Extreme weather and climate change: a new IPCC report

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 03:48 PM GMT am 18. November 2011

Share this Blog
35
+

Extreme weather events are already being affected by human-caused climate change, and will increase in destructive power during the coming decades as huge cost, reported the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today. The IPCC issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, concern over the possible impact climate change may already be having on extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, and droughts prompted the IPCC to release their first-ever Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX report was divided into two sections: how human-caused climate change has already affected extreme weather events, and predictions on how these events will change during the rest of the century. Here are some highlights on how the climate has already changed, according to the SREX report:

- Globally, cold days and nights have decreased, and warm days and nights have increased (90 - 100% chance).

- In many but not all regions of the globe, the length or number of heat waves has increased.

- Some areas have seen more intense and longer droughts, in particular, southern Europe and West Africa. However, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter in some areas, such as central North America and northwestern Australia.

- Heavy precipitation events have changed in some regions. There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that more regions have seen increases than decreases in heavy precipitation events.

- The historical data base on hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not good enough to tell if they have changed.

- The jet stream has shifted towards the poles, meaning that the tracks of rain-bearing low pressure systems have also shifted towards the poles.

- Rising sea levels have led to an increase in extreme coastal flooding events (66 - 100% chance).

- Damage from extreme weather events has increased. Increases in population and wealth, and the fact more people are living in vulnerable areas, is a major cause of this increase in damage. It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage.


Figure 1. Predicted return periods for 1-day extreme precipitation events that occurred, on average, only once every 20 years between 1981-2000. A decrease in return period implies more frequent extreme precipitation events (i.e., less time between events on average). For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century, according to these climate model predictions. The box plots show results for regionally averaged projections for two time horizons, 2046 to 2065 and 2081 to 2100, as compared to the late-20th-century, and for three different emissions scenarios--a scenario where humans emit relatively little CO2 and other heat-trapping gasses (B1, blue bars), and two higher-emission scenarios (A1B and A2, green and red bars). Humanity is currently on a pace to emit more CO2 than the highest emission scenario shown here. Results are based on 14 climate models that contributed to the 2007 IPCC report. The level of agreement among the models is indicated by the size of the colored boxes (in which 50% of the model projections are contained), and the length of the whiskers (indicating the maximum and minimum projections from all models). Values are computed for land points only. The “Globe” inset box displays the values computed using all land grid points. Averaged over all areas of the globe, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-8 to 1-in-12 year event by the end of the century. Image credit: The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX), 2011.

Here are some highlights of the forecasts for the future from the 2011 SREX report:

- A 1-in-20 year hottest day is at least 66% likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event.

- For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century.

- For Eastern North America, a maximum high temperature that occurred only once every 20 years during 1980 - 2000 is predicted to occur between once every three years and once per year by 2100.

- Extreme high temperature readings that occur once every 20 years will increase by 1°C to 3°C (1.8°F - 5.4°F) by mid-21st century and by about 2°C to 5°C (3.6°F - 9°F) by late-21st century.

- It is at least 66% likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes. There is medium confidence that, in some regions, increases in heavy precipitation will occur despite projected decreases of total precipitation in those regions.

- Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are at least 66% likely to increase with continued warming, and the maximum winds will increase. The total number of these storms is likely to remain about the same or decrease.

- There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas. Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, Central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa are at particular risk.

- In some regions, the main driver for increased damages from extreme weather events will not be climate change, but increases in population and wealth and vulnerability.

Intoducing climatecommunication.org
For those of you seeking detailed information on the research linking extreme weather events to climate change, I recommend a new website dedicated to improving communication of climate change information to the public, media, and policy makers, climatecommunication.org. The group is led by Susan Joy Hassol, a veteran climate change communicator, analyst, and author known for her ability to translate science into English, making complex issues accessible to policymakers and the public. Climatecommunication.org has put together an overview of extreme weather and climate change that I find a helpful resource when I am looking for the latest research results on the subject. I serve on their advisory board, along with a number of leading climate scientists.


