describes dangerous heat. But in much of the eastern U.S. a number that somehow combines temperature and humidity is useful. Meteorologists often use the heat index. It’s the summer time version of “it’s 98 degrees, but it feels like 105.” For moist climates, the heat index is one version of the “it feels like” temperature. Jeff Masters tells me that in Newton, Iowa yesterday, July 17, 2011, the heat index was 126 degrees F. (see here, and 131 F in Knoxville, Iowa on July 18)

Another measure of heat and humidity is the dew point; that is, the temperature at which dew forms, and effectively limits the nighttime low. The dew points in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are currently very high and setting records. Here is a map of dew point for July 19, 2011.

Figure 2: Exceptionally high dew points centered on Iowa.

Now if I was a public health official, and I was trying to understand how a warming planet might impact my life, then here is how I would think about it. First, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are going to be warmer, and hence, there will be more humid air. This will mean, with regard to human health for the central U.S., heat waves will become more dangerous, without necessarily becoming hotter. It is also reasonable to expect heat waves will become more frequent and last longer, because those persistent, stuck high pressure systems are, in part, forced by the higher sea surface temperatures. If I am a public health official here is my algorithm – heat waves are already important to my life, and they are likely to get more dangerous, more frequent, and of longer duration. But by how much? Do I need to know by how much before I decide on a plan for action?

If I think about the air being more humid, then I might expect to see trends in the heat index. I might expect to see trends in dew points, and trends in the nighttime minimum temperatures getting higher. (That’s where a greenhouse effect really matters.) I worry about persistent heat, warm nights, and the inability of people and buildings to cool themselves. I worry about their being dangerous heat in places where people and emergency rooms are not used to dangerous heat – not acclimated to heat – not looking for heat-related illness.

Let’s go back to the figure. Rain is suppressed in the middle of the high pressure system, but around the edge of the high pressure system it will rain; there will be storms. (see Figure 3 at the end) The air around the edge of high is warm and very wet. Wet air is energetic air, and it is reasonable to expect local severe storms. (See Severe Storm on Lake Michigan) And if the high pressure is persistent, stuck, then days of extreme weather are possible. If this pattern sets up, then there is increased likelihood of flooding. If I am that public health official, then I am alerted to the possibility of more extreme weather and the dangers thereof. But, again, can the increase of extreme weather be quantified? Do I need to quantify it before I decide on a plan of action?

Still with the figure - what about that region of extended drought and the heat from the high pressure system? Dehydration becomes a more important issue. As a public health official, I start to see the relation of the heat event to other aspects of the weather, the climate. I see the relation to drought. I see the flood, and it’s relation to the winter snow pack and spring rains.

So what I have presented here is to look at the local mechanisms of the weather – what are the basic underlying physics responsible for hot and cold, wet and dry – for moist air? If I stick to these basic physics, and let the climate model frame the more complex regional and global picture, what can I say about the future? Do I have to have a formal prediction to take action? Here in 2011, I see drought and flood and hot weather and warm oceans that interact together to make a period of sustained, dangerous heat. It does not have to “set a record” to convey the reality of the warming earth. It tells me the type of event that is likely to come more often, of longer duration, and of, perhaps, of greater intensity. If I am a public health planner, then I can know this with some certainty. The question becomes, how do I use that information in my planning?

r

Figure 3: Radar loop showing precipitation around the edge of the large high pressure system in the middle of the continent. July 19, 2011.

Previous Blogs on Heat Waves

Hot in Denver: Heat Waves (1)

Heat Waves (2): Heat and Humans

Heat Waves (3): Role of Global Warming

Categories: Climate Change Heat

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1201 - 1251

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 — Blog Index

1201. Neapolitan 2:01 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
For any of you left who wonder how generalized warming can cause localized cooling: Seattle spring was the coldest, one of the cloudiest on record Scientists have confirmed what many suspected about this year’s weather. It was the coldest spring on record for Washington and one of the cloudiest. The average temperature for April, May and June was lower than any year since 1900, say University of Washington scientists. And the days were more cloudy than all but one year since those records began 60 years ago. "We were still getting wintertime cloud cover into late June, which is the most remarkable aspect to me," said James Johnstone, a research associate with the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean in the UW College of the Environment. Cliff Mass, also with UW, says the clouds and temps were caused by a weather pattern that could become typical as North America heats up. "Under global warming type scenarios, with the general warmth of the continent increasing, what we found is that we actually get more clouds west of the Cascades under global warming during the spring and early summer. It's really interesting," Mass said. Mass add that the hotter it gets inland, the more we seem to get the sort of pattern that brings cooler air from the ocean into western Washington. And, even though the clouds have cleared up this week, there are still no really hot days in the local forecast. KPLU Article... Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1202. Neapolitan 2:04 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Ossqss: You must be smarter than NOAA :) Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands NOAA March 9, 2011 Well, thanks. But, again, it takes a very "special" person to look at increasingly frequent once-in-1,000-years and once-in-500-years and once-in-100-years extreme weather events and claim, "It's just natural; it's just coincidence". Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1203. Ossqss 2:14 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan: Well, thanks. But, again, it takes a very "special" person to look at increasingly frequent once-in-1,000-years and once-in-500-years and once-in-100-years extreme weather events and claim, "It's just natural; it's just coincidence". You got that right :) Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

