Is this year what we can expect?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:38 PM GMT on August 03, 2011

Share this Blog
11
+

Is this year what we can expect?

In recent weeks a question I have been asked often, “is this year, the last couple of years, like what we can expect in the future?” The question is often asked quietly, perhaps by a planner, say, someone worried about water in their city. The question follows from not only a perception that the weather is getting “weird,”, but also some small aspect of experience in their job. For example, a water manager recently said they were seeing their local river showing a distinct change to sporadically high flow in the winter, smaller spring flows, and extremely small flow late in the summer. Is this what I should expect in the future? The short answer is yes.

This question of expectation has rolled around in my head for years. I am a gardener with aspirations for small farmer. Over the last 30 years, I have definitely pushed my planting earlier in the year. When I was in Maryland, I felt wet, cool Mays were becoming the “norm,” with my tomatoes sitting in sodden soil. At the same time I would recall plots I had seen in some recent presentation that showed modeled shifts in the warm-cold patterns suggesting springtime cooling in northeastern North America. These are the sorts of casual correlations that lead people to think are we seeing a new “normal.”

In 2008 I wrote a blog about the changes in the hardiness zones that are reported on the back of seed packages. These are the maps that tell us the last frost date, and there were big changes between 1990 and 2006. These changes in the seed packets caught the attention of a lot of people. Recently, NOAA published the “new normal.” This normal relies on the definition of climate as a 30 year average. (AMS Glossary) What was done - at the completion of the decade NOAA recalculated a 30 year average. That is, 1981-2010 rather than 1971-2000. This average changed a lot, with notable warming of nighttime minima. There was some regional reduction of summertime maxima; that is, cooling. All in all, the average temperature went up, with most of the increase in nighttime minimum, a fact that is consistent with both model simulations and fundamental physics. This also came with another update of those hardiness zones.

When trying to interpret climate information and determining how has climate changed and how will it change, the combination of observations, fundamental physics, and models provide three sources of information. The combination of this information and the determination of the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. In the case of determining whether or not we are already experiencing the climate of warming world and how that change will be realized in the next decades it depends on how we use the models.

In my previous entry on heat waves, I implied how to use these pieces of information together. There are fundamental physics in the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air; hot air holds more water; warm water evaporates more quickly. The question of the model is - how well does the model represent the movement of that moisture? For the heat wave example, it is important how well do the models represent persistent high pressure systems over North America in the summer? Are these high pressure systems represented well by the models for the right reasons? The answer to the model question has a range of answers. The model does represent these systems, but if you are an expert in summertime persistent high pressure systems, then you can provide a long list of inadequacies. How can we glean information about the quality of the model? If we look at weather models, then we were able to predict the heat wave – even with the inadequacies that the expert or skeptic can list. Returning to the climate model, do we see like events in the current climate, and do these events change as the planet warms? The answer is yes. Then can we use this to guide our development of plans to adapt to climate change? The answer is yes, if we can connect the model back to data and the fundamental physics. This does become a matter of interpretation – how strong or weak is that connection?

The more I work with planners the more I hear the need for interpretive information, expert guidance, advisories about climate and climate change. People start with the notion that they want digital data from climate models that looks like current weather data. Once presented with 1) the logistical challenges of using that data, 2) the complex nature of the uncertainties associated with that data, and 3) the relative importance of climate to other parts of their decision package – once presented with these facts, they move to the need for advice. This makes sense - most of us want a narrative weather forecast, rather than model output. And the models play the same role in the use of weather forecasts as they do in climate projection. The models guide our thinking, with the ultimate forecast based on that guidance refined by observations and fundamental physics.

