Category 3 Bingiza hits Madagascar

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 13:25 GMT le 14 février 2011

Share this Blog
6
+

Tropical Cyclone Bingiza roared ashore over Northern Madagascar early today as a dangerous Category 3 hurricane with 115 mph winds. Recent microwave imagery from NASA's TRMM satellite shows that Bingza had a large region of heavy rains of 0.4 - 0.7 inches per hour in the eyewall and inner spiral bands at landfall. Rainfall amounts of up to 8 inches are being predicted along Bingza's path over northern Madagascar for the coming 24 hours by NOAA's automated tropical cyclone rainfall prediction system. Rains of this magnitude are capable of causing dangerous flooding in Madagascar, and the storm's winds and storm surge likely caused serious damage in the moderately populated area where the storm came ashore. Bingiza will weaken today as it traverses the island, but is expected to re-intensify once it emerges over the Mozambique Channel between Africa and Madagascar on Tuesday, where sea surface temperatures are about 0.4°C above average. As the storm skirts the western coast of Madagascar Tuesday and Wednesday, the island will receive additional very heavy rains on its mountainous slopes. Madagascar suffers from extensive deforestation, and a storm like Bingiza is capable of causing very dangerous floods.


Figure 1. True color satellite image of Tropical Cyclone Bingiza as it approached landfall in Madagascar at 07 UTC on February 13, 2011. Image credit: NASA.

Bingiza is just the second tropical cyclone in the Southwest Indian Ocean (west of 90E) during the 2010 - 2011 season; this is an unusually low amount of activity for the basin. The only other storm so far this season has been Tropical Cyclone Abele (29 Nov - 4 Dec 2010), a Category 1 storm that stayed out to sea. Bingiza is the 4th major (Category 3 or stronger) tropical cyclone world-wide this year.

Jeff Masters

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: 394 - 344

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

394. iceagecoming
15:43 GMT le 16 février 2011
It is OK, they will gain it back when she freezes over
again. As it has 6 times in the past.
Member Since: 27 janvier 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1096
393. hcubed
16:41 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
Miami and New Orleans Could Lose 10 Percent of Their Land by 2100: Study

"Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists. The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100."

"The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more. The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter -- or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century."

The map below shows just some of the trillions of dollars in real estate that would be submerged with a 1-meter rise (red) and a six-meter rise (yellow). As anyone can see, we'll have four choices: massive levees, massive relocation, hip waders and pirogues, or simple abandonment. :-\ (Article)

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


And in a related bit of news, it appears that even more people are starting to understand the drastic implications of inaction on climate change, and they're beginning to realize it's not alarmism to to say your house is on fire when it's actually on fire:

Climate change will cost investors trillions of dollars

"Continued delay in acting on climate change could cost institutional investors, such as insurers, trillions of dollars over the coming decades, according to research published today.

"The research, conducted by Mercer and a group of leading global investors representing around $2trn in assets under management, examined the potential financial impacts of climate change on investors' portfolios. It identifies a series of pragmatic steps for institutional investors to consider in their strategic asset allocation.

"Among the key findings: by 2030

  • Climate change increases uncertainty for long-term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
  • Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5trn.
  • The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4trn.
  • Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8trn.
  • Increasing allocation to "climate sensitive" assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
  • Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
  • Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
  • The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low-carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.

Article


You do realize, (and the article doesn't mention), that for some areas (and New Orleans in particular) there has been more of a threat from SINKING land in the recent past.

Even if the seas don't rise, parts of New Orleans will be under water because of subsidence (the natural sinking of land).

"...The upshot is that New Orleans has been sinking as much as 3 ft. a century. That's bad news for a city that is already an average of 8 ft. below sea level. Making things worse: sea levels worldwide are rising as much as 3 ft. a century on account of global warming. The lower New Orleans plunges, the worse it will be when the big one hits..."

