Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

Global Warming

climate change solar co2 agw ice age

  • Please log in to reply

#201
Chris

Posted 14 May 2015 - 06:50 AM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1158 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

Sorry but. ... I read it on the internet. No sources were cited.

 

Specify, include (cite.) supportive thinking, or continue to be subjected to my requests for more qualification where finding at this type of input. 

 

According to whom. (?) .. If more your own thinking, specify this idea. (Plainly. And in front.)

 

(Otherwise, .. What's "the LIA". ? .. Not actually an acronym at all in fact, but more casual slang for the "Italian Ice Age", would be my guess more immediate. But that doesn't really fit. ... Perhaps a county, on a planet yet to have been discovered. ? .. HI. ... Liberal use of acronyms, is discourteous.)

 

The IPCC went on record early on as to the Little Ice Age (LIA) being a regional event, not global.  http://www.ipcc.ch/i...ar/wg1/070.htm 

"Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of �Little Ice Age� and �Medieval Warm Period� appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."

 

Other studies suggest otherwise.  For example http://www.scienceda...41119204521.htmfound evidence of a synchronous cool down in South America.

 

"The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age -- in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries -- were synchronous in Europe and South America"



#202
richard mann

Posted 14 May 2015 - 12:08 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-

Appreciate your attention to "form" and "clarity" here Chris. 
 
(Hmmn.) .. So in fact I'd been fairly close to correct where working to "intuit" what [young cousin] "Phil" had posted above with my "Italian Ice Age" estimate. (Surprising.)
 
Regarding what I've posted above where considering "the LIA", along with what I'd said otherwise, .. Of course all I'm doing (or "working to"), with my different if more abstract responses to cousin "Phil's" input at times, …
 
{ … where finding what he elects to post, quite often certainly appearing to be far less focused on the ideals of working to present ideas set with actual facts, discernible and distinguishable from his own impressions connected to them perhaps, …"points", "thinking", more clearly outlined and more well "formed" in an effort more genuine and in line with the spirit of decent discussion more, .. and much more, on "controversy" and contention .. quite often fairly ill-founded, .. even self-promotion, ... amounting ultimately only, as I see it, to so much crassness and crudeness where viewed at all more academically, … }
 
.. is to invite "Phil" to ponder what he submits in a different light perhaps. Ask himself even perhaps, just how he would respond to some of what he posts where finding it. With working to take it in more impartially. And less in line, with what he's had "in mind".  
 
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=77686


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#203
Phil

Posted 14 May 2015 - 04:25 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16603 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

What are AW and SW?


Atmospheric Window, Short Wave.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18
Snowfall: 6.7”
Largest Snowfall: 3.4”
Number of winter events: 7
Coldest High: 17.2*F
Coldest Low: 2.8*F
Lowest Dewpoint: -6.7*F
Highest Sustained Wind: 37mph
Highest wind gust: 54mph

#204
Phil

Posted 14 May 2015 - 04:54 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16603 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

What are the theories for why cloud cover has decreased? Will that change soon?


The decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover is a complicated phenomenon, but it is related to the broadening & poleward migration of the Hadley Cells & a weakening of the low-frequency equatorial wave train in the tropics, associated with a reduced Hadley/Walker intensity ratio. This behavior began in the late 1970s, and appears to be related to a combination of systematic inertia in conjunction with external forcing.

A lot of scientists talk up cosmic rays as a forcing mechanism, but I'm not convinced.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18
Snowfall: 6.7”
Largest Snowfall: 3.4”
Number of winter events: 7
Coldest High: 17.2*F
Coldest Low: 2.8*F
Lowest Dewpoint: -6.7*F
Highest Sustained Wind: 37mph
Highest wind gust: 54mph

#205
richard mann

Posted 14 May 2015 - 07:47 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Atmospheric Window, Short Wave.

 

Not "Atmospheric Wave, Short Window" .. then (huh). ?

 

And of course these are commonly employed acronyms, where exactly. ?

 

(No apology necessary.)


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#206
richard mann

Posted 14 May 2015 - 07:54 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

( .. Hello.[?] ... read it on the internet.[?] )
 

The decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover is a complicated phenomenon ...

 
This your opinion. ?  .. Something you read somewhere. (?) .. Something someone has suggested to you. (?) .. That you've seen and heard represented pointed to as part of a video presentation. (?) .. Speculation / general conjecture on your part or someone else's (?) .. Part of an oath you took .....
 

....  but it is related to the broadening & poleward migration of the Hadley Cells & a weakening of the low-frequency equatorial wave train in the tropics, associated with a reduced Hadley/Walker intensity ratio.


Same questions.
 

This behavior began in the late 1970s, and appears to be related to a combination of systematic inertia in conjunction with external forcing.

 
According to whom. ?
 

A lot of scientists talk up cosmic rays as a forcing mechanism, but I'm not convinced.

 
Connected to what idea more specific. / .. specifically. ?


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#207
Chris

Posted 15 May 2015 - 03:23 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1158 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

Asking for sources or further explanation is fine, but to do so repeatedly when you are aware that you are probably not going to get the answer you are looking for can be viewed as harassment.



#208
Andie

Posted 15 May 2015 - 03:49 PM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1624 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Hey Phil check that pm. Thnx.


