Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 15:18 GMT le 11 février 2011 | +6 |
| 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®
 |
65 ° 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 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 — Blog Index
JTWC is around 95 knots..
hmm.. someone is wrong.
First, there is no such thing as a secular religion. Secularity is separation from religion.
Second, a religion is based on faith. Global warming is based on science. Your personal belief/faith/religion may not agree with the scientific research and its conclusions, but that does not invalidate the science nor make it a "religion". If you can scientifically refute the current research and results, then by all means write a paper and do so.
No one is "shoving it down your throat". You've been posting your thoughts and opinions on the subject, and others have been pointing out inconsistencies and inaccuracies based on the current science, admittedly some with more tact than others. You may disagree with the science. You may not like the science. But unless you have your own research that can stand up to the critiques of the experts in the field (or can produce peer reviewed sources to back up your assertions) and can summarily refute the current science and results, your personal beliefs and opinions are, scientifically speaking, incorrect.
And no, that is not being egotistical. The science is the result of our best research and data. It is the best "answer" we have. Can the science be wrong? Of course. Is the science wrong? Not until research can demonstrate otherwise, and so far it hasn't.
Truth over "power and control" is the New wave Globally.
The power brokers of the United States cater to the needs of energy interests first and foremost.
They do not care about rights or democracy.
As long as the oil is there, the support will be there, and women will still be sentenced to 100 lashes for having the the audacity to be raped_by a man.
I listen to the talking heads on the Right complaining about the risk of Sharia_law but mum is the word when anyone brings up Saudi Arabia.
Oil is sacred.
Egyptian Army Commits To Civilian Power Transfer, Peace With Israel
Square miles of water doesn't tell you much. It's volume that's more telling. Additionally, water per capita doesn't tell you anything about the quality of water, nor the accessibility of that water.
Huh? What are you talking about? My post had nothing to do with hurricanes.
I think you messed up the post number you're responding to.
I love the new site.
Sunspots (Saturday)
[SDO] Magnetogram
Solar Activity on the Rise
02/12/2011 by Kevin VE3EN at 22:15
Comment on Message Board
Solar Update - The solar flux on Saturday stands at 96 which ties a Cycle 24 record set exactly 1 year ago on Feb 12, 2010. A solar flux of 96 is not all that high, but perhaps a step in the right direction.
Several B-Class flares and atleast one C-Class flare have taken place within the past 24 hours around Sunspot 1159 and newly numbered 1160 which is located on the eastern limb and rotating into view. A few of these flares caused some CME's that are seen in the latest Lasco C2 movie blasting off the eastern limb. There will continue to be a chance for C-Class flares and perhaps an M-Class event.
Old sunspot region 1149 has rotated back into view and it appears to be spotless at this time.
On the other hand, this current flash of activity may be short-lived as STEREO-Behind doesn't look promising:
Are you not aware that Six's maximum-minimum thermometer was invented in 1782? That's 229 years. Or, you know, almost 23 decades ago.
I haven't seen where you apologized yet. In the future, before you to use disparaging terms like "dense", you might want to do some homework first. I've heard it's no fun to look foolish... ;-)
By Yereth Rosen Yereth Rosen Sat Feb 12, 12:43 pm ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) Thawing permafrost is triggering mudslides onto a key road traveled by busloads of sightseers. Tall bushes newly sprouted on the tundra are blocking panoramic views. And glaciers are receding from convenient viewing areas, while their rapid summer melt poses new flood risks.
These are just a few of the ways that a rapidly warming climate is reshaping Denali, Kenai Fjords and other national parks comprising the crown jewels of Alaska's heritage as America's last frontier.
These and some better-known impacts -- proliferation of invasive plants and fish, greater frequency and intensity of wildfires, and declines in wildlife populations that depend on sea ice and glaciers -- are outlined in a recent National Park Service report.
Since the mid-1970s, Alaska has warmed at three times the rate of the Lower 48 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And with nearly two-thirds of U.S. national parkland located in Alaska, the issue of climate change is especially pressing there, officials say.
In some far northern parks such as Gates of the Arctic, average temperatures are expected to shift in coming years from below freezing to above freezing, crossing a crucial threshold, said Bob Winfree, Alaska science adviser for the Park Service.
"The effects of melting ice and thawing permafrost, I think, will be major," Winfree said
In some Alaska parks, the climate transformation is too gradual to be detected by casual visitors, Winfree said. But many experts see it.
"Those of us that go into these places over time can definitely notice the changes," said Jim Stratton, Alaska regional director for the National Parks and Conservation Association, an environmental organization.
Some changes are obvious in Kenai Fjords National Park, a popular destination south of Anchorage known for its ice-capped peaks, tidewater glaciers and abundant marine life.
