Nineteen Atlantic tropical storms 3 consecutive years: a very rare event

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 16:13 GMT le 28 novembre 2012

Share this Blog
46
+

The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season closes this Friday with another top-five tally for named storms--nineteen. This is the third consecutive year with nineteen named storms in the Atlantic, which is a remarkable level of activity for a three-year period. The closest comparable three-year period of activity occurred during 2003 - 2004 - 2005, when each season had fifteen-plus named storms. Since 1851, only two seasons--2005 (28 named storms) and 1933 (20 named storms)--have been busier than 2010, 2011, and 2012.


Figure 1. Preliminary tracks of the nineteen named storms from 2012. Image credit: National Hurricane Center.

How rare are 3 consecutive top-five hurricane seasons for named storms?
It is tremendously rare to get three consecutive top-five years in a database with a 162-year record. This would occur randomly just once every 34,000 years--assuming the database were unbiased, the climate were not changing, and a multi-year climate pattern favorable for active seasons were not present. However the database IS biased, the climate IS changing, and we have been in an active hurricane period that began in 1995. So, which of these factors may be responsible for recording three consecutive years with nineteen named storms? It is well-known that prior to the arrival of geostationary satellites in December 1966 and aircraft hurricane reconnaissance in 1945 that tropical storms in the Atlantic were under-counted. Landsea et al. (2004) theorized that we missed up to six named storms per year between 1851 - 1885, and up to four between 1886 - 1910. Landsea (2007) estimated the under-count to be 3.2 named storms per year between 1900 - 1965, and 1.0 per year between 1966 - 2002. Other studies have argued for lower under-counts. So, if we assume the highest under-counts estimated by Landsea et al. (2004) and Landsea (2007), here would be the top ten busiest Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1851:

2005: 28
1887: 25
1933: 23
1995: 20
2012, 2011, 2010, 1969, 1936: 19

So, 2012, 2011, and 2010 would still rank as top-five busiest seasons since 1851, but the odds of having three consecutive seasons with nineteen named storms would drop from a 1-in-34,000 year event to "only" a 1-in-5800 year event. More recently, Landsea et al. (2010) showed that the increasing trend in North Atlantic tropical storm frequency over the past 140 years was largely due to the increasing trend in short‐lived storms (storms lasting 2 days or less, called “shorties”), after the 1940s (Figure 2, top). They did not detect a significant increasing trend in medium‐ to long‐lived storms lasting more than 2 days. They wrote that “while it is possible that the recorded increase in short‐duration TCs [tropical cyclones] represents a real climate signal, we consider it is more plausible that the increase arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and quality of the observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques.” Villarini et al. (2011), in a paper titled, "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", agreed. They attempted to correlate increases in tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures in recent decades to the increase in short-lived Atlantic tropical storms, and were unable to do so. They wrote: using statistical methods combined with the current understanding of the physical processes, we are unable to find support for the hypothesis that the century‐scale record of short‐lived tropical cyclones in the Atlantic contains a detectable real climate signal. Therefore, we interpret the long‐term secular increase in short‐duration North Atlantic tropical storms as likely to be substantially inflated by observing system changes over time. These results strongly suggest that studies examining the frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms over the historical era (between the 19th century and present) should focus on storms of duration greater than about 2 days. So, let's do that. If we look during the past three hurricane seasons at how many "shorties" were observed, we see that a large number that stayed at tropical storm strength for two days or less: six storms in 2010, six in 2011, and seven in 2012. This leaves the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 with twelve to thirteen tropical storms that lasted more than two days. This doesn't stand out that much when looking at trends since 1878 (Figure 2, bottom); there are now 25 years in the 135-year record with twelve or more long-lived tropical cyclones. However, there are no previous occurrences of three consecutive years with at least twelve long-lived tropical storms, so 2010, 2011, and 2012 still represent an unprecedented level of tropical storm activity in the historical record, and we would expect such an event to occur randomly about once every 157 years. That's a pretty rare event, and it is possible that climate change, combined with the fact we are in an active hurricane period that began in 1995, contributed to this rare event.


Figure 2. Atlantic tropical cyclones between 1878 - 2012 that spent two days or less at tropical storm strength (top) and more than two days at tropical storm strength or hurricane strength (bottom.) Figure updated from Villarini, G., G. A. Vecchi, T. R. Knutson, and J. A. Smith (2011), "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", J. Geophys. Res., 116, D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493.