Btw, any climatic reason for the heavy rain in Texas and Oklahoma or is this just a weather pattern ?

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#209
richard mann

Posted 15 May 2015 - 04:10 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

 

Asking for sources or further explanation is fine, but to do so repeatedly when you are aware that you are probably not going to get the answer you are looking for can be viewed as harassment.

 

 

.. I .. promise, not more than once connected to each discrepancy.  (i.e. Where the idea is warranted more specifically.)

 

This with the question posed perhaps. ... What should I do if I don't find a response. ?

 

(Qualified, or otherwise, as I see the idea.)

 

"The world will cool steadily for eons."


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#210
Phil

Posted 15 May 2015 - 07:27 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16603 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
I've answered your questions repeatedly, and provided you with peer reviewed literature in the past. If I do it again, will you stop hounding me?
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18
Snowfall: 6.7”
Largest Snowfall: 3.4”
Number of winter events: 7
Coldest High: 17.2*F
Coldest Low: 2.8*F
Lowest Dewpoint: -6.7*F
Highest Sustained Wind: 37mph
Highest wind gust: 54mph

#211
weatherfan2012

Posted 15 May 2015 - 08:30 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts
I think you answered it perfectly phil the fist time in my own opinion.

#212
weatherfan2012

Posted 15 May 2015 - 08:38 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts
[quote name="Andie" post="77861" timestamp="1431733750"]Hey Phil check that pm. Thnx.
Btw, any climatic reason for the heavy rain in Texas and Oklahoma or is this just a weather pattern ? I would suspect it just the pattern we are currently in just a year or two ago they were in quite a drought in Texas.

#213
richard mann

Posted 15 May 2015 - 08:52 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

I've answered your questions repeatedly, and provided you with peer reviewed literature in the past. If I do it again, will you stop hounding me?

 
First off. Your characterization here above of my requests for thinking supportive of what you've suggested, is B.S..

Beyond this, and with doing my best to deal with the fairly loaded (?) question with preface, that you've asked. No actually. Some more specific correlation/s (specific quotations / isolated passages, from whatever you might have in mind) set with what you've suggested would be good though.

Presumably, beyond your response to Derek's line of questioning above, your aim with posing to this thread is / has been .. to some extent further additionally leastwise, to have what you post to it, be able to be understood by others tuning in to it.

.. With these ideas, otherwise, not addressed with / within your response here above to my posts directed to you, .. you might also work to indicate better just where your, thinking begins, and others' leaves off where you've incorporated it, into yours.

 As I view this idea, it doesn't seem a difficult thing to do. With what I post to this forum, I certainly have no trouble with it. And so, with this in mind more merely, I've asked you to perhaps put more emphasis on it.
 
(Amenable. ?)


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#214
Black Hole

Posted 16 May 2015 - 08:39 PM

Black Hole

    Daily Contributor

  • Admin
  • 1344 posts
  • LocationBountiful, Ut 84010 ~4575ft

The decline in tropical/mid latitude cloud cover is a complicated phenomenon, but it is related to the broadening & poleward migration of the Hadley Cells & a weakening of the low-frequency equatorial wave train in the tropics, associated with a reduced Hadley/Walker intensity ratio. This behavior began in the late 1970s, and appears to be related to a combination of systematic inertia in conjunction with external forcing.

A lot of scientists talk up cosmic rays as a forcing mechanism, but I'm not convinced.

Ok so I guess my next question is when do the Hadley cells stop expanding? I know that most climate scientists say that this is expected from CO2 increasing but just curious.

 

I also find the cosmic ray theory interesting but not convincing. The sun seems to be important, but I am not exactly sure how.


  • richard mann likes this

BS Atmospheric Science University of Utah May 2015

PhD Candidate Atmospheric Sciences

 

--Emphasis on: Forecasting, Mountain Weather, Numerical Weather Prediction, Data Assimilation

 

Winter 2017/2018

Dec 4: 3.2", 16: 0.9", 20: 2.1", 23: 1.5", 25: 4.6"

Jan 6: 1.5"

Total: 13.8"

 

 

Winter 2016/17 Snow:
Nov 17: 3.2", 23: 1.6", 28: 9.2" (14)

Dec 1: .5", 16: 2.5", 25: 13" (16)

Jan 2: 5", 3: 2.4", 4: 7.7", 12: 1", 19: 1.2", 21: 13", 23: 6", 24: 1", 25: 3.7", 26: 2.5" (43.5) 

Feb 11: .5", 23: 6.5", 27: 4.5" (13.5)

Mar 5: 5.5" (5.5)

Apr 8: 2", 9: 1.8" (3.8)

May 17: 1" (1)
Total: 96.3"

Lowest Temp: 2F


#215
richard mann

Posted 16 May 2015 - 09:48 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

As I view the idea, ......
 
 Prof. Henri Blogspot has it / theorizes, that ...  
 
(Interesting prefaces, eay. ? .... @)
 
"The world will cool, steadily, for eons."   >   $$


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#216
richard mann

Posted 17 May 2015 - 01:03 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

So it now agrees with RSS right? And what is the reason why people don't like it, because it doesn't show what they want? It's obvious we are slowly warming, but I guess a relative stall over the last decade doesn't work with the agenda. So what data sets are showing the big warming?