The retreat of Exit Glacier, one of the park's best-known features, has forced park managers to reroute trails through areas that were under ice just a few years ago. The glacier's retreat also has left a sheltered pavilion that was built in the 1990s far from the spectacular views of blue ice.
"We used to build these things with a sense of permanence," said Jeff Mow, the park's superintendent.
A more ominous concern has been runoff from glacier melt. Spring and fall floods have long been common, but over the past two summers, at the peak of tourist season, the Exit Glacier entrance has been swept by big, road-closing floods, Mow said.
There are similar hazards elsewhere, according to the Park Service's climate strategy report. Shrinking glaciers and heavy snowmelt make it more likely that the frozen walls of glacial lakes will fail, triggering flash floods and debris flows that could endanger park workers and visitors, the report said.
At Denali National Park, one of the state's top tourist destinations, once-frozen hillsides are unleashing cascades of mud as they thaw, causing problems along the lone road that snakes through the heart of the park.
Another big headache is newly sprouted roadside vegetation, said Elwood Lynn, assistant superintendent at the park.
"There's a dramatic difference, if you look in old photos, in the amount of vegetation," Lynn said. "We've got full-time crews cutting brush that we didn't have in the early '80s."
Elsewhere, accelerated erosion is taking its toll on thawed shoreline under assault from surf once held back by sea ice.
At the remote Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and Cape Krusenstern National Monument in northwestern Alaska, coastal erosion poses risks to archeological resources thousands of years old and to some modern structures near the shore, according to the Park Service strategy.
Erosion woes in Shishmaref, an Inupiat village perched atop rapidly thawing coastal permafrost in northwestern Alaska, also pose a threat to nearby parkland, Stratton said. Plans to relocate the village to firmer ground farther inland include, at least tentatively, transport of huge loads of gravel across a stretch of Bering Land Bridge National Monument.
Other problems identified by the Park Service include acidification of marine waters as they absorb atmospheric carbon and become potentially less hospitable to resident fish populations, and increased commercial activity in newly ice-free waters adjacent to parks.
(Editing by Steve Gorman and Greg McCune)
* By Brandon Keim Email Author
* December 9, 2009
Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.
“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”
Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC’s predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.
Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.
Wired.com: Why don’t people seem to care?
Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.
That’s extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It’s been about people who believe in science, who aren’t out to question whether science has a place in society.
Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What’s their response?
Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.
For relatively privileged people like myself, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.
Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?
Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we’re constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.
Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?
Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.
If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.
Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?
Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.
Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.
Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.
That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.
Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?
Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.
"The authors conducted a high-resolution analysis of midge assemblages found in the sediments of Moose Lake (61°22.45′N, 143°35.93′W) in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve of south-central Alaska (USA), based on data obtained from cores removed from the lake bottom in the summer of AD 2000 and a midge-to-temperature transfer function that yielded mean July temperatures (TJuly) for the past six thousand years."
Just as people might question yours...
August 2007
Alaska is feeling the effects of global warming more than anywhere else. The tiny village of Shismaref is literally being swallowed by the sea. Villagers will soon have to be relocated. According to one villager, the sea reclaims; "20 to 100 feet" of coastline every year. Just as the foundations of this Inuit village are being eroded so too is the villagers' ability to hunt. "Due to the dangerous ice conditions, we have to be very careful", states one hunter. Recently, a man died after plunging through the ice. The situation is now so bad, there are plans to move the entire community to mainland America. "It's got to be the whole community moving to one place", states islander Dennis Davis. Villagers are committed to preserving their Inuit culture.
Video,YouTube
Really? ALL of it?
"...Hurricane Katrina killed 320 million trees in Mississippi and Louisiana, and the die-off is affecting the atmosphere as well as the landscape. Decaying trees will release about 367 million tons of carbon dioxide, equal to the amount released in a whole season of US forest fires, the LA Times reports. "In some areas, it was 100% damage," says one expert..."
Link
Which I sincerely hope they do. Question everything, especially that with which you agree; to do otherwise is purest folly.
Koninklijk, Netherlands Meteorological Institute Climate Data Explorer
I look forward to the results of that project.
Ever.
A Kum bah ya moment............
Lets sing together,
I do to--though as I said earlier, any putative climate science project bankrolled in part by the likes of petro-kings such as the Kochs and the Gettys needs to be closely watched.
Hey, Mikey, I'm smart. I was passed over!
I see you've chosen an image from WUWT! Link
I think there's better images in the report ! Link
Considering one set of paleoclimatological data as a rough proxy for the state of Alaska is no different than considering a paleoclimatological data set from Antarctica or Greenland and using it as a proxy for global temperature. In fact, it's better given the far smaller square area being considered.
Viewing: 701 - 751
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 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 — Blog Index