Link
Member Since: 18 mai 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
392. Patrap
16:13 GMT le 15 février 2011
391. Patrap
16:05 GMT le 15 février 2011
390. Patrap
16:04 GMT le 15 février 2011
NOLA been round a tad long time now...and I dont see us moving Mardi Gras to Fargo soon either.


And dat Big Cold ditch has to exit somewhere,..

LOL

Google is your friend.

Maybe note the date.

Some things like Rivers and "Culcha",take a while to dry up, freeze or drown.


So the NAS Belle Chase.. The New Federal City and 4 Marine Div Headquarters,NASA, the Port and all the industries will hang investment futures on that info found exclusively here on he wunderground.

Where we gonna Move the Saints ?

Who gets the Trophy?

Okay Jim.

But can we keep the Chiquita Banana Port in Gulfport, Miss ?

A lady in Boca wants to know in FB chat."

To hide this long entry,, click "HIDE"


Maybe note the date,

New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize
September 01, 2005 22 30 GMT

By George Friedman

The American political system was founded in Philadelphia, but the American nation was built on the vast farmlands that stretch from the Alleghenies to the Rockies. That farmland produced the wealth that funded American industrialization: It permitted the formation of a class of small landholders who, amazingly, could produce more than they could consume. They could sell their excess crops in the east and in Europe and save that money, which eventually became the founding capital of American industry.

But it was not the extraordinary land nor the farmers and ranchers who alone set the process in motion. Rather, it was geography -- the extraordinary system of rivers that flowed through the Midwest and allowed them to ship their surplus to the rest of the world. All of the rivers flowed into one -- the Mississippi -- and the Mississippi flowed to the ports in and around one city: New Orleans. It was in New Orleans that the barges from upstream were unloaded and their cargos stored, sold and reloaded on ocean-going vessels. Until last Sunday, New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American economy.

For that reason, the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 was a key moment in American history. Even though the battle occurred after the War of 1812 was over, had the British taken New Orleans, we suspect they wouldn't have given it back. Without New Orleans, the entire Louisiana Purchase would have been valueless to the United States. Or, to state it more precisely, the British would control the region because, at the end of the day, the value of the Purchase was the land and the rivers - which all converged on the Mississippi and the ultimate port of New Orleans. The hero of the battle was Andrew Jackson, and when he became president, his obsession with Texas had much to do with keeping the Mexicans away from New Orleans.

During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it be? The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer was simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to traffic, then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The industrial minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out. Alternative routes really weren't available. The Germans knew it too: A U-boat campaign occurred near the mouth of the Mississippi during World War II. Both the Germans and Stratfor have stood with Andy Jackson: New Orleans was the prize.

Last Sunday, nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear strike. Hurricane Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, distinguishable from a mushroom cloud. The key exit from North America was closed. The petrochemical industry, which has become an added value to the region since Jackson's days, was at risk. The navigability of the Mississippi south of New Orleans was a question mark. New Orleans as a city and as a port complex had ceased to exist, and it was not clear that it could recover.

The Ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the history of the republic. On its own merit, POSL is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a year, of which more than half are agricultural products -- corn, soybeans and so on. A large proportion of U.S. agriculture flows out of the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 17 million tons, comes in through the port -- including not only crude oil, but chemicals and fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on.

A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the U.S. auto industry if steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies if U.S. corn and soybeans don't get to the markets.

The problem is that there are no good shipping alternatives. River transport is cheap, and most of the commodities we are discussing have low value-to-weight ratios. The U.S. transport system was built on the assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. Apart from port capacity elsewhere in the United States, there aren't enough trucks or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these enormous quantities -- assuming for the moment that the economics could be managed, which they can't be.

The focus in the media has been on the oil industry in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is not a trivial question, but in a certain sense, it is dwarfed by the shipping issue. First, Louisiana is the source of about 15 percent of U.S.-produced petroleum, much of it from the Gulf. The local refineries are critical to American infrastructure. Were all of these facilities to be lost, the effect on the price of oil worldwide would be extraordinarily painful. If the river itself became unnavigable or if the ports are no longer functioning, however, the impact to the wider economy would be significantly more severe. In a sense, there is more flexibility in oil than in the physical transport of these other commodities.