 

Ultimately for me I know we are warming on the long term and it is a problem in my view, but as long as we continue to see temperatures remain under what climate models project[ion] I remain skeptical of the alarmist views, even if I don't have any specific reasons to cite.

 

Do you agree with Dr. Gray's work btw? It sounds interesting but I have no idea what to think.

 

If I may. 

 

Apart from all of the grand analyses, of analyses (if put more colorfully here.), connected to the grayer areas that you've pointed to here above Derek, …

 

Certainly it's fairly difficult to "sign on" to "thinking", if reasoned out fairly well more generally on the surface, ultimately only more casually lain out, and with very little provided as to just where it might have stemmed. Perhaps relative to other conjecture / thinking supposed. Perhaps generated where having looked at and pondered something more established. … Hence my request/s for a bit more clarity, etc. above regarding "Phil's". This idea set with also not forgetting that this thread, looked at more in particularly, has drawn in "all kinds of views". "Difficult subject", working perhaps to cover some of the confusion or more muddled potential where looking at the idea of actually discussing the subject of "Global Warming". / …. To what extent, or how fast, it is or might be taking place, and why. 

 

…. My own view (Note the clever preface.), .. is that the more natural variability element of the larger equation, is connected to, and might be able to be deduced better and more clearly with accounting for a more specificand demonstrablecyclical patterningwhich I've noted with much study over the past 15 or 20 yearswhere looking at main and broader colder air mass both movement looked at together with distribution, both more longitudinal and latitudinal. 

 

More essentially here, this patterning involves two main cycles where looking at these ideas, and looks more mainly, at just where main and more primary cold from the higher latitudes both North and South, in fact moves, where and when being caused to, down and out from those higher latitudes. One, where considering its main latitudinal, and one its more longitudinal, potential. .. Perhaps you've noted the "projections" that I've submitted here, tacked into the main "World" section .. regularly for a while now, connected to this idea. (Of course with your administrative status here, certainly most likely. But I have no way of knowing to what extent. My projections don't really get much actual response.) .. The latitudinal cycle, where looking at the extent more basic to which a general expansion of more primary cold is caused to move out and down from its main higher latitudes source areas, this idea followed by and equal timeframe of regression of whatever cold looked at more generally, progressively more back toward those sources. And then where considering the more longitudinal cycle, more variable but with a same repeating variability, colder air's changing pace of movement more eastward.

 

 This, with of important note here where regarding these two cycles, two additional main ideas about them. One, that they in fact occur independent of one another and are of slightly different period length. And two, they occur throughout the year, inner-seasonallywhich is to say, independent of season. 

 

$ … The slightly different period-length suggested pointed to here just above, I would ascert, .. being an idea more specific, to look at, .. certainly potentially important (useful.) where working to establish a better picture of "natural variably". This, with this period-length, if slight, ultimately being fairly significant. As in, enough so to allow for an whole different intermingling of these cycles with time.

 

…. It certainly has played a part in our more recent "climate patterns".  (Arguably. If Demonstrably. ?)


  • Chris likes this
---twitter_logo-t12.png

#217
Phil

Posted 17 May 2015 - 03:13 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16603 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Ok so I guess my next question is when do the Hadley cells stop expanding? I know that most climate scientists say that this is expected from CO2 increasing but just curious.

I also find the cosmic ray theory interesting but not convincing. The sun seems to be important, but I am not exactly sure how.


Well, the Hadley Cells are naturally unstable and subject to a number of external and internal/resonance based forcings. They're also in direct exchange with the Walker Cell(s) and Brewer Dobson Cells of the lower stratosphere. Without making this complicated, these cells are all interconnected in one way or another.

I'm going to ignore the internal forcings here and focus on the external ones, in regards to their effect(s) on these cells. When solar forcing increases, it does a number of things.

- Increases the rate of O^3 photodissociation in the stratosphere, cooling the stratosphere as a whole.

- Warms the top of the Hadley Cells, reducing the vertical thermal winds at the tropopause at the horse latitudes. Via the thermal wind laws, this slows the Hadley Cells, hence reducing the kinematic heat flux from the troposphere into stratosphere. This warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere, while reducing convective overturning in the tropics as the middle troposphere warms and dries.

- Weakens the northern flank Brewer Dobson circulation as a result of the aforementioned process, hence pumping less O^3 into the polar stratosphere, relatively speaking. This increases the latitudinal thermal gradient in the polar domain, strengthening the PV/Vorticity column (+NAM).

This entire process governs radiative balance, is non linear, and subject to the Earth system's internal thermal inertia..much like it takes a pot of water a long time to boil regardless of the strength of the flame. This is why there is a significant lag involved. However, this lag is very homogenous in the long run, and does not tend to change much. So, as long as you have access to good data on the Earth's radiative budget, and a solid physical/statistical foundation, predicting externally forced climate change isn't overly difficult.
  • Chris likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18
Snowfall: 6.7”
Largest Snowfall: 3.4”
Number of winter events: 7
Coldest High: 17.2*F
Coldest Low: 2.8*F
Lowest Dewpoint: -6.7*F
Highest Sustained Wind: 37mph
Highest wind gust: 54mph

#218
richard mann

Posted 17 May 2015 - 04:16 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

... So, as long as you have access to good data on the Earth's radiative budget, and a solid physical/statistical foundation, predicting externally forced climate change isn't overly difficult.