Figure 2. Still image of the Bangkok, Thailand floods of October - November, 2011, as seen on the inaugural episode our new bi-monthly Extreme Weather video series.

Wunderground launches new Extreme Weather video series
Wunderground now features a new, twice-monthly Extreme Weather video series from GREEN.TV, with the latest reports and analysis on extreme weather around the world. From droughts to hurricanes to blizzards to flooding, Extreme Weather will cover the story and the science behind the events to try to understand their causes and consequences. The Extreme Weather series is sponsored by Vestas, the world's leading wind turbine manufacturer. The inaugural episode, launched yesterday, features video of the great Thailand flood, destructive floods in Italy, the $3 billion Northeast U.S. snowstorm of October 29 - 30, the massive Bering Sea, Alaska blizzard of November 9, the Texas drought, and the launch of a new polar-orbiting weather satellite. Look for a new video every two weeks on our Climate Change Videos page.

Resources
For those of you who haven't seen it, my top "must-read" post of 2011 is called, 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?. Back in June, I went through the ridiculous barrage of extreme weather events the planet saw in 2010 and early 2011, and concluded: But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.

Wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, has some thoughtful observations on the communication of the extreme weather/climate change link published in earthzine magazine titled, Changing the Media Discussion on Climate Change and Extreme Weather.

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: 362 - 312

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

362. j2008
Quoting NCHurricane2009:
Looks like the E-pac is getting attention....

Can someone answer if the disturbance in the Central Atlantic was Invest 90-L? I thought I saw it being declared yesterday afternoon...now its not declared as an Invest....

I highly doubt that it was labled, I dont think they have found a COC/LLC anywhere in the blob that is sustaining convection and is worthy of an invest lable. IMO it shouldnt be to much longer till we get one though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Let's discuss the Spencer chart you posted that shows the CERES measurements vs. various IPCC climate model.

In the chart below, you'll note that Spencer chose to highlight only that particular data set that strayed farthest from the model data (blue line) while ignoring the other observed data (in red).


Well this is a compelte misrepresentation.

In his intitial analysis, Spencer used the least sensitive climate models, and the most sensitive climate models, so it is not cherry picking in any given way.

He subsequently showed all of the runs from the 14 models that he used to show the mean of the models VS. Observations, which is what I posted to PREVENT accusations of cherry picking...

Oh well.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Looks like the E-pac is getting attention....

Can someone answer if the disturbance in the Central Atlantic was Invest 90-L? I thought I saw it being declared yesterday afternoon...now its not declared as an Invest....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
Right, and that's according to your one climate scientist. I have evidence from hundreds of climate scientists who come together and meet at the IPCC and report the following




When it comes to who I should trust more, it's really not even a decision for me. Do realize that I'm not saying that the majority of our current warming was due to CO2, nor do I stand by the IPCC's climate models. My point is we have been warming and we have been responsible for some of the warming. There is no denying that statement.


Hello TomTaylor,

I haven't debated you with this issue in quite a bit of a while :)

There is definite uncertainty regarding the feedbacks surrounding a doubling of CO2, but I have changed by stance slightly since we last debated.

There are negative feedbacks that exist within Earth's Climate, but they are not enough to cancel the effect that CO2 has. They significantly reduce the effect, however.

What you boxed was land use albedo changes. I am refering to the CLOUD albedo changes, which have added 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget.

The IPCC does not list the change in the Cloud Forcing as a radiative forcing under the natural section, because they think Clouds can only change if temperature goes up or down, because clouds have been decreasing while temperature has gone up.

I can understand them not listing Cloud Cover as a forcing because there is still much uncertainty that surrounds it, but saying it's a feedback because it has been decreasing while temperature has gone up is sort of silly. It could easily be the other way around, and the radiative flux changes observed by CERES confirms this.

The solar physicists associated with Project Earthshine have ruled out "us" as being the cause of the albedo decrease associated with decreasing Cloud Cover FYI.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
357. j2008
GFS develops 3 storms in the Atlantic now....... if this happens we might actually run the list out like we thought we would so many months ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Let me stop you there.