There is clearly good news as information comes in. By all accounts, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which services supertankers in the Gulf, is intact. Port Fourchon, which is the center of extraction operations in the Gulf, has sustained damage but is recoverable. The status of the oil platforms is unclear and it is not known what the underwater systems look like, but on the surface, the damage - though not trivial -- is manageable.

The news on the river is also far better than would have been expected on Sunday. The river has not changed its course. No major levees containing the river have burst. The Mississippi apparently has not silted up to such an extent that massive dredging would be required to render it navigable. Even the port facilities, although apparently damaged in many places and destroyed in few, are still there. The river, as transport corridor, has not been lost.

What has been lost is the city of New Orleans and many of the residential suburban areas around it. The population has fled, leaving behind a relatively small number of people in desperate straits. Some are dead, others are dying, and the magnitude of the situation dwarfs the resources required to ameliorate their condition. But it is not the population that is trapped in New Orleans that is of geopolitical significance: It is the population that has left and has nowhere to return to.

The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in order to operate. That workforce requires homes. They require stores to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities critical to the United States, you need a workforce to do it -- and that workforce is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that workforce cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a long time.

It is possible to jury-rig around this problem for a short time. But the fact is that those who have left the area have gone to live with relatives and friends. Those who had the ability to leave also had networks of relationships and resources to manage their exile. But those resources are not infinite -- and as it becomes apparent that these people will not be returning to New Orleans any time soon, they will be enrolling their children in new schools, finding new jobs, finding new accommodations. If they have any insurance money coming, they will collect it. If they have none, then -- whatever emotional connections they may have to their home -- their economic connection to it has been severed. In a very short time, these people will be making decisions that will start to reshape population and workforce patterns in the region.

A city is a complex and ongoing process - one that requires physical infrastructure to support the people who live in it and people to operate that physical infrastructure. We don't simply mean power plants or sewage treatment facilities, although they are critical. Someone has to be able to sell a bottle of milk or a new shirt. Someone has to be able to repair a car or do surgery. And the people who do those things, along with the infrastructure that supports them, are gone -- and they are not coming back anytime soon.

It is in this sense, then, that it seems almost as if a nuclear weapon went off in New Orleans. The people mostly have fled rather than died, but they are gone. Not all of the facilities are destroyed, but most are. It appears to us that New Orleans and its environs have passed the point of recoverability. The area can recover, to be sure, but only with the commitment of massive resources from outside -- and those resources would always be at risk to another Katrina.

The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States.

Let's go back to the beginning. The United States historically has depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport. Barges navigate the river. Ships go on the ocean. The barges must offload to the ships and vice versa. There must be a facility to empower this exchange. It is also the facility where goods are stored in transit. Without this port, the river can't be used. Protecting that port has been, from the time of the Louisiana Purchase, a fundamental national security issue for the United States.

Katrina has taken out the port -- not by destroying the facilities, but by rendering the area uninhabited and potentially uninhabitable. That means that even if the Mississippi remains navigable, the absence of a port near the mouth of the river makes the Mississippi enormously less useful than it was. For these reasons, the United States has lost not only its biggest port complex, but also the utility of its river transport system -- the foundation of the entire American transport system. There are some substitutes, but none with sufficient capacity to solve the problem.

It follows from this that the port will have to be revived and, one would assume, the city as well. The ports around New Orleans are located as far north as they can be and still be accessed by ocean-going vessels. The need for ships to be able to pass each other in the waterways, which narrow to the north, adds to the problem. Besides, the Highway 190 bridge in Baton Rouge blocks the river going north. New Orleans is where it is for a reason: The United States needs a city right there.