 
How about a quick workup. ?
 
Pick whatever timeframe you like.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#219
richard mann

Posted 18 May 2015 - 12:48 AM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

(.. cross-reference.)

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/811-global-warming-elements-of-discussion/?p=77974   @


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#220
Chris

Posted 18 May 2015 - 06:44 AM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1158 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

Well, the Hadley Cells are naturally unstable and subject to a number of external and internal/resonance based forcings. They're also in direct exchange with the Walker Cell(s) and Brewer Dobson Cells of the lower stratosphere. Without making this complicated, these cells are all interconnected in one way or another.

I'm going to ignore the internal forcings here and focus on the external ones, in regards to their effect(s) on these cells. When solar forcing increases, it does a number of things.

- Increases the rate of O^3 photodissociation in the stratosphere, cooling the stratosphere as a whole.

- Warms the top of the Hadley Cells, reducing the vertical thermal winds at the tropopause at the horse latitudes. Via the thermal wind laws, this slows the Hadley Cells, hence reducing the kinematic heat flux from the troposphere into stratosphere. This warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere, while reducing convective overturning in the tropics as the middle troposphere warms and dries.
....

 

I wasn't aware the troposphere had been warming.  That's one of the things the CO2 was supposed to do.  If that's correct (which I know you've questioned), wouldn't it have the same effect on the hadley cells.

 

Also, I appreciate the lack of acronyms.



#221
tbone8

Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:14 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Another bunch of crap published article. All we ever heard 10 years ago is how GW will cause much more frequent hurricanes. But since the frequency has gone down, they fill the crap jar with more intense and less hurricanes. It's so laughable I almost cannot believe it. Almost...  

 

Climate change boosting hurricane intensity

The fewer but powerful hurricanes that the world has witnessed in recent years are likely due to the warming climate, a new study says.

"We are seeing fewer hurricanes, but the ones we do see are more intense," said one of the researchers, professor Jim Elsner from Florida State University in the US.

"When one comes, all hell can break loose," Elsner said.

The researchers projected that over the past 30 years, storm speeds have increased on average by 1.3 metres per second -- or 4.8 km per hour -- and there were 6.1 fewer storms than there would have been if land and water temperatures had remained constant.

"It is basically a tradeoff between frequency and intensity," Elsner said.

Prior to this research, there had been some discussions among scientists about how warmer ocean temperatures affected the intensity of a hurricane.

In the current study, the researchers wanted to further explore that concept as well as the number of storms that occurred each year.

Hurricanes can form when ocean waters are 79 degrees Fahrenheit (26.1 degrees Celsius) or more. As the warm water evaporates, it provides the energy a storm needs to become a hurricane.

Higher temperatures mean higher levels of energy, which would ultimately affect wind speed.

The researchers said the yearly temperatures can also be a good indicator of what's yet to come in a given storm season.

"In a warmer year, stronger but fewer tropical cyclones are likely to occur," said corresponding author Namyoung Kang, deputy director of the National Typhoon Centre in South Korea.

"In a colder year, on the other hand, weaker but more tropical cyclones (are likely to occur)," Kang said.

The study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.



#222
richard mann

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:36 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. "crap jar fillers".  (Wonderfully articulate. Paradoxical, even. Given the greater context here.)

"Vigilance". .. It's the only response plausible.

(The occurrence of more as opposed to less, hurricanes looked at as a more general idea, is cyclical. Use this gage, then keep a good watch maybe.)


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#223
Scott26

Posted 23 May 2015 - 10:48 AM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

WeatherPhil has often said that he's skeptical of AGW because he claims there is no tropospheric hot spot. I found a research paper written by Sherwood and Nishant(2015) that argues otherwise. This is well over my head, but I'm wondering if Phil has a response to this. http://iopscience.io.../054007/article



#224
richard mann

Posted 23 May 2015 - 10:59 AM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Dollars to Doughnuts. Would be my bet.  @


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#225
Phil

Posted 23 May 2015 - 07:42 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16603 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

WeatherPhil has often said that he's skeptical of AGW because he claims there is no tropospheric hot spot. I found a research paper written by Sherwood and Nishant(2015) that argues otherwise. This is well over my head, but I'm wondering if Phil has a response to this. http://iopscience.io.../054007/article


When did I say that? I'd like to see a quote, if you don't mind.

Generally, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on radiosonde analysis when it's contradicted by every satellite dataset in existence. Not to mention the larger uncertainty potential.

You have to spatially homogenize the data even after correcting for any errors in the sondes themselves initially. The you need to aggregate the domainal fractions and put together a 3D structure profile with a large grid size. It's risky and inferior to the widespread, cross-checked satellite analysis:
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18
Snowfall: 6.7”
Largest Snowfall: 3.4”
Number of winter events: 7
Coldest High: 17.2*F
Coldest Low: 2.8*F
Lowest Dewpoint: -6.7*F
Highest Sustained Wind: 37mph
Highest wind gust: 54mph

#226
Chris

Posted 26 May 2015 - 04:51 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1158 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

When did I say that? I'd like to see a quote, if you don't mind.

Generally, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on radiosonde analysis when it's contradicted by every satellite dataset in existence. Not to mention the larger uncertainty potential.