References
Landsea, C. W., C. Anderson, N. Charles, G. Clark, J. Dunion, J. Fernandez‐Partagas, P. Hungerford, C. Neumann, and M. Zimmer (2004), "The Atlantic hurricane database re‐analysis project: Documentation for 1851–1910 alterations and additions to the HURDAT database," in Hurricanes and Typhoons ‐ Past, Present, and Future, edited by R. J. Murnane and K. B. Liu, pp. 178–221, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

Landsea, C. W., (2007), "Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900," Eos, 88(18), 197-202.

Villarini, G., G. A. Vecchi, T. R. Knutson, and J. A. Smith (2011), "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", J. Geophys. Res., 116, D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493

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: 875 - 825

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

875. Seattleite
02:07 GMT le 01 décembre 2012
Quoting kwgirl:
The season is over 12/1 because we never had a system after that date. Maybe this is a change that will be taking place due to climate change. Blub blub here in the Fl. Keys. I have never seen the water so high in the streets as the last full moon provided. I was wondering if it is because of the planets aligning getting closer to 12/21 or because the wind was blowing out of the north.


Actually, there have been a couple of storms that have formed after the official end of the hurricane season. Most notably would be the 2005 season, when Hurricane Epsilon formed on November 29, and Tropical Storm Zeta which formed on December 29.
Member Since: 18 novembre 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 82
874. kwgirl
21:46 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting VR46L:


Your Welcome!!!


Anyways Is this future Valerie on the way ...I know the season is over but there is Model support

East Atlantic in Rainbow

The season is over 12/1 because we never had a system after that date. Maybe this is a change that will be taking place due to climate change. Blub blub here in the Fl. Keys. I have never seen the water so high in the streets as the last full moon provided. I was wondering if it is because of the planets aligning getting closer to 12/21 or because the wind was blowing out of the north.
Member Since: 28 Mars 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1532
873. dabirds
18:54 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Hope some of that moisture out west can make it into the Missouri basin and fill the resevoirs enough the Corps can release some of it. Otherwise, according to article in Post Dispatch today, barge traffic on Mississippi below StL to Cairo will be shutting down.

Currently the level at StL is -1 ft, expected to drop 4 ft in next two weeks, which will be at minimum level for barge traffic, they need 9 feet. Zero was set at a 14 ft level at Eads Bridge in 1863. Record low was -6.1 ft in Jan. of 1940. NWS expecting will hit that level later unless substantial rain north of StL occurs. It's not forecasted in that time frame.
Member Since: 23 août 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 773
872. aspectre
18:32 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Paying the price of living in the demon haunted world
Member Since: 21 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 4860
871. ScottLincoln
17:23 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
What about the graph in post 782?

...The graphic in post 782 is not particularly relevant to the current discussion because is comparing two different physical quantities on incorrect timescales.

The hidden claim made by posting that graph is that monthly temperature anomalies should respond in a linear way to linear changes to climate forcings, and those changes will both occur and be noticeable on monthly timestep data. The second hidden claim is that because the first claim does not appear to be occurring (through visual "eye-balling"), the conclusion should be that CO2 is not changing climate. Climate does not behave this way. At all. If you know anything about climate, you would know this.

To do a proper comparison for relevant discussion, the temperature anomaly data should - at a minimum - be averaged over 5yr or 10yr time periods, and put into a bar graph. The same could be done with the CO2 data but it would not be expected. Also required would be information about the source of the temperature data so that proper caveats could be taken knowing the uncertainties and assumptions of that particular data set.

Replace the graph with a proper one and we'll discuss.
Member Since: 28 septembre 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3244
870. Some1Has2BtheRookie
17:12 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Really? Is that all it would take? Someone telling you politely what the science shows us before you are willing to accept the science? ... Everyone here that denies the science now, but would accept the science if it was presented politely, just say the single word "YES!", in the next post you make here.

I will be the first to admit that Neapolitan can be a bit abrasive in his delivery of the science. The science is sound and many choose to attack the messenger instead of the message that the science brings us. That is fair in a popularity contest, but the science is not based on how popular it will be received.

There are those that will claim that they present their "evidence" and then bemoan the fact that the "evidence" has already been "debunked" many times and by more than just a few that actually know the science behind the discussion. This only becomes a frustration to both sides of the science and abrasive conversations will ensue from there. ... Such is human nature.