This entry started with the question I hear more and more – is this year what we can expect more of in the future? I have a mantra which is that on average the surface of the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. What we are seeing here is weather changing in a warming, more energy laden, environment. The extraordinary extremes that we have seen in the last year and are seeing this year are quite solidly connected to both fundamental physics and the guidance from climate and weather models. Hence, my answer, as I walk around my garden, thinking how to get better tomatoes next year, thinking about my irrigation system in my doddering retirement, is yes, what we are seeing this year tells me about what to expect in a future that is relevant to me - not something far off.

r

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: 1421 - 1371

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

1421. nymore
Quoting nymore:
Neapolitan-
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
1420. nymore
Neapolitan- Now on to the newspaper article. You posted that the radio guy said the show will go on as if he was recklessly disregarding the weather. What you left out was this. The word was that the show would go on, and that the crowd should be prepared to find shelter if things changed. Some in the crowd sensed the danger and left without further word. But the majority remained. Once again never let facts get in the way when you are trying to drum up an angry reaction or blame. PS maybe they could all sue the NWS for not giving the warning soon enough to evacuate everyone. Surely these professionals with their big degrees should have seen this coming. I personally think it was just an accident caused be nature. I also think everyone assumed it was just some small hail, brief gusty winds and heavy rains. By the time they realized (including the NWS) the winds west and south of them were in excess of 60 to 70 mph it was to late to do anything. I would be willing to bet the first time they realized they were in trouble is when the temperature dropped radically in about 10 seconds before the wind hit.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
1419. nymore
Neapolitan- Let me see this is what you posted word for word last evening post # 1120 "From an apparent thunderstorm-caused microburst" and this from this morning post # 1667 "For any who missed it, here's the microburst that triggered the stage collapse in Indiana last evening." It was not a microburst but a gust front ahead of the storm which started well south and west of the fairgrounds. While it may have been a poor assumption the first time from your lack of mid-western thunderstorm knowledge. The second time is just a lack of getting the actual facts. Never let facts get in the way of one of your assumptions or a good story.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Snowlover123:
Wow, I just read what Dr. Masters posted on his blog, and all I can say, is that it is inaccurate and alarmist.

The 12z Euro shows nothing of the sort for "record ice melt" as Dr. Jeff Masters claims. Such statements are not only inaccurate, but alarmist.

A beautiful -DA looks to develop, which should benefit the ice tremendously.



It is in no hurry to melt in "record paces" as Dr. Masters suggests, with 850 mb Temps at -10 Degrees C.

We should see some moderate melts in the next few days or so, and then rapid slowing in melt... contrary to what Dr. Masters suggests. We will see if an amateur can beat a Ph.D in Meteorology.

A quick update: melting has picked up in the past several days, just as Dr. Masters predicted. In fact, yesterday's loss of 127,187 square kilometers was the sixth greatest one-day loss this season (the top five were in the first two weeks of July). In the past 10 days alone, 816,406 square kilometers (315,216 square miles) of Arctic Sea ice were lost. That's an area the size of Texas and Wisconsin combined.

FWIW, from 2002 through 2010, ice extent has only failed to drop below 6,000,000 square kilometers once (in 2003). The average date for breaking the 6,000,000 barrier for the remaining years has been August 19th. This year that line was crossed on the 10th--and the pace is picking up.

Ouch...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Quoting nymore:
Neapolitan- Please read what a micro burst is you claimed twice on Dr. masters blog it was a micro burst that brought down the stage. Unless a micro burst can go for 60 miles as the storm reports show this was not a micro burst. The comment you made on the article in the Indy paper is false to it is not what you put in but what you left out. The radio guy also said they should be prepared to seek shelter. You are still spreading false information I see some things will never change. BTW there is lots of oil here I mean lots no need to worry about running out for quite sometime.

Hey, eddy. Good to see you here. Taking a break from destroying the earth for corporate profit, I see. Good for you!