You have to spatially homogenize the data even after correcting for any errors in the sondes themselves initially. The you need to aggregate the domainal fractions and put together a 3D structure profile with a large grid size. It's risky and inferior to the widespread, cross-checked satellite analysis:

 

I thought of sondes as an outdated technology for these purposes.  Adjusting for time of day and exact location must be a bitch.  The error bars have to be at least as big as the satellites'



#227
Phil

Posted 26 May 2015 - 09:36 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16603 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I thought of sondes as an outdated technology for these purposes. Adjusting for time of day and exact location must be a *****. The error bars have to be at least as big as the satellites'


They're bigger than those of the satellites. The Sherwood study claims otherwise, but their reasoning appears to be circular and defies logic. Dr. Spencer already has a post up on his blog regarding the Sherwood paper.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18
Snowfall: 6.7”
Largest Snowfall: 3.4”
Number of winter events: 7
Coldest High: 17.2*F
Coldest Low: 2.8*F
Lowest Dewpoint: -6.7*F
Highest Sustained Wind: 37mph
Highest wind gust: 54mph

#228
tbone8

Posted 28 May 2015 - 03:35 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
The Age Of Disinformation

I have been a professional meteorologist for 36 years. Since my debut on television in 1979, I have been an eyewitness to the many changes in technology, society, and how we communicate. I am one who embraces change, and celebrates the higher quality of life we enjoy now thanks to this progress.

But, at the same time, I realize the instant communication platforms we enjoy now do have some negatives that are troubling. Just a few examples in recent days…

I would say hundreds of people have sent this image to me over the past 24 hours via social media.

1*QdYNLeAMSBIQUrKTfiwI3w.jpeg

Comments are attached… like “This is a cloud never seen before in the U.S.”… “can’t you see this is due to government manipulation of the weather from chemtrails”… “no doubt this is a sign of the end of the age”.

Let’s get real. This is a lenticular cloud. They have always been around, and quite frankly aren’t that unusual (although it is an anomaly to see one away from a mountain range). The one thing that is different today is that almost everyone has a camera phone, and almost everyone shares pictures of weather events. You didn’t see these often in earlier decades because technology didn’t allow it. Lenticular clouds are nothing new. But, yes, they are cool to see.

No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis.

The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.

Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.

But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison. In fact, many circulated this image in recent days, claiming it is “Houston underwater” from the flooding of May 25–26, 2015. The truth is that this image was captured in June 2001 during flooding from Allison.

1*-dr-7cTjwk-CZB3ImtdYDg.jpeg

Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.

On the other issue, the entire climate change situation has become politicized, which I hate. Those on the right, and those on the left hang out in “echo chambers”, listening to those with similar world views refusing to believe anything else could be true.

Everyone knows the climate is changing; it always has, and always will. I do not know of a single “climate denier”. I am still waiting to meet one.

The debate involves the anthropogenic impact, and this is not why I am writing this piece. Let’s just say the Houston flood this week is weather, and not climate, and leave it at that.

I do encourage you to listen to the opposing point of view in the climate debate, but be sure the person you hear admits they can be wrong, and has no financial interest in the issue. Unfortunately, those kind of qualified people are very hard to find these days. It is also hard to find people that discss climate without using the words “neocon” and “libtard”. I honestly can’t stand politics; it is tearing this nation apart.

Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.

You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…

 


  • Tom likes this

#229
richard mann

Posted 28 May 2015 - 08:13 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-
"The Age Of Disinformation" .. Same old, same old. (huh. ?) This the idea. ? .. "These guys .." whoever says something that you don't want to consider as having any value, are perpetuating an age of general disinformation. (Beyond Climate Change with you, I'd bet cash money.)

Your "assertion" or some dope you heard say it "tbone8". ? (Never mind. Don't care.)

Clever, whichever. (Get a big bass drum. And beat it. As in "Trumpet" this sh*t, somewhere else. How is it "discussion" worthy. ?)

 

.. Look for "like-minded" people, somewhere else.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#230
tbone8

Posted 02 June 2015 - 05:09 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
1:45 PM, Jun 2, 2015 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
 

Writing in the Washington Post, Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, offered a curious suggestion for dealing with global warming skeptics:

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: “Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.”

 
 

The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking. ... The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.
The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.

To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.

That's right -- a sitting U.S. Senator is suggesting using RICO laws should be applied to global warming skeptics. Courts have been defining RICO down for some time and in ways that aren't particularly helpful. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled RICO statutes could be applied to pro-life activists on the grounds that interstate commerce can be affected even when the organization being targeted doesn't have economic motives. 


Obviously, there's a lot of money hanging in the balance with regard to energy policy. But when does coordinating "a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts" go from basic First Amendment expression to racketeering? The tobacco analogy is inappropriate in regards to how direct the link between smoking and cancer is. Even among those who do agree that global warming is a problem, there's a tremendously wide variety of opinions about the practical effects. Who gets to decide whether someone is "downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change" relative to the consensus? If message coordination and lobbying on controversial scientific and political issues can be declared racketeering because the people funding such efforts have a financial interest in a predetermined outcome, we're just going to have to outlaw everything that goes on in Washington, D.C.

 



#231
richard mann

Posted 02 June 2015 - 08:39 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Here's "one", for ya "tbone."
 