1204. nymore 2:29 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Ossqss- Your video was well worth the time to watch it. It was very interesting and informative. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2051

1205. cyclonebuster 2:36 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
As per that letter above on post 1199 Emily would still be a tropical storm off of Miami instead of a Hurricane! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 19030

1206. cyclonebuster 2:43 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
As per that letter above on post 1199 Emily would still be a tropical storm off of Miami instead of a Hurricane! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 19030

1207. cyclonebuster 2:44 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 19030

1208. cyclonebuster 2:46 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 19030

1209. nymore 2:51 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
More clouds in the Northwest are being caused by global warming according to Cliff Mass. It seems Cliff Mass who was fired from the public radio station KUOW, because he could not just give the weather forecast which he was hired to do, he liked giving his own opinions about other subjects not having to do with weather, after several warnings he was fired. Cliff Mass it seems gave his own opinion again to the NPR reporter from KPLU because the actual article from the University of Washington mentions nothing about global warming. James Johnstone Associate Researcher and Nick Bond who is a Research Meteorologist and The State Climatologist make no mention of it and even say it is not an unusual pattern. Here is the link to the actual University of Washington article Link . Ossqss your video is spot on for this kind of reporting. It seems the reporter wanted a Global Warming disaster story and found Cliff Mass who is not even part of the original article. This is biased reporting at its finest. But remember all you sheep for the AGWT movement all the reports you read about man being the cause of the warming and weather events are true. Neapolitan I am sorry to say you were beat for line of the day by Cliff Mass. By the way PWNING is still fun Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2051

1211. sullivanweather 6:54 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan: Well, thanks. But, again, it takes a very "special" person to look at increasingly frequent once-in-1,000-years and once-in-500-years and once-in-100-years extreme weather events and claim, "It's just natural; it's just coincidence". So are these events not supposed to occur? And define increasingly frequent in terms of data. Are you in possession of some study that says once-in-100-year events are increasing? Do you even know how many once-in-100-year events should occur on average on an annual basis normally? I think the number would surprise you. Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 269 Comments: 12492

1212. Neapolitan 10:05 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather: So are these events not supposed to occur? And define increasingly frequent in terms of data. Are you in possession of some study that says once-in-100-year events are increasing? Do you even know how many once-in-100-year events should occur on average on an annual basis normally? I think the number would surprise you. "Do you even know how many once-in-100-year events should occur on average on an annual basis normally?" Did you ask that question in seriousness? If so, I'd like to refer you to this basic primer: Statistics of Weather and Climate Extremes. In short, when meteorologists talk about, say, a 100-year event--flood, drought, snowfall, whatever--what they mean is there is a 1% chance in any given year that such an event will occur. If those events begin occurring on a more regular basis, those chances need to be recalculated. That's how 1,000 year events become 100 year events, 100 year events become 10 year events, and so on. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1213. Neapolitan 10:32 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore: More clouds in the Northwest are being caused by global warming according to Cliff Mass. It seems Cliff Mass who was fired from the public radio station KUOW, because he could not just give the weather forecast which he was hired to do, he liked giving his own opinions about other subjects not having to do with weather, after several warnings he was fired. Cliff Mass it seems gave his own opinion again to the NPR reporter from KPLU because the actual article from the University of Washington mentions nothing about global warming. James Johnstone Associate Researcher and Nick Bond who is a Research Meteorologist and The State Climatologist make no mention of it and even say it is not an unusual pattern. Here is the link to the actual University of Washington article Link . Ossqss your video is spot on for this kind of reporting. It seems the reporter wanted a Global Warming disaster story and found Cliff Mass who is not even part of the original article. This is biased reporting at its finest. But remember all you sheep for the AGWT movement all the reports you read about man being the cause of the warming and weather events are true. Neapolitan I am sorry to say you were beat for line of the day by Cliff Mass. By the way PWNING is still fun From the article to which you linked: "We’ve had the two cloudiest springs on record in Seattle the last two years, which is kind of odd...We were still getting wintertime cloud cover into late June, which is the most remarkable aspect to me." - Johnstone Funny, that sounds a little different from your statement that Johnstone said nothing unusual was going on, doesn't it? Say, here's a graph showing daily hours of cloudiness at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport that cleary indicates nothing unusual going on: Since you insist on trying to do so, I have to ask you this: wouldn't "pwning" be more fun for you if you ever actually succeeded? Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1214. iceagecoming 11:55 AM GMT on August 02, 2011
Light snow dusts Johannesburg JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - Jul 29 2011 12:35 Light snow fell over Johannesburg on Friday morning, days after the unusual weather caused chaos in certain parts of the country this week. "It is cold, to very cold, over much of the country ... and the cold front will hit Limpopo and Mpumalanga by 2pm," he said. "But starting from tomorrow [Saturday], there will be a slight temperature increase." On Tuesday, snow fell heavily in the Warden, Harrismith and Van Reenen's Pass areas, reaching depths in excess of one metre in places. As a result, many motorists and truck drivers were left stranded along the N3 highway, which was re-opened on Wednesday evening. The economic cost of road closures caused by snow falls in KwaZulu-Natal was an estimated R400 million, co-operative governance provincial minister Nomusa Dube said on Thursday. -- Sapa Link Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 853