As for your comment: do you really wanna try this "PWNED" thing again? Because, you know, it hasn't worked out well at all for you, at least not so far. But I do admire your persistence, I really do...
;-)

Anyway, please go back and read all the comments in temporal context, then get back with me so we can discuss, okay? Thanks!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1416. nymore
Neapolitan- Please read what a micro burst is you claimed twice on Dr. masters blog it was a micro burst that brought down the stage. Unless a micro burst can go for 60 miles as the storm reports show this was not a micro burst. The comment you made on the article in the Indy paper is false to it is not what you put in but what you left out. The radio guy also said they should be prepared to seek shelter. You are still spreading false information I see some things will never change. BTW there is lots of oil here I mean lots no need to worry about running out for quite sometime.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Neapolitan:

I agree that government incompetence--on both sides of the aisle--made the situation far worse than it needed to be. But I wouldn't agree at all that "the storm wasn't even that bad". From the NHC's TCR on Katrina: "Katrina was an extraordinarily powerful...hurricane that carved a wide swath of catastrophic damage..."


Most of the energy went east of N.O. There was a lot of wind, but I've seen worse. The rain amounts weren't much.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting nymore:
Just stopped in to see what is going on same stuff I see. Later
The Oceans are rising,the ice caps are melting,vampire bats migrating northward..... The usual as always!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1413. nymore
Just stopped in to see what is going on same stuff I see. Later
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Look out! Now "global warming" is being blamed for vampire bat migration northward. What's next?

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
1411. Ossqss
Quoting Neapolitan:

Just can't stop with the personal attacks, can you? That's okay; I understand your frustration.

Now, do you know the whole story? Have you read this article or others as to just why the FOIA requests have been "vicioulsy fought against"> You may wish to educate yourself before making a mistake of Bastardian proportions...


LOL, OK! \\

Wrong !

Done, next ?

L8R
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Ossqss:
Hummm, interesting day of stuff here again :)

Seems some forgot to take their morning Med's for a self inflicted disorder and then end up with braggarts on an FOIA request that has been viciously fought against for many years and finally had to be honored.

Just like Yamal, another wall falls.......




Just can't stop with the personal attacks, can you? That's okay; I understand your frustration.

Now, do you know the whole story? Have you read this article or others as to just why the FOIA requests have been "vicioulsy fought against"> You may wish to educate yourself before making a mistake of Bastardian proportions...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1407. Ossqss
Hummm, interesting day of stuff here again :)

Seems some forgot to take their morning Med's for a self inflicted disorder and then end up with braggarts on an FOIA request that has been viciously fought against for many years and finally had to be honored.

Just like Yamal, another wall falls.......



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted

Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year's "climategate" scandal.

Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public.

"We released [the dataset] to dispel the myths that the data have been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says Trevor Davies, the university's pro-vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we've released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing."

The university were ordered to release data by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, following a freedom-of-information request for the raw data from researchers Jonathan Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, UK.

Davies says that the university initially refused on the grounds that the data is not owned by the CRU but by the national meteorological organisations that collect the data and share it with the CRU.

- - - - - - - - - -

The end result is that all the records are there, except for Poland's. Davies's only worry is that the decision to release the Trinidad and Tobago data against its wishes may discourage the open sharing of data in the future. Other research organisations may from now on be reluctant to pool data they wish to be kept private.

Thomas Peterson, chief scientist at the National Climatic Data Center of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and president of the Commission for Climatology at the World Meteorological Organization, agrees there might be a cost to releasing the data.

"I have historic temperature data from automatic weather stations on the Greenland ice sheet that I was able to obtain from Denmark only because I agreed not to release them," he says. "If countries come to expect that sharing of any data with anyone will eventually lead to strong pressure for them to fully release those data, will they be less willing to collaborate in the future?"

Davies is confident that genuine and proper analysis of the raw data will reproduce the same incontrovertible conclusion – that global temperatures are rising. "The conclusion is very robust," he says, explaining that the CRU's dataset of land temperatures tally with those from other independent research groups around the world, including those generated by the NOAA and NASA.

"Should people undertake analyses and come up with different conclusions, the way to present them is through publication in peer-reviewed journals, so we know it's been through scientific quality control," says Davies.

- - - - - - - - - -

Other mainstream researchers and defenders of the consensus are not so confident that the release will silence the sceptics. "One can hope this might put an end to the interminable discussion of the CRU temperatures, but the experience of GISTEMP – another database that's been available for years – is that the criticisms will continue because there are some people who are never going to be satisfied," says Gavin Schmidt of Columbia University in New York.

