Sea ice in the Arctic continues its record decline, thanks to unusually cloud-free conditions and above-average temperatures. For August 21, the National Snow and Ice Data Center estimated that fully one third of the Arctic ice cap was missing, compared to the average levels observed on that date from 1979-2000. Sea ice extent was 4.92 million square kilometers on August 21, and the 1979-2000 average for the date was about 7.3 million square kilometers. Arctic sea ice has fallen below the record low absolute minimum of 4.92 million square kilometers set in 2005 by about 8%, with another 3-5 weeks of the melting season still remaining. Reliable records of sea ice coverage go back to 1979.
Figure 1. Extent of the polar sea ice on August 21, compared to the average for the date from the 1979-2000 period (pink line). Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.
With one third of the Arctic ice cap already gone, and another month of melting to go, we need to consider what effect this will have on weather, climate, and sea level rise. Well, we don't need to worry about sea level rise, since the polar sea ice is already in the ocean, and won't appreciably change sea level when it melts. However, the remarkable melting of the ice cap will likely lead to unusual weather patterns this fall and winter. The lack of sea ice will put much more heat and moisture into the polar atmosphere, affecting the path of the jet stream and the resultant storm tracks. Expect a much-delayed arrival of winter to the Northern Hemisphere again this year, which may lead to further accelerated melting of the ice cap in future years.
Last week, I remarked that the most recent images from the North Pole webcam show plenty of melt water and rainy conditions near the Pole. It turns out that was misleading, since the webcam is on a ship that was headed towards the pole, but had not reached it. There have been rainy conditions at the Pole this summer, and there is some open water there, but this is not uncommon in summer. Shifting ice frequently opens up leads (cracks) with open sea water at the Pole. It was one of these open leads that British swimmer Lewis Gordon Pugh swam in for 18 minutes this July to draw attention to global climate change.
Figure 2. Total rainfall from August 10-22 as estimated by NASA's TRMM satellite.
Midwest flooding
To get an idea of the magnitude of the flooding that has hit the Midwestern U.S. during the past ten days, take a look at the total amount of rain from August 10-22 (Figure 2). We can blame Tropical Storm Erin for the rain in Texas and Oklahoma (up to 11 inches), and for the nine flooding deaths that occurred in those states. However, the unbelievable rain amounts in excess of 20 inches in Minnesota and Wisconsin were primarily due to a frontal system--with the help of some copious moisture pumped northwards by the counter-clockwise circulation around Erin while it spun over Oklahoma.
Tropical update
There are no threat areas in the Atlantic to discuss. Two of our four reliable forecast models, the NOGAPS and ECMWF, are predicting that a tropical depression could form off the coast of Nicaragua on Sunday. The models forecast that this system would move inland over Nicaragua and Honduras by Monday.
I'll have an update on Saturday morning.
Jeff Masters
Bulldozer trying to clear sand and debris from Norman Manley Highway(Airport Road)
The flood is over, now the cleanup
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 — Blog Index
Hi everyone. I usually dont comment on here, i just enjoy reading the blogs. However, i wanted to clarify something with the global climate change issue and the scientific deabate thats going on. I am an environmental science master's student and have covered this topic in just about ALL of my courses. Right now the scientific community is NOT debating whether or not global climate change is occuring, it IS. By the scientific community i mean research that is being published in primary literature (peer reviewed journals). The debate is if it is human induced or the result of a natural historical trend. "
Nat, the out of the classroom debate is centered on many more levels than just those two.
For starters, will it continue and if it does, what will the effects really be. Are there any negative feedback loops that we don't even know about.
Dr. Roy says the negative feedback loop from cirrus clouds will reduce the predictions of global warming by +/-75%. That info only came out a few weeks ago and is a long way from being throughly studied. Plus, it's a negative feedback loop that you would not have even heard about in school.
and we know how accurate 2 weeks in advance model forcast are....