1215. sullivanweather 1:41 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan: In short, when meteorologists talk about, say, a 100-year event--flood, drought, snowfall, whatever--what they mean is there is a 1% chance in any given year that such an event will occur. If those events begin occurring on a more regular basis, those chances need to be recalculated. That's how 1,000 year events become 100 year events, 100 year events become 10 year events, and so on. I don't believe you understand what I'm getting at here. You're talking about 100-year events as if they're some rarity. They happen all the time and the term in of itself is a misnomer. We don't even have a long enough period of record to even begin to define a 100-year event. You're also leaving out a key phrase in that sentence. The 1% chance of occurrence refers to a point on a map, of which we can pull from thousands of qualifying sections for dozens of categories of weather. Each and every weather event carries with it its own scale and scope. For example, if we're looking at 100-year events of daily rainfall, since rainfall varies greatly over short distances, especially convective rainfall, when you grid out the areal coverage of a point on a map that receives a 100-year daily rainfall event you're only looking at a 20x20km area. How many 400 square kilometer regions can you box the United States into? Then you have to consider the completely random nature of this record in particular. A city can get stalled thunderstorms that drop a 100-year daily rainfall event amounts on July 24th and August 3rd while a nearby city gets nothing. Does this mean the weather of Dallas is more extreme than Waco? And due to how we compile the data the monthly rainfall total in this example would be above average for both months in Dallas but had those events occurred on July 20th and July 31st, in the same month, the monthly total for July would likely be a 100-year monthly rainfall event, so there's ambiguity inherent to the data wit all else being equal. Then just look at the sheer number of categories of weather we log. Hi max temperature Lo max temperature Hi min temperature Lo min temperature Daily mean temperature Monthly mean temperature Annual mean temperature Daily (24hr.) rainfall Calendar day rainfall Monthly rainfall (greatest and least) Seasonal (actual seasons) rainfall (greatest and least) Annual rainfall (greatest and least) Daily (24hr. snowfall) Calendar day snowfall Total snowstorm Monthly snowfall (greatest and least) Seasonal (actual seasons) snowfall (greatest and least) Annual snowfall (greatest and least) Calendar year snowfall (greatest and least) River flow events (low and high) Drought events (by index/% areal coverage) This is only scratching the surface of the weather events we keep records of. There's '100-year events' that can be pointed to happening in the country at just about any time because there's so many different kinds on 100-year events. So the chances of one actually occurring during any given point in time for any given place in the country is likely 100%. Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 269 Comments: 12492