2. Just earlier you posted a link to research done by Dr. Spencer that included a model as a basis by which he somehow earth-shatteringly refuted all current known climate science.

Think long and hard about what you are claiming if you seriously wish to consider yourself a scientist or a true skeptic. I may have erroneously given you the benefit of the doubt as someone who was truly interested in discussing science in a rational way.


I'm talking about GCMs, which involve so many formulas being inputed into the model in order to get a relevant simulation, that you can't even count them. Calculating the feedback parameter is not at all Earth shattering, as it is shown as a simple equation on the Graph, nor is the change in the Cloud Forcing due to an external factor, which is what the graph's primary purpose was to show. Svensmark and Friis Christensen proposed this hypothesis in the early 1990s. Only recently, there has been more research being done on GCRs and their effect on climate.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
Yes, adding more Greenhouse Gases would get a warmer Earth if nothing else is changed, but I don't see how you can go from there to saying that the thickening of the Greenhouse Effect is responsible for all or most of the warming that occured in the late-20th Century. I have shown with observational evidence that the change in the Cloud Forcing has resulted in 7 w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe, compared to CO2 adding 1.4 w/m^2 since 1790 to Earth's Energy Budget. The cause of this change is due to an external factor such as the Solar AA Index inflicting changes upon GCRs rather than temperature.


Right, and that's according to your one climate scientist. I have evidence from hundreds of climate scientists who come together and meet at the IPCC and report the following




When it comes to who I should trust more, it's really not even a decision for me. Do realize that I'm not saying that the majority of our current warming was due to CO2, nor do I stand by the IPCC's climate models. My point is we have been warming and we have been responsible for some of the warming. There is no denying that statement.


Also, do you also realize that a change in surface and cloud albedo would most likely be the cause of human actions? Your scientists claim that it's the change in albedo causing most of the warming, but what is causing the change in albedo in the first place? The sun? Nope. Volcanoes? Nope. Must be humans.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


You probably should have looked into his analysis a bit more. It is not generally considered sound science, and disagrees with several other analyses on the topic.


I'm fairly aware that there are studies and scientists like Kevin Trenberth and Andrew Dessler who believe that positive feedbacks exist within Earth's Climate to help accelerate the warming. There are these multi-institutional study groups that have also found that there exist significant negative feedbacks in Earth's Climate System.

Just like you, I will post two links that support my argument, however, instead of blogs, I shall post the scientific peer reviewed literature on this subject.


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034032

Quote:

We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.

-----------

http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/VariationsV4N1 /BrethertonCPT.pdf

Quote:

The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2), at the low end of traditional AGCMs (e.g. Cess et al. 1996), but in accord with an analysis of 30- day SST/SST+2K climatologies from a global aquaplanet CRM run on the Earth Simulator (Miura et al. 2005). The conventional AGCMs differ greatly from each other but all have less negative net cloud forcings and correspondingly larger climate sensitivities than the
superparameterization. The coarse horizontal and vertical resolution of CAM3-SP means that it highly under-resolves the turbulent circulations that produce boundary layer clouds. Thus, one should interpret its predictions with caution. With this caveat, cloud feedbacks are arguably more naturally simulated by superparameterization than in conventional AGCMs [conventional climate models], suggesting a compelling need to better understand the differences between the results from these two approaches.

-------------


Quoting ScottLincoln:
He also has a tendency to lash out at those who show him wrong, sometimes claiming there is some sort of conspiracy against him for his religious beliefs.


Religious beliefs? What religious beliefs are you refering to?

Quoting ScottLincoln:

What then of all the other evidence? Decades of evidence showing the phsyical properties of greenhouse gases, dozens of analyses showing similar effect on climate due to changes in greenhouse gases, satellite measurements confirming the changes in the energy budget at the exact wavelengths that greenhouse gases emit, changes in atmospheric chemistry showing that the greenhouse gases came from human activities.