Right up your alley. Enjoy it with an hot cup of Koco, perhaps.
 


With a special emphasis on .. "you".


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#232
tbone8

Posted 04 June 2015 - 05:40 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’
 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”



#233
richard mann

Posted 04 June 2015 - 06:18 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Great Minds think ... (I forget the rest.)

 

Time for some mousetraps.  (Huh. ?)

 

... "Gi ... imme, .. tha..at, Shotgun. I'llgetthoseRatsout frombehindthat, stove.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#234
richard mann

Posted 04 June 2015 - 06:20 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”
NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.
“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”
Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.
NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.
But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”
“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.
“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”


.. I read it on the internet.

 

(Tell your Mama.)

 

... Can anything be done about this guy's, wall-papering this thread with whatever he can dig up in line with the idea of more simply working to trash the credibility of anyone not having adopted that that "Global Warming" is a big "HOAX". .... ? .. Or an idea put together and "drummed" up for whatever reason less than more generally credible.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#235
richard mann

Posted 09 June 2015 - 03:27 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-
http://berkeleyearth.org/

Berkeley Earth was created to address potential biases in the land surface temperature record. We are now expanding scientific investigations, educating and communicating about climate change, and evaluating mitigation efforts in developing and developed economies.

Berkeley Earth has now posted new analyses and graphics on the changing range of seasonal temperatures, permafrost melt, GCMs and the regional amplification of global warming, model responses to greenhouse gases, checking GCMs against 20th century data, and global energy and emissions.

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/787-global-warming-discussion-is-it-a-hoax/?p=78732


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#236
tbone8

Posted 12 June 2015 - 06:27 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Another lunatic prediction bites the dust...

 

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
By Scott Whitlock | June 12, 2015 | 7:30 AM EDT

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12,  2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.) 

On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015." 

As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles." 

Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, "I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?" 

Ultimately, ABC delayed the air-date for Earth 2100 and the one-hour show didn't debut until June 2, 2009. The program showcased the terrible impact of global warming from 2015 through 2100. In the special, a "storm of the century" wiped out Miami. Other highlights included a destroyed New York City and an abandoned Las Vegas. By 2084, Earth's population will apparently be just 2.7 billion. 

On June 13, 2008, ABCNews.com promoted the special by hyperventilating, "Are we living in the last century of our civilization?" Unlike the 2015 predictions, that suggestion hasn't (yet) been proven wrong.

Seven years later, the network has quietly ignored its horribly inaccurate predictions about 2015. When it comes to global warming claims, apparently results don't matter for ABC.  

A partial transcript of the June 12, 2008 GMA segment is below:

 

GMA
6/12/08
8:34am

CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called "Earth 2100." We're asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don't save our troubled planet. Your reports will actually help form the backbone of a two-hour special airing this fall. ABC's Bob Woodruff will be the host. He joins us now. Pleasure, Bob. 

BOB WOODRUFF: You too, Chris. You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015. 

[NOTE: ABC provides no graphics or identification for any of the following individuals/activists featured. Identifications taken discerned from web article.]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE #1: The public is sleepwalking into the future. You know, sort of going through the motions of daily life and really not paying attention. 

JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we're not doing it. 

 [Graphic: Welcome to 2015]

PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we've still failed to address the climate problem. 

JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We're going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires. 

UNIDENTIFIED "REPORTER:" Flames cover hundreds of square miles. 

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE #5: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don't know really know where the end is. 

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #2: Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #3: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are 
rising. 

HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There's about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows. 

...

CUOMO: I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad? 

WOODRUFF: It's very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you've got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You've got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we're approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it. 

...

WOODRUFF: But the best of these regular reports that come from people that are watching, we're going to put those on, all of this on our two-hour production that's going to happen in the fall. And we just want more of these people to watch. And we've gotten already some remarkable interviews from these people. And just take a quick look. 

UNIDENTIFIED TEENAGER: It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99. 

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas reached over $9 a gallon. 

THIRD UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm scared [bleeped] right now, but I have to get this out. 

WOODRUFF: So the producers actually work with those people that send in their ideas into the website. And then we're just hoping that the goal is ultimately get these ideas very soon. 

CUOMO: Lovely. Bob Woodruff. Thank you very much. You can find out much more about how you can be part of this exciting and important show. You can go to Earth2100.tv. Earth2100.tv or you can go to ABCNews.com.

 

 



#237
richard mann

Posted 12 June 2015 - 11:11 AM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

No "name calling" here "tbone". @

And before reeling out your next few feet of "wall-paper" tacked into this thread toward working to illustrate your fairly obvious and if more basic (and fairly plain) agenda for us all tuned into it hereeven those more interested in actually discussing the theme (?), ...

.. Perhaps you may benefit (I'm thinking, if with some amount of pause.) from and with checking the perspective following accessible here just below.

Richard Muller's more basic academic scrutiny

NACW 2013: Keynote Address by Dr. Richard Muller, UC Berkeley:  How to Convert a Climate Skeptic

 Mark the .. with some amount of pause .. idea of mine inserted more parenthetically here above.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#238
tbone8

Posted 12 June 2015 - 05:30 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Polar Bears Seen Eating Dolphins For The First Time As Seal Habitat Melts Away
The Huffington Post  |  By Ryan Grenoble
For the first time ever, researchers have documented polar bears preying on and eating dolphins.