Let us end the haggling back and forth between us. Those that are skeptics of the science should present the science that calls into question the theory being discussed. There must be a scientific reason for the skepticism or it only becomes a denial based argument. Those that deny the science need to disprove the science behind the scientific theory. I would be the first to rejoice that the AGWT has been proven to be an invalid scientific theory!

Here is where the denial industry must concentrate its efforts to have their "evidence" validated by the scientific community:

1. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Physics.

Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...

2. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Thermodynamics.

Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...

3. Show how the AGWT violates The Laws of Chemistry.

Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...

4. Show how CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...

5. Show how anthropogenic CO2 emissions' chemical properties prevents these CO2 emissions from behaving as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...

6. Show how mankind's activities are not emitting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Should you not be able to accomplish this, then ...

7. Show how mankind's activities have not destroyed a meaningful portion of the natural carbon sinks. Meaningful in the sense that the natural carbon sinks cannot sequester the carbon we emit at a rate that would compensate for the CO2 we emit.

Only one of these tests needs to be satisfied to show that our actions are not adding any degree of significance to the current climate warming trends we are witnessing today. Unless you can accomplish at least one of these tests, then you are simply in denial for reasons well beyond the scientific reasons. You may satisfy your egos this way, but it does not satisfy the science behind the AGWT.

This post may sound abrasive to a few, but how many times does it need to be said that the stove is hot before you quit trying to touch the stove? After a while, the conversation just becomes frustrating to all involved.

Disprove the AGWT or quit complaining that you cannot and taking it out on the others that do understand the science behind it. Really, it is that simple. Disprove the theory, develop a better theory or quit complaining that the theory itself best explains the warming trends we are witnessing.
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
869. PlazaRed
16:54 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting bappit:

SO2 is a much more important cause of acid rain.

Sort of related to your comment.
Where I work we collect the rainwater from the roofs of the buildings as there is no mains water supply, as in fact there isnt in many parts of the world.
Over the last 2 years I have noted that the collected water from the tanks causes quite a lot of lime scale. We collect about 50,000liters/12,000 gallons per year.
As the rainwater is just H2O water then where does the limescale come from?
The roofs of the building which collect the water are made from ceramic tiles and cement of good quality at a bout 4 to 1 mix, so its very hard, its not washing away.
My theory is that the rainwater is dissolving the cement and transporting it in liquid solution form to the holding tanks.
All pipes are made from seamless extruded plastic and we do not add anything to the water, either chemical or otherwise.
I remember form collage a long time ago that rainwater is sometimes called " carbonic acid" which is water with CO2 dissolved in it and the only conclusion I from a layman's/builders point of view can make is that the carbonic acid is eating the cement and concrete.
Member Since: 21 janvier 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2101
868. bappit
16:50 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting schistkicker:


... the only thing the batch of out-of-context statements from the emails does is impugn some scientists and demonstrate that they're not always gentle and nice; in fact, some of them have enormous egos. That's completely irrelevant to whether or not the globe is warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. ....

I agree, though it does give the propagandists a way to divert attention from the real, long-term problems we face. Something some of our bloggers should consider.
Member Since: 18 mai 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6107
867. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
16:50 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
866. calkevin77
16:38 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting lilElla:
I was at Timberline the first week of Sept and watched many snowboarders coming down off the slopes at the end of the day! Hoping for a snowy winter in S. WI :)



Right on. Yeah hopefully you guys will get some snow this winter out there in WI. My mom grew up in Milwaukee/Waukesha area so I always loved the times around the holidays visiting the grandparents and all the snow. We're back up into the low 80s this weekend here in Austin. No snowmen to be built here :)
Member Since: 9 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 864
865. bappit
16:37 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting PlazaRed:

SO2 is a much more important cause of acid rain.

Edit: and NOx's. Wikiwonderland:

"Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids. Governments have made efforts since the 1970s to reduce the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere with positive results. Nitrogen oxides can also be produced naturally by lightning strikes and sulfur dioxide is produced by volcanic eruptions. The chemicals in acid rain can cause paint to peel, corrosion of steel structures such as bridges, and erosion of stone statues."
Member Since: 18 mai 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6107
864. PensacolaDoug
16:33 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
What about the graph in post 782?
Member Since: 25 juillet 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 595
863. GeorgiaStormz
16:33 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
The 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season in 4.5 Minutes
Member Since: 11 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9738
862. GeorgiaStormz
16:31 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Falcons beat the Saints yesterday, really was some great tailgaiting weather.