1216. Neapolitan 2:01 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Chile: Snow, rain hit world's driest desert This has been the wettest winter in decades for Chile's arid northern desert, where fractions of an inch of rain have done major damage in some areas and set the stage for spectacular floral displays in the weeks to come. July came and went with major storms that together dumped more than five times the annual average of rain and snow on parts of the world's driest desert. A similarly wet stretch in early July dumped four years' worth of rain in one day on coastal Antofogasta. That was just a quarter of an inch (more than 6.3 millimeters) but it was still enough to cause collapsed or leaking roofs in homes and businesses that usually have no reason to protect themselves against even minimal precipitation. That storm also brought as much as three feet (a meter) of snow to mountains that normally receive zero precipitation during the southern winter. Soldiers helped rescue 400 people including busloads of foreign visitors who were trapped in snow drifts and 50 mph (80 kph) winds, said Ernesto Figueroa, chief of Chile's emergency agency in the northern Tarapaca region. "Windstorms devastated some roofs and knocked over big trees," said Horacio Larrain, an archaeologist who lives in Iquique, where a dust storm surprised residents. "The sky was red with dust at sunset, which was something no one had ever seen before." Average annual rainfall in the northern city of Arica is so low that it would take 50 years to accumulate an inch. This July, the city was swamped twice by what would be considered mild showers almost anywhere else on the planet. So far this year, Arica has had 0.13 inch (3.4 millimeters) of rain, more than six times its yearly average during 30 years of record keeping. While climate scientists say global warming has made for increasingly extreme weather worldwide, this rain is particularly unusual for the Atacama, where precipitation has declined over the past century and climate change models predict deserts will expand southward and become even drier, said Juan Quintana, a meteorologist with Chile's weather service. Associated Press Article... "wettest winter in decades..." "...more than five times the annual average..." "Four years' worth of rain in one day..." "Three feet of snow to mountains that normally receive zero precipitation..." "Something no one had ever seen before..." "...more than six times its yearly average [of rain]." "Particularly unusual..." Why, a person would have to be blinded by ideology to not see the glaringly--and increasingly--obvious. Don't you think? Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1218. Neapolitan 2:24 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore: Neapolitan- I like how you took part of a statement from Johnstone at the beginning of the article and part of a statement from the end of the article and added them together to come up with one statement. The statement about nothing unusual is a statement by Nick Bond not Johnstone. Sir are you ever honest and any shred of credibility you had left here has just been taken away. I put the original paper up for people to read themselves. Once again I have proven you dishonest. You were just PWNED From your comment #139: "James Johnstone Associate Researcher and Nick Bond who is a Research Meteorologist and The State Climatologist make no mention of it and even say it is not an unusual pattern." Yes, I accept your apologies. Now, I grow weary of games. Because you choose to continue the juvenile "PWNED" thing, I'm going to ignore you. I'll watch you to see whether you grow out of the phase; if and when you do, we can talk again. Good luck to you. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1219. nymore 2:53 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Here is the statement by Bond ( With typical atmospheric dynamics,when a large area is exceptionally warm such as the central and eastern United States have been IT IS NOT UNUSUAL for an adjacent area to be substantially cooler as much of the northwest has been ) I see you are getting mad and it is fine if you want to ignore me that is what a child does when they are caught in a lie. Some people can not handle the truth. I will let the people read the ORIGINAL ARTICLE and decide for themselves what it says. BTW the graph you posted is on the original article along with one more so don't act like you just found it I posted the link to it. sigh ;-) Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2051

1220. Patrap 3:17 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
A 1 F degree increase in Global Avg Temp,,creates a 4% increase in WV. Thus the extreme Precip events noted. Have a nice day. ......................swoosh Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 377 Comments: 112968

1221. greentortuloni 3:40 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather: I don't believe you understand what I'm getting at here. You're talking about 100-year events as if they're some rarity. They happen all the time and the term in of itself is a misnomer. We don't even have a long enough period of record to even begin to define a 100-year event. You're also leaving out a key phrase in that sentence. The 1% chance of occurrence refers to a point on a map, of which we can pull from thousands of qualifying sections for dozens of categories of weather. Each and every weather event carries with it its own scale and scope. For example, if we're looking at 100-year events of daily rainfall, since rainfall varies greatly over short distances, especially convective rainfall, when you grid out the areal coverage of a point on a map that receives a 100-year daily rainfall event you're only looking at a 20x20km area. How many 400 square kilometer regions can you box the United States into? Then you have to consider the completely random nature of this record in particular. A city can get stalled thunderstorms that drop a 100-year daily rainfall event amounts on July 24th and August 3rd while a nearby city gets nothing. Does this mean the weather of Dallas is more extreme than Waco? And due to how we compile the data the monthly rainfall total in this example would be above average for both months in Dallas but had those events occurred on July 20th and July 31st, in the same month, the monthly total for July would likely be a 100-year monthly rainfall event, so there's ambiguity inherent to the data wit all else being equal. Then just look at the sheer number of categories of weather we log. Hi max temperature Lo max temperature Hi min temperature Lo min temperature Daily mean temperature Monthly mean temperature Annual mean temperature Daily (24hr.) rainfall Calendar day rainfall Monthly rainfall (greatest and least) Seasonal (actual seasons) rainfall (greatest and least) Annual rainfall (greatest and least) Daily (24hr. snowfall) Calendar day snowfall Total snowstorm Monthly snowfall (greatest and least) Seasonal (actual seasons) snowfall (greatest and least) Annual snowfall (greatest and least) Calendar year snowfall (greatest and least) River flow events (low and high) Drought events (by index/% areal coverage) This is only scratching the surface of the weather events we keep records of. There's '100-year events' that can be pointed to happening in the country at just about any time because there's so many different kinds on 100-year events. So the chances of one actually occurring during any given point in time for any given place in the country is likely 100%. I didn't want to bring all this up because it feeds excuses to the scientologists but your points (and some others that you left out) are true. However, the overall process is still valid. A lot of your points concern the trees versus forest arguments of statistics. Any reasonable statistician would be able to see the forest of global warming for the trees - unless paid not to. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

1222. nymore 4:03 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
I suggest everyone no matter which side of the debate you are on take an hour and watch the video posted by Ossqss post number 1196. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2051