And amy are we forgetting that the gfs was right that a cyclone would develop more than one week in advance? doesnt mean it will develop but you cant rule it out
I'm sure such a reversal will come eventually.
Whether we're included in the reversal is the scary part. True Baja, not much on (mass-wise) regarding the other side of the curve.
And as for dry air, it is currently drier than average, but it has NOT been that way all season; if anything, it has averaged moister than average since July:
I don't see that in the graphic.
Enlighten me.
My interpretation was upside down.
Thanks for your gentle correction.
You posted that in my blog days ago lol
Since there really isn't any shortage of nutrients for terrestrial plants, and there is plenty of light, wouldn't an increased amount of readily available carbon result in enhanced plant growth, faster CO2 use, and more O2 production like it does in water?
Great question!
A theory exists, which you don't hear about much (because this theory does not support the "man-is-bad, doomsday is on the way" template), is that increased atmospheric CO2 will, in fact, lead to increased vegetation; which, in turn, will act to moderate global temperatures.
1.You said nothing about current TE L-ion batteries which last much longer than Ni-MH batteries.
2.You provided no evidence of core readings that back what you infer.
Heres more evidence.
If you are not prepared to read from acknowledged sources then your only interest in dissent is a political one which has and never will have merit.
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/change.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
3. NH batteries are OLD and will NEVER be used again.
But anyway Nickel in NiMH is completely recycled as well as the plastics.
http://www.batteryrecycling.com/nickel.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17362/
http://www.greenbatteries.com/libafa.html
http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/1720008572.html
http://www.d-store.com/d-store/product/quest.htm
http://www.epa.gov/msw/battery.htm
We already have a tremendous amount of Lead Acid batteries that power Internal Combustion Engines 90% of which are recycled and 10% disposed of incorrectly. That 10% is a large amount. So to talk about how we are polluting the earth with NiMH and Lithium batteries which are less toxic is ridiculous.
Also, here are the threshold values that are used in the formation probability charts, where the probability of formation drops to zero:
Ok, do you have the 50/50 parameters for formation for the Atlantic?
I may be able to make an informed decision regarding current formation.
Thanks
First rain we've had all week, and the sun is shining brightly outside.
Strange, but cool. I'll try to take a pic.
--- CHAS
Yes, I would agree. Numbers and probabilities are not everything. I think most of us would agree that SST's less than 21C, 100% over land, and 49 knots of shear would greatly limit formation.
I have a basic understanding of the formation probability parameters. Just wondered what the 50% values were. If you don't serve them up on a silver platter for me I have learned something and will persue on my own.
Thanks again.
the experts aren't prediciting more hurricanes, they're prediciting more intense hurricanes when they do form.
THE experts aren't predicting any such thing. Some people, including SOME experts, are making such a prediction. Many others, including many experts, disagree.
I think that wobble of the earth's axis has more to do with global warming and cooling cycles than does how much I drive my car or how many cows are out there farting away.
--- CHAS"
LOL
It is funny how it's always cows = man.
Never wildebeest, elephants, and buffalo.
Like all of a sudden we replaced the net/net by adding a bunch of animals, not replacing them with other animals.
Miss Bennet: We will have more hurricanes due to global warming. They will be more intense because of warming and they will be more frequent because of warming.
Cirrocumulous, not true. The scientific community does not have the facts to back up that statement (yet). The only thing they are fairly sure of is that the rise in SST creates a better environment by adding more fuel for the intesification of hurricanes, which creates more sever storms. The warming does not create better conditions to let these storms form in the first place.
In fact there was an article in Yahoo a couple months back (can't find it now) that stated there was a study out claiming that global warming may in fact prevent storms from forming because it causes more sheer. I don't really believe this and the research was weak at best, but my point is this: Scientists don't have enough knowledge about what makes these storms form in the first place, let alone how global warming effects that formation.
Viewing: 951 - 1001
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 — Blog Index