Now on to the SEC Championship

Looks like great weather in the Atlanta Area:


GO DAWGS!
Member Since: 11 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9738
861. PlazaRed
16:29 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Noting:-853. Skyepony. Quoting a line:-
"Snail shells are already being dissolved at much higher rates than predicted near the poles. Acidity in oceans is already a Bad trip for Washington's economy.."
With the increased amount of CO" in the atmosphere, along with increased atmospheric temps the additional rainfall caused by the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water will eventually inevitable result in more acidic rain.
As most of the acidic rain will either acidify the land or seas which it falls on, the the result must be a more acidic world.
It is from an academic point of view not too important whether its the snails in the sea or the ground which their cousins slither on that is on the receiving end of all this, the academic conclusion must be that there is a problem with the basic ecosystem and that CO2 is causing it. I'm sure that as it becomes known that the acid rain is eating the concrete of buildings, then the general background society will probably take a lot more notice of it but by then as probably in fact now it will be too late.
Member Since: 21 janvier 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2101
860. yoboi
16:28 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting Skyepony:


Help me with the over hype on ocean ph...

A preschooler can take a piece of litmus paper check the ph on on a glass of ice water then blow some CO2 through a straw a while & then check it again & see it get more acid. You can do this in a way more controlled way with a tank of CO2 & even compare how colder water will hold more CO2 & turn more acidic compared to warmer water when all other conditions are the same.

What NOAA presented to Congress in 2009 was disturbing enough. Snail shells are already being dissolved at much higher rates than predicted near the poles. Acidity in oceans is already a Bad trip for Washington's economy..

And now like the Arctic sea ice models it's apparent we didn't predict it fast enough..

ABSTRACT Nearshore waters of the California Current System (California CS) already today have a low carbonate saturation state, making them particularly susceptible to ocean acidification. Here, we use eddy-resolving model simulations to study the potential development of ocean acidification in this system up to 2050 under the SRES A2 and B1 scenarios. In both scenarios, the saturation state of aragonite %u03A9arag is projected to drop rapidly, with much of the nearshore regions developing summer-long undersaturation in the top 60 m within the next 30 years. By the year 2050, waters with %u03A9arag above 1.5 have largely disappeared and more than half of the waters are undersaturated year-round. Habitats along the seafloor become exposed to year-round undersaturation within the next 20 to 30 years. This has potentially major implications for the rich and diverse ecosystem that characterizes the California CS.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-06-ocean-ph-falling-rapi dly.html#jCp


A H & O3 morning tune..named Corona.


upwelling of water due to increase of storms...happens in an active cycle.. i can agree with that...
Member Since: 25 août 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2437
859. beell
16:24 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting schwankmoe:
thing is, the 11.1 cm the poster calculated from an original 200Gt/yr of loss is just from greenland, IIRC.

whereas the Page bit nea was complaining about was saying that total sea level rise would be 30cm, 'likely less', by 2100. that includes greenland, east and west antarctic, glaciers, thermal expansion, the whole nine yards.

you have to remember that some people are talking about one part and some people are talking about the whole here.



I was talking about Greenland and sea level rise. And it is on this subject that I would expect a response.

But thank you for the whole nine yards.
Member Since: 11 septembre 2007 Posts: 144 Comments: 16895
858. bappit
16:20 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting Skyepony:


Help me with the over hype on ocean ph...

That's just one of the ways the CO2 "goes away" ... by damaging marine ecosystems.

Think of your liver processing excessive amounts of alcohol. The alcohol goes away at the expense of your health.

That's the fast part of the CO2 "going away".

"Dissolution into ocean water sequesters 70-80% of the CO2 release on a time scale of several hundred years. Chemical neutralization of CO2 by reaction with CaCO3 on the sea floor accounts for another 9-15% decrease in the atmospheric concentration on a time scale of 5.5-6.8 kyr."
Member Since: 18 mai 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6107
857. yoboi
16:19 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting plutorising:


yeah, well nobody's proved him wrong yet, either.



kind of hard to when he dodges a debate...
Member Since: 25 août 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2437
856. plutorising
16:15 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting AussieStorm:

He'll never say sorry or admit he's wrong. He'll just throw insults.