Scientists in the Norwegian High Arctic witnessed an adult male polar bear prey on two white-beaked dolphins in mid-April of 2014, eating one of the animals, then covering the other dolphin with snow, likely saving it for later. Some of the graphic photos taken by the researchers can be seen below.

The researchers documented their findings in the June 1 issue of Polar Research, remarking that, in the following ice-free summer and fall, they discovered at least seven other dolphin carcasses believed to have been scavenged on by six different polar bears.

 

"It is likely that new species are appearing in the diet of polar bears due to climate change because new species are finding their way north," Jon Aars, one of the researchers at the Norwegian Polar Institute, told AFP.

Aars speculated a pod of dolphins ventured into the Arctic, lured by warm water and retreating ice, then got stuck when strong winds blew ice on top of them. The first polar bear likely caught the two dolphins when they surfaced to breathe through a small hole in the ice.

 

As the ice retreats, so has the availability of seals, which constitute much of a polar bears' standard diet. In the absence of seals, they'll eat anything they can get their paws on, says Ian Stirling of the University of Alberta in Canada.

"They will eat any marine mammal given a chance," Stirling told New Scientist. "The bigger surprise was that the dolphins were entrapped before they could migrate south for the winter."



#239
richard mann

Posted 12 June 2015 - 05:44 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

"Good find, Dude." ....
 
(And, .. Never-mind. @)


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#240
Chris

Posted 18 June 2015 - 02:26 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1158 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

NOAA says May 2015 was the warmest on record.

 

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. March–May and the year-to-date (January–May) globally averaged temperature were also record high.

Global highlights: May 2015
201505.gif?thumb

May 2015 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
May 2015 Blended Land & Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in °C
  • During May, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.57°F (0.87°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for May in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year in 2014 by 0.14°F (0.08°C).

https://www.ncdc.noa...o/global/201505



#241
tbone8

Posted 19 June 2015 - 06:40 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist Jun 23, 2010 by Lin Edwards report
professorfra.jpg
Professor Frank Fenner

(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.

 

Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year.

Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.

worldpopulat.gif
World population growth chart.

Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”

Easter Island is famous for its massive stone statues. Polynesian people settled there, in what was then a pristine tropical island, around the middle of the first millennium AD. The population grew slowly at first and then exploded. As the population grew the forests were wiped out and all the tree animals became extinct, both with devastating consequences. After about 1600 the civilization began to collapse, and had virtually disappeared by the mid-19th century. Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond said the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.”

While many scientists are also pessimistic, others are more optimistic. Among the latter is a colleague of Professor Fenner, retired professor Stephen Boyden, who said he still hopes awareness of the problems will rise and the required revolutionary changes will be made to achieve ecological sustainability. “While there's a glimmer of hope, it's worth working to solve the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don't have the political will,” Boyden said.

 

Fenner, 95, is the author or co-author of 22 books and 290 scientific papers and book chapters. His announcement in 1980 to the World Health Assembly that smallpox had been eradicated is still seen as one of the World Health Organisation’s greatest achievements. He has also been heavily involved in controlling Australia’s feral rabbit population with the myxomatosis virus.

Professor Fenner has had a lifetime interest in the environment, and from 1973 to 1979 was Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at ANU. He is currently a visiting fellow at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the university, and is a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. He has won numerous awards including the ANZAC Peace Prize, the WHO Medal, and the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. He was awarded an MBE for his work on control of malaria in New Guinea during the Second World War, in which Fenner served in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps.

Professor Fenner will open the Healthy Climate, Planet and People symposium at the Australian Academy of Science next week.



#242
Black Hole

Posted 19 June 2015 - 08:38 AM

Black Hole

    Daily Contributor

  • Admin
  • 1344 posts
  • LocationBountiful, Ut 84010 ~4575ft

El nino will spike global temperatures this year, so perhaps a pause to the pause?


BS Atmospheric Science University of Utah May 2015

PhD Candidate Atmospheric Sciences

 

--Emphasis on: Forecasting, Mountain Weather, Numerical Weather Prediction, Data Assimilation

 

Winter 2017/2018

Dec 4: 3.2", 16: 0.9", 20: 2.1", 23: 1.5", 25: 4.6"

Jan 6: 1.5"

Total: 13.8"

 

 

Winter 2016/17 Snow:
Nov 17: 3.2", 23: 1.6", 28: 9.2" (14)

Dec 1: .5", 16: 2.5", 25: 13" (16)

Jan 2: 5", 3: 2.4", 4: 7.7", 12: 1", 19: 1.2", 21: 13", 23: 6", 24: 1", 25: 3.7", 26: 2.5" (43.5) 

Feb 11: .5", 23: 6.5", 27: 4.5" (13.5)

Mar 5: 5.5" (5.5)

Apr 8: 2", 9: 1.8" (3.8)

May 17: 1" (1)
Total: 96.3"

Lowest Temp: 2F


#243
tbone8

Posted 19 June 2015 - 08:45 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Earth 'entering new extinction phase' - US study

Climate change and deforestation are among the reasons we may be facing an extinction event

The Earth has entered a new period of extinction, a study by three US universities has concluded, and humans could be among the first casualties.

The report, led by the universities of Stanford, Princeton and Berkeley, said vertebrates were disappearing at a rate 114 times faster than normal.