1223. Neapolitan 4:40 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
At 11:00 AM CDT, the following temps have been measured: Wichita Falls, TX: 102 (predicted to hit 108 today, and 110 tomorrow) Oklahoma City, OK: 102 (109 today, 112 tomorrow) Dallas, TX: 99 (108, 109) Ft. Smith, AR: 100 (109, 109) Kansas City, MO: 99 (109) Tulsa, OK: 100 (110, 113) Wichita, KS: 102 (113) There will be many hundreds of daily records set today, dozens of monthly highs, and even a number of all-time highs at some stations. A few other items: --Today is the 42nd straight in Wichita Falls with temps at or above 100, tying the record there. (It's also the 61st day out of the last 62 to reach that mark.) The most 100-degree days ever in a single year there was 79; today marks the 68th, with many weeks left in peak heat season. --Today will be Amarillo's 33rd day of the year at or above 100. The average is six, and the previous record was 26. --Ft. Smith, Arkansas, is suffering through its 29th consecutive day at or above 100. 13 of those says have been records, the hottest being yesterday's 111. --This will be the 32nd consecutive 100 or higher day in Dallas. And so on, and so forth. Just more coincidences. Nothing out of the usual... - - - - - - - - - - On a related programming note, Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be aired in its entirety tomorrow evening at 8:00 PM CDT on Current TV. If you're not on of those lucky enough to get the network, you can watch it online. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1224. JBastardi 4:41 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Looks like "global warming" is actually good for the polar bears. I thought they were going to become extinct. Yet another Algore/IPCC prediction down the tube. Link Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

1225. JBastardi 4:43 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
More brainwashing by the Dept. of Education. They really need to be abolished. Link Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

1226. streamtracker 5:02 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Ossqss: So let me get this right. The first referenced addresses, not links, are not functional. The next talks about Dry times ahead due to climate change and the next talks about excess precipitation due to climate change. Everything is a climate change problem? You are correct, just not for the reasons you think. Here, try one small piece of the puzzle that does not contradict itself. Land use/land cover changes and climate: Modeling analysis and observational evidence Absolutely! Landuse change is one factor that changes climate. This is well known by climate scientists. Climate scientists do not claim that CO2 changes are the only factor driving the heat budget of the planet up, but just currently the most important. "Here, try one small piece of the puzzle that does not contradict itself." You apparently do understand climate dynamics well enough to understand that it can become dryer in some places and wetter in others. Do you you understand climate zones and what creates them? Why we have deserts in some places and tropical forests in others? Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730

1227. streamtracker 5:05 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
AP issues a report on scientists reactions to Spencer's paper: Skeptic's small cloud study renews climate rancor Favorite blurb: "Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared." Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730

1228. PurpleDrank 5:27 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan: On a related programming note, Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be aired in its entirety tomorrow evening at 8:00 PM CDT on Current TV. If you're not on of those lucky enough to get the network, you can watch it online. Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730

1229. streamtracker 5:51 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi: Looks like "global warming" is actually good for the polar bears. I thought they were going to become extinct. Yet another Algore/IPCC prediction down the tube. Link The article you cite relies on a discredited study. IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Summary of polar bear population status per 2010 For the subpopulations that have sufficient data the majority are declining. In several declining subpopulations links have been established between decline and sea-ice retreat. Drowning is not considered the only or major source of decreases in population size in declining subpopulations. Cub nutritional status and female weight are important factors. Fewer weeks of sea ice means less time to feed out on the ice and poorer nutritional status. This increases individual bear mortality and decreases female fecundity. When you simultaneously increase mortality and decrease fecundity a population declines. Nice summary here: Ursus maritimus As with most species threatened by climate change, this is only one of the many factors impacting their populations. Hunting of bears and pollution are also considered contributing factors. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group is a group of bear biologists and you'll find lots of factual information on polar bears and climate change on their websites. Or you can rely on JBastardi's link and remain misinformed. Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730

1230. JupiterKen 7:35 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting streamtracker: AP issues a report on scientists reactions to Spencer's paper: Skeptic's small cloud study renews climate rancor Favorite blurb: "Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared." The AP is not biased, no siree. They're fair and balanced just like MSNBC, et al (& any Nea favorite ;-)). Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

1231. biff4ugo 7:41 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
What do folks think of the NEON project? neoninc.org Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1212

1232. Neapolitan 7:52 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen: The AP is not biased, no siree. They're fair and balanced just like MSNBC, et al (& any Nea favorite ;-)). Not just the AP: a whole panoply of scientists from all across the climate science spectrum have found numerous flaws with Spencer's paper. Blame it on the messenger, if you want, but the "science" behind the paper just isn't good, and the piece shouldn't have been published. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1233. streamtracker 7:56 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi: More brainwashing by the Dept. of Education. They really need to be abolished. Link Given that most of the major US scientific organizations have published position papers supporting the basic tenants of climate change science and supporting the observations of increases in global temperatures linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases, Joint science academies' statement - The National Academies Scientific organizations supporting the consensus position I applaud the Dept. of Ed. for taking the initiative to educate our young people regarding an issue that will have a major impact on their future. I also support Waxman's call for a major push to include climate science in the curriculum of US public schools. An educated and informed public is crucial for efforts to deal with this issue. Or we can drown in the noise coming from the denialist blogosphere. Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1730