New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but exactly the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a city will return there because the alternatives are too devastating. The harvest is coming, and that means that the port will have to be opened soon. As in Iraq, premiums will be paid to people prepared to endure the hardships of working in New Orleans. But in the end, the city will return because it has to.

Geopolitics is the stuff of permanent geographical realities and the way they interact with political life. Geopolitics created New Orleans. Geopolitics caused American presidents to obsess over its safety. And geopolitics will force the city's resurrection, even if it is in the worst imaginable place.




389. jrussiap
15:58 GMT le 15 février 2011
Brilliant post

Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Member Since: 13 juin 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4
388. NRAamy
15:58 GMT le 15 février 2011
SQUAWK!!!!!
Member Since: 24 janvier 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
387. wunderkidcayman
15:54 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting RitaEvac:




sh*##
Member Since: 13 juin 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 12716
386. RitaEvac
15:48 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting wunderkidcayman:
RitaEvac can you pull up that model 3 days later I want to see what happens thanks


Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9685
384. HouGalv08
15:47 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting hurricanejunky:


+10,000!

What a great post! Very well said and not charged in either direction. The bolded part of the quote is the sentiment I was trying to convey in previous posts.

Now for the charged portion of this post:
It doesn't make sense that with all the talent and time put into climate change research that some dipsticks on Faux News (and other media outlets) says "It's a hoax" and a bunch of people think it is then fact.

It is eerily reminiscent of the Jedi mind trick.
Jedi Mind Trick....sort of like Nazi/Gestapo/Himmler and Germany. Repeat the lie often enough and you get the masses to belive the lie eventually. Faux News(et al) are well versed in doing so (i.e. 2000 thru 2009 especially).
Member Since: 21 juillet 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 370
383. mnsky
15:44 GMT le 15 février 2011
wow!!labels=1 labels=1 labels=1:)
Member Since: 28 juin 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 26
382. RitaEvac
15:41 GMT le 15 février 2011
Should have one more radiational freeze along the gulf coast before winter is up
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9685
381. Patrap
15:39 GMT le 15 février 2011
..."Those are not the Graphs your Looking for,"..

380. Orcasystems
15:37 GMT le 15 février 2011
Complete Update





Member Since: 1 octobre 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
379. hurricanejunky
15:36 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.


+10,000!

What a great post! Very well said and not charged in either direction. The bolded part of the quote is the sentiment I was trying to convey in previous posts.

Now for the charged portion of this post:
It doesn't make sense that with all the talent and time put into climate change research that some dipsticks on Faux News (and other media outlets) says "It's a hoax" and a bunch of people think it is then fact.

It is eerily reminiscent of the Jedi mind trick.
Member Since: 28 août 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
378. hydrus
15:36 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting RitaEvac:
Trillions huh, got news for everybody, it' called World War III, and whoever wins will own and rule the world
The GFS has a stormy pattern coming back. One moderate outbreak of colder air around March 1...Link
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 22585
377. RitaEvac
15:35 GMT le 15 février 2011
Future research of GW will not happen, were on our own folks
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9685
376. Patrap
15:35 GMT le 15 février 2011
Dont worry,,we can use the "Carolina" Dollar soon.

All is well.

American Idol and The Jersey Shore are safe for now.


South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Federal Currency
Posted by Brian Montopoli 439 comments


375. Ossqss
15:33 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed research that refutes such a projection? Thanks in advance; I really look forward to reading it...


Take your pick,,,,, out>>>

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index.html



Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
374. RitaEvac
15:32 GMT le 15 février 2011
Governments across the globe are gonna bankrupt including yes, the good ol USA, if you're heavily invested in stock I'd pull out and sell ASAP
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9685
373. Patrap
15:30 GMT le 15 février 2011
Lordy,...


I feel a tad psychic.