"Sadly, I think this will just lead to a new round of attacks on CRU and the Met Office," says Bob Ward, communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "Sceptics will pore through the data looking for ways to criticise the processing methodology in an attempt to persuade the public that there's doubt the world has warmed significantly."

The CRU and its leading scientist, Phil Jones, were at the centre of the so-called "climategate" storm in 2009 when the unit was accused of withholding and manipulating data. It was later cleared of the charge.

New Scientist Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Quoting JBastardi:


Katrina was all due to government incompetence. The storm wasn't even that bad. I speak from first-hand knowledge and I can go into great detail if you wish.

I agree that government incompetence--on both sides of the aisle--made the situation far worse than it needed to be. But I wouldn't agree at all that "the storm wasn't even that bad". From the NHC's TCR on Katrina: "Katrina was an extraordinarily powerful...hurricane that carved a wide swath of catastrophic damage..."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1403. rod2635
Quoting JBastardi:


Katrina was all due to government incompetence. The storm wasn't even that bad. I speak from first-hand knowledge and I can go into great detail if you wish.


I found it startling that Katrina sat there in the Gulf as a full Cat 5 with New Orleans clearly within its landfall cone while people in authority were discussing (not acting) what should be done. The failure goes deeper, a city expanded into zones well below sea level, dependent on 100% absolute integrity of a series of dikes, and abysmal response and resource deployment when the magnitude of the human disaster was abundantly clear. Apart from New Orleans though, I do seem to recall a rather substantial storm surge in the very eastern corner of Louisiana and Mississippi...pretty bad in spots. It might have been Cat 2/Cat3 at landfall there, but the water ahead of it might have had a Cat 5 memory.
Member Since: January 27, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 391
On a lighter note,how long before a newbie comes on the blog with the handle: SILLYDENIALIST ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:


Katrina was all due to government incompetence. The storm wasn't even that bad. I speak from first-hand knowledge and I can go into great detail if you wish.
Plus the fact that alot of New Orleans is below sea level doesn't help either. They have to pump water out in a heavy thunderstorm.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yeah, The Hangman has officially thrown his ten-gallon hat into the ring. It's a fun exercise to imagine him as president. I wonder whether he'd deal with all natural disasters the way he has with, say, this year's mega-drought that has hit his state so hard. Somehow, I don't think the people of Miami or New Orleans would be tremendously placated by a response consisting solely of prayer rallies after their cities have been devastated by future Andrews or Katrinas...


Katrina was all due to government incompetence. The storm wasn't even that bad. I speak from first-hand knowledge and I can go into great detail if you wish.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting PurpleDrank:
Rick Perry to delight climate sceptics by running for president

[snip]

So, what would a Perry presidency mean for the environment and the country? "It would be a disaster in a lot of different ways," says Smitty of Public Citizen, a long-time Perry watcher. Texans for Public Justice has put together a list of the many reasons why and there's lots more where that came from.

Yeah, The Hangman has officially thrown his ten-gallon hat into the ring. It's a fun exercise to imagine him as president. I wonder whether he'd deal with all natural disasters the way he has with, say, this year's mega-drought that has hit his state so hard. Somehow, I don't think the people of Miami or New Orleans would be tremendously placated by a response consisting solely of prayer rallies after their cities have been devastated by future Andrews or Katrinas...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Rick Perry to delight climate sceptics by running for president



The climate sceptics can finally get excited about the 2012 election: Rick Perry, their candidate of choice, is about to officially throw his hat in the ring.

Perry calls global warming "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." Unlike many of the other GOP presidential candidates, he hasn't expressed concern about climate change in the past, so he won't have to do any back-pedaling. Notorious climate denier Marc Morano is a big fan: "Based on climate views alone, anyone who is holding their nose voting for Mitt Romney because there's no other viable candidate will now rejoice to have an option with Rick Perry."

The Texas governor will announce his intentions in the early primary state of South Carolina on Saturday, then head to New Hampshire and Iowa to rub elbows with all of the other aspiring commanders-in-chief. As a social and fiscal conservative, governor of a state that's been adding jobs (even if they're low-wage), and owner of a full head of lustrous hair, Perry is expected to swagger to the front of the pack in the contest for the Republican nomination.

Perry served as Al Gore's Texas campaign chair in the 1988 presidential race, just before switching his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican, but conservatives don't have to worry that Perry holds any residual affection for the former veep. "I've heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I'm starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide," Perry said in 2007.

Anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, for one, isn't concerned: "If Perry was president, one of the things I'd not worry about is a carbon tax," Norquist told Politico. "I'd worry about big spiders eating New Jersey first."

But plugging your ears and going "la la la la" doesn't make global
warming disappear. Perry's state is getting absolutely hammered by heat and the worst one-year drought in its recorded history. The hot, dry weather in Texas is desiccating rivers and lakes, devastating farmers and ranchers, and driving wildfires that have burned up millions of acres. In the face of these crises -- which are just what
you'd expect in a climate-changed world -- Perry proposes neither adaptation nor mitigation but rather supplication. He's been praying for rain and calling on other Texans to do the same. So far no luck.

Perry also prays for a rollback of EPA regulations: "Frankly I pray for the
president every day," he recently told CBN News. "I pray for his wisdom. I pray that God will open his eyes. I wish this president would turn back the health-care law that's been passed, ask that his EPA back down all these regulations that are causing businesses to hesitate to spend money."

But Perry's efforts to hog-tie the EPA haven't stopped at prayer. Last year, his administration filed suit against the EPA to block the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The suit centered
on claims that the so-called "Climategate" emails undermined climate science, though the whole Climategate faux-scandal has been thoroughly debunked.

Perry has also fought the EPA in defense of his state's "flexible" air-pollution permits for oil and chemical refineries. And last month, Perry lashed out against an EPA rule that calls for reducing power-plant emissions that drift across state lines, calling it "another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington, D.C., that threatens Texas jobs and families."

As a Texas Republican, Perry is, of course, a friend of the oil and gas industry. He even stuck by BP during the Gulf of Mexico gusher, saying the well blowout was "an act of God" and insisting that he had "full confidence" in the company's response.

Perry has cozied up to the oil-baron Koch brothers. In June, he flew
off secretly to Colorado to speak at an exclusive closed-door
meeting convened by the Kochs -- even as his state was suffering through some of the worst wildfires in its history. In 2010, the Koch Industries' PAC gave $50,000 to the Texans for Rick Perry PAC.

Perry is big fan of coal too. He tried to speed up approvals and smooth the way for a number of controversial coal-fired power plants proposed for Texas in the mid-00s.

On the greener side, Perry has supported the wind industry in Texas, which now has far more installed wind-power capacity than any other state, and more than all but five countries [PDF]. He also supports a $5 billion effort to build transmission lines from wind farms in West Texas and the Panhandle to the state's more populous areas. As Tom "Smitty" Smith, head of the Austin office of Public Citizen, explains it, the fast-growing wind industry "warmed his market-based heart."

Perry has been less supportive of solar energy, refusing to back a non-wind renewable standard that solar advocates have sought. With all the sun Texas is getting this year, that's looking awfully short-sighted. The crippling heat has had residents cranking the air-conditioning and setting records for energy demand, leading on at least one day to electricity prices 40 times higher than usual. As Christopher Mims writes at Grist, "if Texas had a German- or Chinese-style incentive for its residents to install solar panels, it could save itself enormous amounts of money on sunny summer days, when high demand is matched by high output from solar panels." And if the state adopted a suite of solar-promoting policies, it could do a better job of attracting and retaining solar companies, which currently are jumping ship to more solar-friendly states like California, according to a 2010 report [PDF] by the Go Solar Texas coalition.