The 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season is OVER!!!!



yeah, well nobody's proved him wrong yet, either.
Member Since: 30 août 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 80
855. schistkicker
16:12 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting yonzabam:


See, this is why people get angry. Three statements, and every one of them a fabrication. They just go on like this incessantly, and there's no let up from them, no matter how many times their false claims are refuted.

Most 'hockey stick' graphs I've seen, and there are many by different research groups, show the Medieval Wam Period clearly.

The UEA Climate Research Group was completely exonerated by an independent panel of scientists from outside the field of climatology.

No one claims that all sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

But they'll be back tomorrow with the same nonsense.


The especially silly thing is that ClimateGate doesn't even address the actual data-- the only thing the batch of out-of-context statements from the emails does is impugn some scientists and demonstrate that they're not always gentle and nice; in fact, some of them have enormous egos. That's completely irrelevant to whether or not the globe is warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. If photos surfaced tomorrow that prove that Phil Jones propositions nuns and kicks puppies, that doesn't touch the actual data. Even if Al Gore is insufferable, it doesn't touch the data.

As far as the Medieval Warming Period goes, it doesn't help, since temperature records and proxies demonstrate that it was a regional, not global, warming event.
Member Since: 13 juin 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 304
854. Thrawst
16:11 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Bopha

Member Since: 18 juillet 2010 Posts: 50 Comments: 1908
853. Skyepony (Mod)
16:06 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting yoboi:



it's over hype...


Help me with the over hype on ocean ph...

A preschooler can take a piece of litmus paper check the ph on on a glass of ice water then blow some CO2 through a straw a while & then check it again & see it get more acid. You can do this in a way more controlled way with a tank of CO2 & even compare how colder water will hold more CO2 & turn more acidic compared to warmer water when all other conditions are the same.

What NOAA presented to Congress in 2009 was disturbing enough. Snail shells are already being dissolved at much higher rates than predicted near the poles. Acidity in oceans is already a Bad trip for Washington's economy..

And now like the Arctic sea ice models it's apparent we didn't predict it fast enough..

ABSTRACT Nearshore waters of the California Current System (California CS) already today have a low carbonate saturation state, making them particularly susceptible to ocean acidification. Here, we use eddy-resolving model simulations to study the potential development of ocean acidification in this system up to 2050 under the SRES A2 and B1 scenarios. In both scenarios, the saturation state of aragonite %u03A9arag is projected to drop rapidly, with much of the nearshore regions developing summer-long undersaturation in the top 60 m within the next 30 years. By the year 2050, waters with %u03A9arag above 1.5 have largely disappeared and more than half of the waters are undersaturated year-round. Habitats along the seafloor become exposed to year-round undersaturation within the next 20 to 30 years. This has potentially major implications for the rich and diverse ecosystem that characterizes the California CS.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-06-ocean-ph-falling-rapi dly.html#jCp


A H & O3 morning tune..named Corona.
Member Since: 10 août 2005 Posts: 196 Comments: 38765
852. lilElla
16:00 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
I was at Timberline the first week of Sept and watched many snowboarders coming down off the slopes at the end of the day! Hoping for a snowy winter in S. WI :)

Quoting calkevin77:


You all will have a blast out there. I lived in Oregon for a few years and some of the best skiing I've ever done was on Mt. Hood. Willamette Pass is fun as well and has a lot of nice greens for practice too. When I was there one year we were skiing into June and Timberline was open until almost August. The base was like a few hundred inches. Good stuff.
Member Since: 5 décembre 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 273
851. yonzabam
15:59 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting AGWcreationists:
Oh, yeah, and a few others:

Downplay past natural climate variability, such as the Hockey Stick pretending that the Medieval Warm Period never really happened.

Pretend that the revelations from the East Anglia email dump were a non-scandal.

Claim that all skeptics are in the pay of fossil fuel corporations.


See, this is why people get angry. Three statements, and every one of them a fabrication. They just go on like this incessantly, and there's no let up from them, no matter how many times their false claims are refuted.

Most 'hockey stick' graphs I've seen, and there are many by different research groups, show the Medieval Wam Period clearly.

The UEA Climate Research Group was completely exonerated by an independent panel of scientists from outside the field of climatology.

No one claims that all sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

But they'll be back tomorrow with the same nonsense.
Member Since: 20 juillet 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2967
850. bappit
15:43 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Multiple timescales for neutralization of fossil fuel CO2

An interesting address for one of the authors of that study.