371. HouGalv08
15:27 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.
Shhhhhhh.....quiet Neapolitan. You must be quiet and not say such things as you and EstherD did in your observations. I agree with both of you, but I work with a large group of AGW's here in the office, and I can not withstand another discussion to convince my coworkers to pull their heads out of the sand!
Member Since: 21 juillet 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 370
370. atmoaggie
15:27 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:
Not to be overly critical, but satellite rainfall rates are B.S. Convection in tropical cyclones frequently average rainfall rates between 2 and 4 inches per hour. The eye wall of a major hurricane will almost always produce rainfall rates greater than 5 inches per hour. Down here in Florida and points south into the tropics, 1 inch per hour rainfall rates aren't even a big deal at all. That being said, 0.4 to 0.7 isn't even heavy rain really. That's like stratiform heavy rain.


I don't know, I mean its a cool product to understand convective structure that normal satellite can't see. But come on, lets face it, satellites just aren't good at rainfall intensity at all yet.
They aren't bad with the typical mid-latitude cyclone, but the algorithms are based on cloud top temperature. In TCs, they tend to under represent rainfall rates mostly due to the warm core and less cold cloud tops.
Member Since: 16 août 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
369. RitaEvac
15:26 GMT le 15 février 2011
Trillions huh, got news for everybody, it' called World War III, and whoever wins will own and rule the world
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9685
367. Patrap
15:23 GMT le 15 février 2011
The orange along the Miss river is the Levee "Higher" elevation..but the scientific approach you use in the description iz noted.






366. Patrap
15:21 GMT le 15 février 2011
No but a political retort/label to a member may be in the offing soon.

If one checks the archive.

pfffth
365. Neapolitan
15:18 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
354

The study is basing its findings on an assumed 8 degree F rise in temp. LOL

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

He needs to work for the IPCC


Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed research that refutes such a projection? Thanks in advance; I really look forward to reading it...
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13796
364. Neapolitan
15:17 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting RecordSeason:
354:

Lol.

I love how they painted the levees orange, as if they wouldn't be undercut and washed away by a few years worth of wave action somewhere around 1 or 1.5 meters...

Don't worry. I'm sure in the 25th and 26th century "they" will have fusion rockets and stuff. They'll be living on mars and crap, and be getting back the first return signals from interstellar probes to stars within a 50ly or so. Global Warming won't even matter.


The nice thing about this is there is a lot of "worthless" land which will suddenly become "priceless" beach front property. It sounds like the plot from a super hero movie.

Venice, Italy has been flooded for centuries and people still live there, and still treat it like it's a resort.

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13796
363. DaytonaBeachWatcher
15:14 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.


Very Very well said, and of course, by the way, I agree.
But still, very well said.
Member Since: 29 juin 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1136
362. Ossqss
15:13 GMT le 15 février 2011
354

The study is basing its findings on an assumed 8 degree F rise in temp. LOL

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

He needs to work for the IPCC

Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
361. wunderkidcayman
15:04 GMT le 15 février 2011
RitaEvac can you pull up that model 3 days later I want to see what happens thanks
Member Since: 13 juin 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 12716
358. RitaEvac
14:52 GMT le 15 février 2011
Another arctic outbreak end of the month?

Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9685
354. Neapolitan
14:13 GMT le 15 février 2011
Miami and New Orleans Could Lose 10 Percent of Their Land by 2100: Study

"Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists. The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100."

"The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more. The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter -- or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century."

The map below shows just some of the trillions of dollars in real estate that would be submerged with a 1-meter rise (red) and a six-meter rise (yellow). As anyone can see, we'll have four choices: massive levees, massive relocation, hip waders and pirogues, or simple abandonment. :-\ (Article)

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


And in a related bit of news, it appears that even more people are starting to understand the drastic implications of inaction on climate change, and they're beginning to realize it's not alarmism to to say your house is on fire when it's actually on fire:

Climate change will cost investors trillions of dollars

"Continued delay in acting on climate change could cost institutional investors, such as insurers, trillions of dollars over the coming decades, according to research published today.