It's easy to see where Perry's allegiances lie: He collected nearly $14 million in campaign contributions from individuals and committees associated with energy, natural resource extraction, and waste disposal between 2001 and 2010, according to the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. His No. 1 donor over those years was homebuilder Bob Perry (no relation), an opponent of endangered-species protections. The No. 2 donor was Harold Simmons, owner of Waste Control Specialists, which has plans to build a highly controversial nuclear-waste dump in West Texas, near the nation's largest aquifer, the Ogallala. Perry appointees signed off on the plans over the objections of state environmental regulators.

So, what would a Perry presidency mean for the environment and the country? "It would be a disaster in a lot of different ways," says Smitty of Public Citizen, a long-time Perry watcher. Texans for Public Justice has put together a list of the many reasons why and there's lots more where that came from.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Gentlemen...

Must we engage in this juvenile behavior?

(making fart sounds with hand in armpit)
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
Quoting atmoaggie:
Eh, you liberally toss around derogatory labels based solely upon your own interpretation all the time, Pot.

(My friend? No more than yourself.)

I've often explained why I label people "denialists" (here's a hint: it's not based "solely on my own interpretation"). Now, I asked Snowlover123 why he chose to call Dr. Masters an "alarmist". If he can't answer, or doesn't care to, that's fine. But in the interest of fairness, I think a response would be the least he could do.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1395. Patrap
...maybe google the term, "astroturfing"


Itsa gonna be big round these parts real soon.

So then you'll be up to speed on something you really havent a clue about,,or maybe not.

Ciao for now.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129772
1394. Patrap
I have no problem lil guy,,Im well aware of the Science as it is and was.

Esp for K.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129772
Quoting Patrap:
Well good for him,,,your incessant BS kinda drives a wedge in Facts big Ben.

Maybe you can do some more "wind vs water" testifying for the next Major Cane,,eh,sport?
You have some problem with myself pointing out a hypocritical stance by someone else, sport?

I fail to see the impetus for your sudden and poor attitude, here.

And, as to the testifying, no thanks. The forensic study of conditions on the scale of a single dwelling was mildly interesting, though. But how do you suppose homeowners denied any payment for a bunch of wind damage because a couple of feet of water got in the house succeed at restoring their home? Folks like myself get hired to study the conditions experienced at the property and testify about them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1392. Patrap
Quoting Ossqss:


Because of you!

The continuous desire with respect to embellishing the model thoughts of 30,40,50,100 years from now.

You are wrong, they are wrong, plain and simple.

Push as you may, those who see the developing science, know better.

Gnight >>>>>





The ol "itz's this way not your way," run away post.

Always classy, but it changes the facts as they are naught.


But it does give you that,"I showed dem" fuzzy feeling.

LoL

Same crowd, same no science, nothing to counter the facts as they are.

Yeah, ya'll really swaying the masses.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129772
Quoting Neapolitan:

Nothing wrong with using labels; my name is a label. So is yours. No, I'm questioning your friend's labeling of Dr. Masters as an "alarmist". To me, a professional forecaster applying his skills and experience to interpret what he sees can't be accused of alarmism simply for doing so. When the SPC says an area has a high risk for tornadoes, that's not alarmism. [snip]
Eh, you liberally toss around derogatory labels based solely upon your own interpretation all the time, Pot.

(My friend? No more than yourself.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:
September Sea Ice Outlook is out Link

"...with approximately a month left in the melt season, it is very unlikely that the September minimum will end up above 5 million square kilometers"

You got that right. In 2007, the 5 million square kilometer barrier was broken on August 22 (and an average of 27,231 square kilometers were lost each day after that through Sept. 16). Even if the melt doesn't speed up as Dr. Masters predicts and instead just stays at the current rate, 2011 will cross the 5 million line somewhere around August 26 or August 27.

(FWIW, my personal estimate is between 4.4 and 4.6 million square kilometers.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1388. Xandra
September Sea Ice Outlook is out Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
*gasp* Using labels? That's terrible.

There's nothing wrong with using labels, of course; that's what we humans do for convenience. My name is a label. So is yours. No, I'm not questioning your friend's wish to label Dr. Masters, but rather his labeling him an "alarmist". To me, a professional forecaster applying his skills and experience to interpret what he sees can't be accused of alarmism simply for doing so. When the SPC says an area has a high risk for tornadoes, that's not alarmism. When the weather service issues blizzard warnings, that's not alarmism, either. It's just forecasting.

FWIW, in the last ten days, the Arctic Sea has lost 699,219 square kilometers (269,970 square miles) of ice. That's an area the size of Texas and New Jersey combined. Or, if you prefer, Montana and Mexico combined, or California and Arizona combined, or 258 Rhode Islands, or 20,767 Kalawao (HI) counties... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Quoting Neapolitan:

Even if you believe it to be inaccurate, why do you label it as "alarmist"?
*gasp* Using labels? That's terrible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1384. Ossqss
Quoting Neapolitan:

Even if you believe it to be inaccurate, why do you label it as "alarmist"?


Because of you!

The continuous desire with respect to embellishing the model thoughts of 30,40,50,100 years from now.

You are wrong, they are wrong, plain and simple.

Push as you may, those who see the developing science, know better.

Gnight >>>>>



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Snowlover123:
Wow, I just read what Dr. Masters posted on his blog, and all I can say, is that it is inaccurate and alarmist.

The 12z Euro shows nothing of the sort for "record ice melt" as Dr. Jeff Masters claims. Such statements are not only inaccurate, but alarmist.

A beautiful -DA looks to develop, which should benefit the ice tremendously.



It is in no hurry to melt in "record paces" as Dr. Masters suggests, with 850 mb Temps at -10 Degrees C.

We should see some moderate melts in the next few days or so, and then rapid slowing in melt... contrary to what Dr. Masters suggests. We will see if an amateur can beat a Ph.D in Meteorology.

Even if you believe it to be inaccurate, why do you label it as "alarmist"?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
I see that the fearful few succeeded in censoring another perfectly legitimate comment of mine, so for those who missed this important information, here it is again:

Bodybuilder/denialist Joe Bastardi has been filling the airwaves over the past few days with his talk of how August has been cold so far, and how we're already heading into an early autumn. A gullible few may take him at his word, but for the rest of you who care about the truth, here's something to look at.

This first image shows the relative number of record daily highs and lows for the first 11 days of the month. Note the lack of anything to indicate cooling:

Uh-oh

This second shows the relative number of record highs (red) and record lows (blue) for the entire year. Again, no sign of JB's wished-for cooling here, either:

Uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1381. Ossqss
Quoting cyclonebuster:


They always seem to forget about mass!


No, they always seem to forget about the weather, but we continue to learn........

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Ossqss:
Jiminy Crickets! Somebody killed the blog again.

Here have fun :)

Link

Oh,,,,, why not ~~~

But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.

Old news. The same thing was said back in 2005, and there's been no expansion yet.

"Dr. Brinkhuis and many other veteran Arctic researchers caution that there is something of a paradox in Arctic trends: while the long-term fate of the region may be mostly sealed, no one should presume that the recent sharp warming and seasonal ice retreats that have caught the world's attention will continue smoothly into the future.

"The same Arctic feedbacks that are amplifying human-induced climate changes are amplifying natural variability," explained Asgeir Sorteberg, a climate modeler at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway.

"Indeed, experts say, there could easily be periods in the next few decades when the region cools and ice grows."


So, while it may be just as likely to expand as contract, it hasn't happened yet.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
1378. Ossqss
1376, Do you mean an air pollution met,,, for accuracy ?

A unique classification.

Check it :)

Just curious, what classifies you as an Atmospheric Scientist? The blog sub is such, with no credentials noted, no?

Was I the only one that noticed?



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
1375. Ossqss
Quoting cyclonebuster:


It didn't kill the blog but it proves Spencer wrong! LOL!
:)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
1372. Ossqss
Jiminy Crickets! Somebody killed the blog again.

Here have fun :)

Link

Oh,,,,, why not ~~~

But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188

Viewing: 1421 - 1371

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

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.