EXXON RES & ENGN CO, ANNANDALE, NJ 08801 USA
Member Since: 18 mai 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6107
849. SteveDa1
15:43 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
I was thinking of something...

The AC, your fridge, your freezer, your television, your whole slew of electronic gadgets, your computer(s), to name a few, are all thanks to scientific innovations. I can guarantee that every single person uses at least a couple of these. Yet, you still have people discrediting the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who are warning us of potentially catastrophic Athropogenic Climate Change.

Scientists who should have the utmost respect by now by allowing society to flourish the way it has.

I simply cannot get over this.
Member Since: 17 octobre 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1298
848. bappit
15:41 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
"If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does)."

We are talking about hundreds of years, thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of years. It does NOT go away in any time span that makes me happy.

From Multiple timescales for neutralization of fossil fuel CO2:

"The long term abiological sinks for anthropogenic CO2 will be dissolution in the oceans and chemical neutralization by reaction with carbonates and basic igneous rocks. We use a detailed ocean/sediment carbon cycle model to simulate the response of the carbonate cycle in the ocean to a range of anthropogenic CO2 release scenarios. CaCO3 will play only a secondary role in buffering the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere because CaCO3 reaction uptake capacity and kinetics are limited by the dynamics of the ocean carbon cycle. Dissolution into ocean water sequesters 70-80% of the CO2 release on a time scale of several hundred years. Chemical neutralization of CO2 by reaction with CaCO3 on the sea floor accounts for another 9-15% decrease in the atmospheric concentration on a time scale of 5.5-6.8 kyr. Reaction with CaCO3 on land accounts for another 3-8%, with a time scale of 8.2 kyr. The final equilibrium with CaCO3 leaves 7.5-8% of the CO2 release remaining in the atmosphere. The carbonate chemistry of the oceans in contact with CaCO3 will act to buffer atmospheric CO2 at this higher concentration until the entire fossil fuel CO2 release is consumed by weathering of basic igneous rocks on a time scale of 200 kyr."
Member Since: 18 mai 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6107
847. PalmBeachWeather
15:41 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting goosegirl1:



Be honest now- there is guilt on both sides here. All of us have to foster honest, science-backed intelligent discussion without the names and jokes thrown in. If all we do is discredit each other and exchange insults, then we are acting like a room full of first graders when the teacher steps out.
Complete with spitballs..
Member Since: 3 octobre 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5940
846. AGWcreationists
15:39 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting FunnelVortex:


How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullsh1t.

3. Give the sceptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the sceptics as conservitive, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).
Oh, yeah, and a few others:

Downplay past natural climate variability, such as the Hockey Stick pretending that the Medieval Warm Period never really happened.

Pretend that the revelations from the East Anglia email dump were a non-scandal.

Claim that all skeptics are in the pay of fossil fuel corporations.
Member Since: 25 novembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 492
844. AGWcreationists
15:34 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting FunnelVortex:


How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullsh1t.

3. Give the sceptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the sceptics as conservitive, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).
You left out:

Demand that the skeptical viewpoints be peer-reviewed when the East Anglia email dump showed a coordinated effort to deny peer review to skeptical papers.
Member Since: 25 novembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 492
843. yoboi
15:30 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting goosegirl1:



Be honest now- there is guilt on both sides here. All of us have to foster honest, science-backed intelligent discussion without the names and jokes thrown in. If all we do is discredit each other and exchange insults, then we are acting like a room full of first graders when the teacher steps out.



well the teacher is always watching and if your johnny that does not bring an apple you get treated differ.....
Member Since: 25 août 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2437
842. goosegirl1
15:25 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting FunnelVortex:


How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullsh1t.

3. Give the sceptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the sceptics as conservitive, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).



Be honest now- there is guilt on both sides here. All of us have to foster honest, science-backed intelligent discussion without the names and jokes thrown in. If all we do is discredit each other and exchange insults, then we are acting like a room full of first graders when the teacher steps out.
Member Since: 17 décembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1238
841. yoboi
15:25 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting schistkicker:



I would love to see all this "hard evidence" against AGW. Mind, it has to dovetail with the other observable features of our planet (say, solar cycles, ocean heat content, ocean pH, carbon isotopic ratios, global isostatic curves) and the laws of thermodynamics. It'd be awesome if AGW wasn't real, and that there is no real threat to our society as we know it. Not really where all of the datasets are pointing, but if you have others that correlate with the data that does point to AGW but proves it doesn't exist, I'm all ears.


(Hopefully it's something more than opinion stated as fact)



it's over hype...
Member Since: 25 août 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2437
840. calkevin77
15:24 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:

You're up next, don't worry. LOL.

West looking very messy. Haven't seen the HPC cranking out amounts that prolific in a long time. I could only imagine the snows on the Cascades!! My two girls and I are going out there in January for our ski trip. They of course need more practice on the bunny hills. ;)


You all will have a blast out there. I lived in Oregon for a few years and some of the best skiing I've ever done was on Mt. Hood. Willamette Pass is fun as well and has a lot of nice greens for practice too. When I was there one year we were skiing into June and Timberline was open until almost August. The base was like a few hundred inches. Good stuff.
Member Since: 9 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 864
839. vanwx
15:20 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting bohonkweatherman:
Texas Drought info, Outlook is Dry.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/11/29/4449125/t exas-braces-for-return-of-drought.html?utm_medium= referral&utm_source=t.co


That might be the weather story of the year. It doesn't have the pizazz of hurricanes and tornadoes, lightning, flooding and 3' of snow but is it ever grim. 1940, 1956 and now are the most recent Mississippi dry ups. They can't get the grain to port, what grain there is. Houston used to be the second biggest rice port in the world. I wonder if the California gale will let them get their rice crop in?
Up here in snow country the rain is melting the snow, that snow is our summer water but I sure it will get better. We had a good year last year but the late fish had to hitch hike up the rivers in the fall(I mean it was dry and too hot for them).
Member Since: 6 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126
838. VR46L
15:18 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Thanks!


Your Welcome!!!


Anyways Is this future Valerie on the way ...I know the season is over but there is Model support

East Atlantic in Rainbow

Member Since: 1 Mars 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6950
837. schwankmoe
15:15 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
still waiting on the data that shows no real warming over the last 100 years.

anybody who has a link to it and is deathly afraid of getting banned (LOL) can WUmail it to me, and i'll post it.
Member Since: 18 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 690
836. goosegirl1
15:12 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting schistkicker:



I would love to see all this "hard evidence" against AGW. Mind, it has to dovetail with the other observable features of our planet (say, solar cycles, ocean heat content, ocean pH, carbon isotopic ratios, global isostatic curves) and the laws of thermodynamics. It'd be awesome if AGW wasn't real, and that there is no real threat to our society as we know it. Not really where all of the datasets are pointing, but if you have others that correlate with the data that does point to AGW but proves it doesn't exist, I'm all ears.


(Hopefully it's something more than opinion stated as fact)


I would love to be convinced that it's all a conspiracy, but so far no one has stepped up and provided the needed hard evidence. In the case of AGW? Believe me, I would love to say "You are right" and be really convinced of it.
Member Since: 17 décembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1238
835. schwankmoe
15:09 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
thing is, the 11.1 cm the poster calculated from an original 200Gt/yr of loss is just from greenland, IIRC.

whereas the Page bit nea was complaining about was saying that total sea level rise would be 30cm, 'likely less', by 2100. that includes greenland, east and west antarctic, glaciers, thermal expansion, the whole nine yards.

you have to remember that some people are talking about one part and some people are talking about the whole here.

Quoting Barefootontherocks:
If I presume correct the math used to find a 111mm rise by 2100,

111mm=11.1cm
4"=10.2cm

Your math may be off a little, lol, but either scenario is far below Lewis Page's interpretation, as stated by Neo at comment 777:
"In his foolish denialist zeal, Page scanned that and came to the (wrong) conclusion that maximum global sea level rise by 2100 will be 30cm (???), and followed that bit of chicanery with the laughably baseless comment that 'it will probably be less than that'. "

Frankly, my dears, maybe the Page character is correct.
~Bueller
Member Since: 18 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 690
834. goosegirl1
15:08 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
And to add to the theme of the morning:

What had been a blurry picture about polar ice — especially how it impacts sea levels — just got a whole lot clearer as experts on Thursday published a peer-reviewed study they say puts to rest the debate over whether the poles added to, or subtracted from, sea level rise over the last two decades.

"This improved certainty allows us to say definitively that both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing ice," lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in Britain, told reporters. Not only that, but the pace has tripled from the 1990s, the data indicate.


Read more here Link
Member Since: 17 décembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1238
833. schistkicker
15:07 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting FunnelVortex:


How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullsh1t.

3. Give the sceptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the sceptics as conservitive, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).



I would love to see all this "hard evidence" against AGW. Mind, it has to dovetail with the other observable features of our planet (say, solar cycles, ocean heat content, ocean pH, carbon isotopic ratios, global isostatic curves) and the laws of thermodynamics. It'd be awesome if AGW wasn't real, and that there is no real threat to our society as we know it. Not really where all of the datasets are pointing, but if you have others that correlate with the data that does point to AGW but proves it doesn't exist, I'm all ears.


(Hopefully it's something more than opinion stated as fact)
Member Since: 13 juin 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 304
831. goosegirl1
15:05 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting yonzabam:


I don't see how such studies can be meaningful. On the time scales they deal with, Milankovitch cycles come into play. Makes everything horribly complicated.




I think that's one reason they are trying to standardize how the data are presented. We see it all the time here- one shining example is the discussion concerning "how much sea rise" we see here this morning.
Member Since: 17 décembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1238
830. yonzabam
14:58 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting goosegirl1:
Climate scientists are still grappling with one of the main questions of modern times: how high will global temperatures rise if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubles. Many researchers are now turning to the past because it holds clues to how nature reacted to climate change before the anthropogenic impact. The divergent results of this research, however, have made it difficult to make precise predictions about the impact of increased carbon dioxide on future warming. An international team of scientists have evaluated previously published estimates and assigned them consistent categories and terminology. This process should assist in limiting the range of estimates and make it easier to compare data from past climate changes and projections about future warming.

Read more here Link


I don't see how such studies can be meaningful. On the time scales they deal with, Milankovitch cycles come into play. Makes everything horribly complicated.

Member Since: 20 juillet 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2967
829. vanwx
14:54 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting nymore:
If you have not learned by now Neapolitan is always right. Even when proven wrong he will never admit it. Want to have some fun with him just ask him what his solution would be to help stop AGWT, he will never answer because he is a FRAUD. AGWT is just the vehicle he uses to grind the axe against high profit fossil fuel companies. It is just a means to an end for his agenda.

Why do you think that you should be able to compel him to solve AGW when he's only pointing it out?
Member Since: 6 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126
828. bohonkweatherman
14:51 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Texas Drought info, Outlook is Dry.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/11/29/4449125/t exas-braces-for-return-of-drought.html?utm_medium= referral&utm_source=t.co
Member Since: 5 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1348
827. vanwx
14:48 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
If I presume correct the math used to find a 111mm rise by 2100,

111mm=11.1cm
4"=10.2cm

Your math may be off a little, lol, but either scenario is far below Lewis Page's interpretation, as stated by Neo at comment 777:
"In his foolish denialist zeal, Page scanned that and came to the (wrong) conclusion that maximum global sea level rise by 2100 will be 30cm (???), and followed that bit of chicanery with the laughably baseless comment that 'it will probably be less than that'. "

Frankly, my dears, maybe the Page character is correct.
~Bueller


Gro said 1/10" per year. On a straight line that's +9" at next millenium. Also on a straight line is CO2 at 400ppm by 2020. However, straight line has not worked for the rate of arctic sea ice loss. I guess we'll know more at the end of next summer.
Member Since: 6 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126
826. goosegirl1
14:46 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Climate scientists are still grappling with one of the main questions of modern times: how high will global temperatures rise if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubles. Many researchers are now turning to the past because it holds clues to how nature reacted to climate change before the anthropogenic impact. The divergent results of this research, however, have made it difficult to make precise predictions about the impact of increased carbon dioxide on future warming. An international team of scientists have evaluated previously published estimates and assigned them consistent categories and terminology. This process should assist in limiting the range of estimates and make it easier to compare data from past climate changes and projections about future warming.

Read more here Link
Member Since: 17 décembre 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1238
825. VR46L
14:40 GMT le 30 novembre 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:

You're up next, don't worry. LOL.

West looking very messy. Haven't seen the HPC cranking out amounts that prolific in a long time. I could only imagine the snows on the Cascades!! My two girls and I are going out there in January for our ski trip. They of course need more practice on the bunny hills. ;)



Aye, there seems to be some real snow amounts coming that way.

You seem to be really looking forward to your skiing vacation have a great time out there with your girls, Gal.
Member Since: 1 Mars 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6950

Viewing: 875 - 825

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog 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
48 ° F
Couvert