"The research, conducted by Mercer and a group of leading global investors representing around $2trn in assets under management, examined the potential financial impacts of climate change on investors' portfolios. It identifies a series of pragmatic steps for institutional investors to consider in their strategic asset allocation.

"Among the key findings: by 2030
  • Climate change increases uncertainty for long-term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
  • Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5trn.
  • The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4trn.
  • Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8trn.
  • Increasing allocation to "climate sensitive" assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
  • Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
  • Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
  • The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low-carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.

Article
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13796
353. Patrap
14:08 GMT le 15 février 2011
352. EstherD
14:07 GMT le 15 février 2011
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Member Since: 10 novembre 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 234
350. TaylorSelseth
13:53 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:


"sigh"

people these days and being so sure of everything.

Scientists based on what we know, believe it to be 4.5 billion years old. But if you think there's anyway of being absolutely sure, You've forgotten the core of science itself.

You have a lot to learn about life.

I do believe the earth is very, very old, based on the evidence I have seen.

Catch my drift?

If you don't, oh well, I tried :)



Sorry, I thought you were spouting creationist nonsense, my bad!
Member Since: 29 août 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324
349. roatangardener
13:53 GMT le 15 février 2011
wow. roatan island has been under a stationery front since sunday morning. rain totals probably near 5-6" sunday, 7-8" yesterday and today it has been pouring since around 4am when i was awakened by thunder and lightning. never in my 24 years in honduras have i seen this in february. never. its like a tropical storm. anyone with any insight as to what is going on and when we should expect this to lift. also, power keeps going on and off due to trees down everywhere and mud slides. info please... roatan gardener
Member Since: 29 octobre 2005 Posts: 55 Comments: 198
347. Patrap
13:40 GMT le 15 février 2011
15 February 2011 Last updated at 04:32 ET




Stardust spacecraft makes comet flyby



Nasa's Stardust spacecraft has swept past the comet Tempel 1.

The encounter early on Tuesday (GMT) will give scientists unique information on how these great balls of ice and dust change over time.

Tempel 1 was visited by another probe back in 2005. It fired a projectile at the body to disturb the surface.

Stardust's images will reveal the extent of the impact crater and any other alterations that may have occurred on the 7.5km-wide object.

The spacecraft got to about 180km (110 miles) of the comet nucleus.

It was commanded to take more than 70 high-resolution images; its dust analysis instruments will also have investigated the environment around the object.

The images were being beamed back to Earth over a period of hours. Scientists had hoped the pictures taken at closest approach (0437 GMT) would be among the first to come down.

However, the spacecraft, for reasons unknown, started by downlinking images in the sequence they were acquired, not in the order commanded by the project team. The first returns therefore showed merely a small dot in the frame of view.

Scientists say this is not a concern. Engineering data suggests all the pictures were captured correctly and are properly centred; it will just take longer to get the best of them back on Earth.

The flyby event occurred at an enormous distance from Earth - approximately 336 million km (209 million miles) away. Radio messages take many minutes to travel this kind of distance.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
345. Patrap
13:33 GMT le 15 février 2011

Arctic sea ice was at its lowest extent in January compared with any other time in the last 32 years, according to a new report by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

This winter has been cold and snowy in North America, but farther north, temperatures have been unusually warm. Data collected by NASA's Aqua satellite shows that ice was low in Canada's Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait and the Davis Strait between Canada and Greenland. Normally these areas are frozen over by late November, the NSIDC reported. This winter, they didn't free until mid-January 2011. The Labrador Sea was similarly ice-free.

Arctic ice monitoring began in 1979. The previous record low for January ice was set in 2006; at a coverage of 5.23 million square miles (13.55 million square kilometers), this January beat that record by 19,300 square miles (50,000 square km). This January's ice cover was also 490,000 square miles (1.27 million square km) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

In October, NSIDC reported an unusual late-season decline in Arctic sea ice.

Viewing: 394 - 344

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
28 ° F
Couvert

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron