Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 14:13 GMT le 10 février 2011 | +7 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
78 ° F
Ciel dégagé
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Demandez votre Weather Sticker® gratuit |
 |
Téléchargez vos photos |
 |
Weather API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Devenez un membre du site |
 |
Trouvez-nous sur Facebook |
 |
Suivez-nous sur Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | À propos de nous - Contact - Soutien - Emploi - Communiqués de presse - Conditions de service - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index
I wasnt arguing that the warming would be good if it was true. I was throwing out the garbage argument that an ice age would be better. I do not have time to read through your data tonight and perhaps when I do I'll change my opinion. I have no vested interest on whether it is true or not and if I come across data that cannot be countered in some way, I could change my mind over night. Building a wall of data specifically to support your position, ignoring alternatives is garbage science. I don't care from a science perspective either way, from what I've read I'm simply not convinced. I don't fault you for holding your position nor should you mine, so long as the ideas are in the realm of possibility and I think they are. Are you 100% sure AGW is real? Surely there is a sliver of doubt if you remove all bias? Maybe you only give 1% chance that the theory as is could be wrong, atleast then we could argue in something outside of absolutes. If you are 100% sure, arguing is pointless. Waiting would prove you right, why waste the effort.
A new Graph on the Page I post a lot.
Just arrived in my Inbox,outtie mail.
U.S. Climate Extremes Index
Without Tropical Cyclone Indicator
Annual (January-December) 1910-2010
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Choose a period/season and an indicator from the options below and click "Plot" to create a time series graph. Note that the sixth indicator (Step 6) is not calculated for the spring (March-May), winter (Decemeber-February) and cold (October-March) seasons since most months during these periods are outside of the traditional hurricane season.
As of September 2005, the fourth and fifth indicators are computed with data from one station per each grid box rather than multiple stations. This was done to eliminate many of the artificial extremes which resulted from a changing number of available stations over time. Therefore, the percentages in the step 4 and 5 graphs above will likely be significantly different from the percentages calculated prior to the changes implemented in September 2005.
**As of December 2005, landfalling wind speeds in the sixth indicator are determined using the following logic:
1. For landfalls prior to 1915: Use wind speed observation prior to landfall as landfalling windspeed.
2. For landfalls from 1915 to 1930: Use wind speed observation prior to landfall if observation was at 12Z. Otherwise use midpoint windspeed value from assigned landfalling Saffir-Simpson Scale.
3. For landfalls from 1931 to 1979: Use wind speed observation prior to landfall if observation was at either 0Z or 12Z. Otherwise use midpoint windspeed value from assigned landfalling Saffir-Simpson Scale.
4. For landfalls from 1980 to the present: Use estimated landfalling windspeed as reproted in the Tropical Cyclone Reports issued by the National Hurricane Center.
Note the CEI Data Files as well
Limitations: Statistics for the most recent period/season are computed from a fraction of the US which has data available at that time. Extreme percentage values can and will likely change as final quality controlled data become available and fill in the data gaps.
The Bang is what one see's after
You think JFLORIDA and him are sharing books?
Oh I'm on your side.
Just saying.
Like I said, not my field of study to make that call. I'm concerning myself with the pure science, as should anyone arguing over the validity of AGW theory. Make up your mind on the data, present your conclusions to those in a position to make a decision on them.
* by Stephen Leahy* - Tierramérica (uxbridge, canada) - * Thursday, February 10, 2011 - * Inter Press Service
The booming tourist industry along Mexico's Caribbean coast, particularly in the area of Cancún and the 'Riviera Maya,' is polluting the world's largest underwater cave system and harming the world's second largest coral reef, a new study has found.
Pharmaceuticals, cocaine residues, shampoo, toothpaste, pesticides, chemical run-off from roads and many other pollutants have been found in the immense system of underground rivers and aquifers south of the resort city of Cancún, located on the Caribbean coast of Quintana Roo state.
'There is little question the pollutants we detected have come from human activity along the coastal region,' said Chris Metcalfe, a researcher with the United Nations University's Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
The British journal 'Environmental Pollution' published a study by the Institute this month, titled ' Contaminants in the coastal karst aquifer system along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatan Peninsula.'
Metcalf told Tierramérica that pit latrines, septic tanks, leaking sewer lines and golf courses were the most likely sources of groundwater pollution.
The flow of groundwater takes much of this pollution into the coastal zone and the region's famous Mesoamerican Barrier reef, the second largest in the world, after the Great Barrier Reef off Australia.....
Link
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2011/02/10/8481
Lil Angel Dance
Figure 2. U.S. deaths due to natural hazards for the 10- and 30-year period ending in 2007, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Image credit: NOAA. To illustrate, a 2008 study by Thacker et al. called, "Overview of deaths associated with natural events, United States, 1979-2004", concluded that cold deaths were twice as common as heat deaths in the U.S. However, they noted that the 1995 Chicago heat wave, which killed between 600 and 700 people by some estimates, was not properly represented in the data base used in their study. This data base attributed only 50 deaths in the entire state of Illinois to heat in 1995. The authors conclude that their data base "under-reports the actual number of deaths due to severe heat". Another example: NOAA plots up annual natural hazard deaths from the same source ("Storm Data") as the first study. Their statistics for the ten-year period ending in 2007 show a much different picture (Figure 2). Heat deaths are a much more dominant source of mortality than cold and winter storm deaths, by a factor 3.5. The take-home message from all this is that heat- and cold-related extreme weather are probably the deadliest weather hazards in the U.S., but we really don't know the proportion of people killed by each. One can easily cherry pick the study of one's choice to show a desired result.
Mike,
The IPCC
Really?
That's your comeback?
How's the island?
Your post was a waste of time.
Def a fine Lineup the Jazz Fest BigToe, Plant was here 2 years ago with Allison Krauss and Opens this Fest as well with the Band of Joy.
I DO like Plant and Krauss. Wonderful mix of talent.
Allison just keeps winning Grammys
Awaiting for this year's PR Heineken jazz fest line up....
Link
And my Father died 8 years ago March 21 of Asbestosis/Meso from those constructions as well as many others.
We pay a High price for the Bang we get from the Magi Oil.
Least my family has. Dad survived WW-2 but big Oil got him as well.
And Im a ticking time Bomb internally as the asbestos dosent go away,,like cigarettes,,its the Gun,but time the trigger.
I had 3 ft of Colon removed in Jan 08.
Time stands still for nothing.
It Marches on regardless.
But in the end,,we will as a Race,look back and shake our collective heads and wonder,what were we thinking?
Before I go Id like to make a final statement. Leave the politics to the politicians. State your view, take your feedback, evaluate it, and adjust your view accordingly. Be prepared to be wrong, for in this field being wrong is a question of "when and how often" not "if"
*Poof*
Mike
I don't feel like being bothered with you anymore.
You've threatened me enough on this site.
Bye.
Until you make a new name of course.
LOL.
Hope the best man....
But that's true; happens every day:
"All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein a man ruleth over another to his own hurt" - Ecle. 8:9
So are we being logical in expecting more bad storms? I can at least imagine an alternative scenario, one of the same [average] number of storms, but hitting unusual or rarely impacted locations....
So from the second link.
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.
However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
Where exactly is the list at?
Nothing on the first link either.
HMMM.
Medical word of the day - congrats! Except it's spelled scoliosis ;-)
7 comments?
And a High tone as well ?
Mercy.
Please lay down on the couch and tell me about yer childhood.
Lawdy,Lawdy...
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index