1234. PurpleDrank 8:06 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
More govt. spending... not surprised. replace classic literature with instructions on buying green products. wonderful. might as well rewrite Huckleberry Finn and rename the Duke and King, Exxon and Mobil. educated and informed, indeed. solve for x. Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730

1235. Some1Has2BtheRookie 8:49 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi: Looks like "global warming" is actually good for the polar bears. I thought they were going to become extinct. Yet another Algore/IPCC prediction down the tube. Link Is this the same author that wrote that article? Link Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4138

1236. theshepherd 9:17 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting biff4ugo: What do folks think of the NEON project? neoninc.org It is a totally absurd waste of tax payer money. Projects funded by the National Science Foundation... "that's our money" Is NOAA doing such a terrible job that we now need to fund another parasitic organization to replicate NOAA's work? What about NASA's money??? Should we take away NOAA and NASA money who have been looking at the same thing and send it to NEON? Get real folks. All we have here is another goldbricking agenda driven comrade for the AGWs. We don't need NASA. The navy can handle space defense programs and the weather can go to private enterprize. But, oh snap, that would mean that BS walks... Mars can wait...and it can wait...and it can wait. What kind of fruitcake thinks that in "this economy" we need to invest more than a penny in space travel? Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 8344

1237. nymore 9:18 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Let me see our educated kids keep performing worse. They don't know the basics such as reading, writing, science and math. They live at home till their 30, don't want to work by a schedule unless it is their schedule. We can't have an opinion that might cause someones feeling to get hurt. We can't cheer at sporting events for children, we can't keep score of the game although ask any kid playing at the end of the game what the score was they will tell you. We always have to tell the person how special and good they are even when they lose and make sure they get a trophy. We must hand out trophies to the team with the least penalties not the winners of the game. We have to be told what to eat, what to drink, where to smoke such as no smoking in bars. We have to wear helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, safety glasses, gloves and shoes just to ride a bike so nobody gets a scratch. Who to sleep with, who can.get married to each other. I could go on all day. Hell now lets teach a 7 year old about global warming and add another department to the government to duplicate what others already do. I mean why not America as a country is just about over anyway. By the way the rest of the world is still playing this game called life, and it is a ruthless game, and we are losing bad. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2051

1238. greentortuloni 9:35 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore: Let me see our educated kids keep performing worse. They don't know the basics such as reading, writing, science and math. They live at home till their 30, don't want to work by a schedule unless it is their schedule. We can't have an opinion that might cause someones feeling to get hurt. We can't cheer at sporting events for children, we can't keep score of the game although ask any kid playing at the end of the game what the score was they will tell you. We always have to tell the person how special and good they are even when they lose and make sure they get a trophy. We must hand out trophies to the team with the least penalties not the winners of the game. We have to be told what to eat, what to drink, where to smoke such as no smoking in bars. We have to wear helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, safety glasses, gloves and shoes just to ride a bike so nobody gets a scratch. Who to sleep with, who can.get married to each other. I could go on all day. Hell now lets teach a 7 year old about global warming and add another department to the government to duplicate what others already do. I mean why not America as a country is just about over anyway. By the way the rest of the world is still playing this game called life, and it is a ruthless game, and we are losing bad. You might add whining and looking for scapegoats to that list, bra. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

1239. JupiterKen 9:37 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore: Let me see our educated kids keep performing worse. They don't know the basics such as reading, writing, science and math. They live at home till their 30, don't want to work by a schedule unless it is their schedule. We can't have an opinion that might cause someones feeling to get hurt. We can't cheer at sporting events for children, we can't keep score of the game although ask any kid playing at the end of the game what the score was they will tell you. We always have to tell the person how special and good they are even when they lose and make sure they get a trophy. We must hand out trophies to the team with the least penalties not the winners of the game. We have to be told what to eat, what to drink, where to smoke such as no smoking in bars. We have to wear helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, safety glasses, gloves and shoes just to ride a bike so nobody gets a scratch. Who to sleep with, who can.get married to each other. I could go on all day. Hell now lets teach a 7 year old about global warming and add another department to the government to duplicate what others already do. I mean why not America as a country is just about over anyway. By the way the rest of the world is still playing this game called life, and it is a ruthless game, and we are losing bad. "badly" Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

1240. JBastardi 9:45 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting streamtracker: The article you cite relies on a discredited study. IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Summary of polar bear population status per 2010 For the subpopulations that have sufficient data the majority are declining. In several declining subpopulations links have been established between decline and sea-ice retreat. Drowning is not considered the only or major source of decreases in population size in declining subpopulations. Cub nutritional status and female weight are important factors. Fewer weeks of sea ice means less time to feed out on the ice and poorer nutritional status. This increases individual bear mortality and decreases female fecundity. When you simultaneously increase mortality and decrease fecundity a population declines. Nice summary here: Ursus maritimus As with most species threatened by climate change, this is only one of the many factors impacting their populations. Hunting of bears and pollution are also considered contributing factors. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group is a group of bear biologists and you'll find lots of factual information on polar bears and climate change on their websites. Or you can rely on JBastardi's link and remain misinformed. Discredited by whom? You? Everything that doesn't comport with your preconceived notions is discredited. Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

1241. theshepherd 9:45 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather: I don't believe you understand what I'm getting at here. You're talking about 100-year events as if they're some rarity. They happen all the time and the term in of itself is a misnomer. We don't even have a long enough period of record to even begin to define a 100-year event. You're also leaving out a key phrase in that sentence. The 1% chance of occurrence refers to a point on a map, of which we can pull from thousands of qualifying sections for dozens of categories of weather. Each and every weather event carries with it its own scale and scope. For example, if we're looking at 100-year events of daily rainfall, since rainfall varies greatly over short distances, especially convective rainfall, when you grid out the areal coverage of a point on a map that receives a 100-year daily rainfall event you're only looking at a 20x20km area. How many 400 square kilometer regions can you box the United States into? Then you have to consider the completely random nature of this record in particular. A city can get stalled thunderstorms that drop a 100-year daily rainfall event amounts on July 24th and August 3rd while a nearby city gets nothing. Does this mean the weather of Dallas is more extreme than Waco? And due to how we compile the data the monthly rainfall total in this example would be above average for both months in Dallas but had those events occurred on July 20th and July 31st, in the same month, the monthly total for July would likely be a 100-year monthly rainfall event, so there's ambiguity inherent to the data wit all else being equal. Then just look at the sheer number of categories of weather we log. Hi max temperature Lo max temperature Hi min temperature Lo min temperature Daily mean temperature Monthly mean temperature Annual mean temperature Daily (24hr.) rainfall Calendar day rainfall Monthly rainfall (greatest and least) Seasonal (actual seasons) rainfall (greatest and least) Annual rainfall (greatest and least) Daily (24hr. snowfall) Calendar day snowfall Total snowstorm Monthly snowfall (greatest and least) Seasonal (actual seasons) snowfall (greatest and least) Annual snowfall (greatest and least) Calendar year snowfall (greatest and least) River flow events (low and high) Drought events (by index/% areal coverage) This is only scratching the surface of the weather events we keep records of. There's '100-year events' that can be pointed to happening in the country at just about any time because there's so many different kinds on 100-year events. So the chances of one actually occurring during any given point in time for any given place in the country is likely 100%. Major Dittos...(Liberals hate that term) :) Part of my job requirement was to be certified NPDES Phase II. I have never seen any Storm Water Management District change a 100 year event status for any stretch of river bank or water shed area. It ain't gonna happen. Anyone that knows anything about NPDES knows that this was yet another EPA blunder. The EPA in their infinite wisdom thought they could write a "Universal Code" for all states to comply with. That idea of course folded like a cheap suitcase. The states now write their own standards that are more realistic and "workable" throughout their many districts. We don't need the EPA. States can take care of themselves....afterall, we live here, they don't. Now all you Liberals can go digging into your handy dandy factoids and present something in your usual inexperienced, "stump the teacher", prepubescent mentalities that someone with 38 years in construction doesn't already know...this should be amusing :) Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 8344

1242. greentortuloni 9:47 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen: "badly" Actually i think 'bad' could be considered correct. It is a idiom rather than a correct use of an adjective as an adverb. However, 'badly' is a bit odd as an adverb as it implies a mode of losing. I am not sure that it is exactly correct to lose in a bad method, although being a terrible loser is possible. But then again, i think that was the point of the post: being a terrible loser. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

1243. greentortuloni 9:48 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Hmm, probably ought to leave the blog for a while after those two posts. They even irritate me and I wrote them Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

1244. theshepherd 9:55 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi: Discredited by whom? You? Everything that doesn't comport with your preconceived notions is discredited. The only thing endangered in the polar bear department are the baby seals and climate scientists their ever increasing numbers are going to feed on. Maybe the latter is not a bad notion, eh? These same people will tell you that T Rex could not have been a predator because his arms were too short. Duh...Ever stood under a T Rex skeleton and looked up??? At the rate polar bears have increased it's just a matter of time before they overpopulate just as alligators did once they were protected and become an overpopulation problem. Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 8344

1245. theshepherd 10:00 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting theshepherd: RE: Project NEON. It is a totally absurd waste of tax payer money. Projects funded by the National Science Foundation... "that's our money" Is NOAA doing such a terrible job that we now need to fund another parasitic organization to replicate NOAA's work? What about NASA's money??? Should we take away NOAA and NASA money who have been looking at the same thing and send it to NEON? Get real folks. All we have here is another goldbricking agenda driven comrade for the AGWs. We don't need NASA. The good ol' US Navy can handle space defense programs and the weather can go to private enterprize. But, oh snap, that would mean that BS walks... Mars can wait...and it can wait...and it can wait. What kind of fruitcake thinks that in "this economy" we need to invest more than a penny in space travel? Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 8344

1246. sullivanweather 10:03 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan: "wettest winter in decades..." "...more than five times the annual average..." "Four years' worth of rain in one day..." "Three feet of snow to mountains that normally receive zero precipitation..." "Something no one had ever seen before..." "...more than six times its yearly average [of rain]." "Particularly unusual..." Why, a person would have to be blinded by ideology to not see the glaringly--and increasingly--obvious. Don't you think? When a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course there's going to be people that haven't seen it before. And when a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course when it actually does rain it's going to be a relatively huge amount. Same thing when Mobile, Alabama picks up an inch of snow. They may only average 0.1" of snow a year but that one inch of snow is ten times the annual amount of snow. They don't get snow for another ten years, let's say, it averages out to 0.1" of snow a year. It's a normal event. And it's the same premise here in your attempt to link a the average once-in-every-'x'-years-rainfall in the Atacama to some human induced climate phenomenon and your utterly lame attempt to draw ideology into the equation. Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 269 Comments: 12492

1247. theshepherd 10:04 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting PurpleDrank: DITTO...post 1228 "I'd rather watch the "View" while eating linoleum and holding a small screaming child with a wet diaper"..."copyright theshepherd". If you steal this quote, I'll sue your pants off. Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 8344

1248. theshepherd 10:18 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather: When a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course there's going to be people that haven't seen it before. And when a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course when it actually does rain it's going to be a relatively huge amount. Same thing when Mobile, Alabama picks up an inch of snow. They may only average 0.1" of snow a year but that one inch of snow is ten times the annual amount of snow. They don't get snow for another ten years, let's say, it averages out to 0.1" of snow a year. It's a normal event. And it's the same premise here in your attempt to link a the average once-in-every-'x'-years-rainfall in the Atacama to some human induced climate phenomenon and your utterly lame attempt to draw ideology into the equation. I bow at your feet for your patience. I had to put this self aggrandizing, self appointed "scientist" on ignore. He can post factoids, but he can't speak without his monitors on either side of his podium. Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 8344

1249. Neapolitan 10:52 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather: When a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course there's going to be people that haven't seen it before. And when a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course when it actually does rain it's going to be a relatively huge amount. Same thing when Mobile, Alabama picks up an inch of snow. They may only average 0.1" of snow a year but that one inch of snow is ten times the annual amount of snow. They don't get snow for another ten years, let's say, it averages out to 0.1" of snow a year. It's a normal event. And it's the same premise here in your attempt to link a the average once-in-every-'x'-years-rainfall in the Atacama to some human induced climate phenomenon and your utterly lame attempt to draw ideology into the equation. Why is it that denialists who more often than not dismiss the dissemination of basic climate facts as a political grab for power are always the first to accuse others of "drawing ideology into the equation"? It's downright amusing, it is... ;-) Let's go with your analogy of the rainfall, okay? Let's say that one summer, a particular location experiences a 100-year rain. Then three years later, it experiences another 100-year rain. Two years later, another 100-year rain. Then the next summer, then twice the summer after that, then three times the summer after that, then four times the summer after that, and so on. And let's say the same exact thing happens in ten thousand other nearby locations. Is it your contention that that's just the averages at play? That's just normal? With that in mind, let me ask you a question I've asked many self-proclaimed "skeptics". What would it take to convince you that the planet is warming, that the climate is changing drastically? Seriously, what would you have to see happening in order for you to say to yourself, "You know what? There really does seem to be something going on." Now, while true "skeptics" always have an answer for that, denialists never do--and that's because they long ago made up their minds that no amount of evidence would ever change their minds. I see that "theshepherd" has taken leave, having exhausted his or her supply of well-worn and thoroughly-debunked denialist standards. That's too bad; I felt I was making headway. Aside from an obvious misunderstanding as to the definition of self-aggrandizement, I'll miss him/her. ;-) Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11302

1250. JupiterKen 11:13 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni: Actually i think 'bad' could be considered correct. It is a idiom rather than a correct use of an adjective as an adverb. However, 'badly' is a bit odd as an adverb as it implies a mode of losing. I am not sure that it is exactly correct to lose in a bad method, although being a terrible loser is possible. But then again, i think that was the point of the post: being a terrible loser. I just wanted to repeat the original post. I will now change it to "very, badly". Oh noes... a double adverb thingy. Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

1251. PurpleDrank 11:17 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen: "badly" haha! Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730

Viewing: 1201 - 1251

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 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy 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.

About RickyRood