The findings echo those in a report published by Duke University last year.

One of the new study's authors said: "We are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event."

The last such event was 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs were wiped out, in all likelihood by a large meteor hitting Earth.

"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover and our species itself would likely disappear early on," said the lead author, Gerardo Ceballos.

The scientists looked at historic rates of extinction for vertebrates - animals with backbones - by assessing fossil records.

They found that the current extinction rate was more than 100 times higher than in periods when Earth was not going through a mass extinction event.

Since 1900, the report says, more than 400 more vertebrates had disappeared.

Such a loss would normally be seen over a period of up to 10,000 years, the scientists say.

The study - published in the Science Advances journal - cites causes such as climate change, pollution and deforestation.

Given the knock-on effect of ecosystems being destroyed, the report says benefits such as pollination by bees could be lost within three human generations.

Extinction may be more gradual than when the dinosaurs died, the report says

Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich said: "There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead.

"We are sawing off the limb that we are sitting on."

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) says at least 50 animals move closer to extinction every year.

Around 41% of all amphibians and 25% of mammals are threatened with extinction, it says.

    Most at risk: the lemur

According to the IUCN, the lemur faces a real struggle to avoid extinction in the wild in the coming years.

The group says that 94% of all lemurs are under threat, with more than a fifth of all lemur species classed as "critically endangered".

As well as seeing their habitat in Madagascar destroyed by illegal logging, lemurs are also regularly hunted for their meat, the IUCN says.

What were the five mass extinction events?

 

Last year, a report by Stuart Pimm, a biologist and extinction expert at Duke University in North Carolina, also warned mankind was entering a sixth mass extinction event.

But Mr Pimm's report said the current rate of extinction was more than 1,000 times faster than in the past, not 114, as the new report claims.

The new report's authors said it was still possible to avoid a "dramatic decay of biodiversity" through intensive conservation, but that rapid action was needed.



#244
richard mann

Posted 20 June 2015 - 01:54 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. "Some body's" (?) trippin'.

(Keep at it, "t.." ... Maybe save some money and ... Make some of your own .)

 

 .. Of a bit more substance. ....
 
>  http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=79092


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#245
tbone8

Posted 29 June 2015 - 05:42 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Wow, I am impressed. We can now apparently limit the amount of warming. Why don't we stop killer tornadoes and hurricanes???

 

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - Robert Redford told the United Nations on Monday that negotiations on a global deal to tackle climate change could be the world's "last chance" to save the planet.

 

"This December, the world must unite behind a common goal," said the American actor and producer.

"Because look, this is it. This is our only planet, our only life source.

"This may be our last chance."

World governments will try to forge a new global accord to address climate change at a UN climate conference in Paris in December, with both developed and developing countries committing to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The landmark agreement would limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (two degrees Celsius) from pre-industrial revolution levels as of 2020.

"We are all responsible for this crisis," Redford told the gathering. "Your mission is as simple as it is daunting: save the world before it's too late."

Redford pointed to global warming fueling extreme weather such as the deadly heatwaves in India and Pakistan that have claimed thousands of lives.

"Everywhere we look, moderate weather seems to be going extinct," said Redford, who starred in such classic films as "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and founded the Sundance Film Festival.

"Unless we move quickly away from fossil fuels, we're going to destroy the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the health of our children, grandchildren and future generations."

Redford told the gathering that he was an "actor by trade" but an "activist by nature" and that his convictions on the need for action to save the environment had grown over the past 40 years.

The 78-year-old celebrity recalled that he had invited mayors from key cities to Sundance to galvanize action to stop global warming and that the local leaders were ready "for action now."

Redford urged world governments to "assume a leading role" to combat climate change at the Paris conference, adding that the "citizens of the world will be watching."



#246
richard mann

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:53 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Where should we start. ? 
 
Do ya think. ? .. "tbone." (?)
 
One order of Vichyssoise, please thanks waiter.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#247
Chris

Posted 21 September 2015 - 01:03 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1158 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

NOAA said this was the warmest August and the warmest January - August on record.

 

"The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was the warmest August on record, 1.58°F (0.88°C) warmer than the 20th century average, and surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 0.16°F (0.09°C).....The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.18°F (0.10°C)."

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa...o/global/201508

 

The troposphere is only starting to respond.

 

last_2015.png



#248
Andie

Posted 01 October 2015 - 01:50 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1624 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
It would appear Canada didn't get the message regarding GW and the expected melt.
The North West Passage remain impassable this summer.

http://www.sott.net/...egular-shipping

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#249
Andie

Posted 06 October 2015 - 05:40 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1624 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
Big Brother UN is about to create a massive global affect on all of our lives. We shouldn't underestimate the impact that their heavy handed "science" will have on industry and productivity, as well as prices for materials and energy.
-------------------------------------

UN battle looms over finance as nations submit climate plans

"I am telling the world that the bill for climate action for the world is not just $100bn, it is in trillions of dollars per year."
Prakash Javadekar, India's environment minister

http://www.bbc.com/n...onment-34412647

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.


#250
Andie

Posted 12 October 2015 - 11:16 AM

Andie

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1624 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in North Texas
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

http://www.ntnews.co...s-1227555674611

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, solar, co2, agw, ice age