Yes, adding more Greenhouse Gases would get a warmer Earth if nothing else is changed, but I don't see how you can go from there to saying that the thickening of the Greenhouse Effect is responsible for all or most of the warming that occured in the late-20th Century. I have shown with observational evidence that the change in the Cloud Forcing has resulted in 7 w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe, compared to CO2 adding 1.4 w/m^2 since 1790 to Earth's Energy Budget. The cause of this change is due to an external factor such as the Solar AA Index inflicting changes upon GCRs rather than temperature.


Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Taz is from California? I thought he was from Tazmania. ;-)

I am from Texas. The Houston area.
lol yes he is. I think he's in the northern half of the state though. And nice, hope all is well in Texas...not too dry or hot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ameister12:
13E in the Atlantic. Lolwut?
You're looking at the Atlantic floater which is currently inactive. The Pacific floater for 13E shows 13E. IDK why the Atlantic floater also lists 13E though, someone messed up.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BASED ON HISTORICAL RECORDS...TROPICAL DEPRESSION THIRTEEN-E IS THE
LATEST-FORMING TROPICAL CYCLONE IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC BASIN
SINCE TROPICAL DEPRESSION TWENTY-TWO-E IN 1987...WHICH FORMED ON
NOVEMBER 24. IF IT BECOMES A TROPICAL STORM...IT WOULD BE THE
LATEST-FORMING NAMED STORM SINCE HURRICANE WINNIE IN 1983...WHICH
FORMED ON DECEMBER 4.

FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INIT 19/2100Z 10.0N 101.0W 30 KT 35 MPH
12H 20/0600Z 10.2N 102.5W 35 KT 40 MPH
24H 20/1800Z 10.9N 104.5W 40 KT 45 MPH
36H 21/0600Z 11.4N 106.8W 45 KT 50 MPH
48H 21/1800Z 11.6N 109.0W 50 KT 60 MPH
72H 22/1800Z 12.0N 113.0W 60 KT 70 MPH
96H 23/1800Z 12.5N 118.0W 65 KT 75 MPH
120H 24/1800Z 13.5N 122.5W 55 KT 65 MPH

TD 13 can make into the CP?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
13E in the Atlantic. Lolwut?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


Amazing that this could be true Huh....LOL
Yes, no kidding, the sun warms the planet. Incoming solar radiation (insolation) has not increased in the last 40 years, therefore it can't be responsible for the current warming.

Quoting Seastep:


How convenient.
indeed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drusafa:

“This shows the depth of our ignorance of this subject,” says Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of the GWPF.

GWPF - The most error-ridden web page about climate change
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
TROPICAL DEPRESSION THIRTEEN-E DISCUSSION NUMBER 1
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL EP132011
100 PM PST SAT NOV 19 2011

THE LOW-LEVEL CENTER OF THE AREA OF LOW PRESSURE SOUTH OF THE
MEXICAN COAST HAS BECOME BETTER DEFINED DURING THE DAY...AND A 1645
UTC ASCAT PASS INDICATES THAT THE SYSTEM IS PRODUCING WINDS OF AT
LEAST 30 KT. IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THE ASSOCIATED CONVECTION IS
NOT ALL THAT INTENSE...BUT IT IS JUST DEEP AND ORGANIZED ENOUGH FOR
SAB AND TAFB TO PROVIDE DVORAK ESTIMATES OF 25 AND 30 KT...
RESPECTIVELY. THE SYSTEM IS THEREFORE BEING DESIGNATED AS A
TROPICAL DEPRESSION WITH AN INTENSITY OF 30 KT.

THE DEPRESSION IS CURRENTLY LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF A MID-LEVEL
RIDGE THAT EXTENDS FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN GULF OF MEXICO
WEST-SOUTHWESTWARD ACROSS SOUTHERN MEXICO...AND IT HAS AN INITIAL
MOTION OF 280/10 KT. AS WOULD BE EXPECTED FOR NOVEMBER...A BROAD
BUT DEEP MID/UPPER-LEVEL TROUGH EXTENDS WEST OF THE U.S./MEXICAN
COAST TO ABOUT 140W WITH THE MID-LATITUDE WESTERLIES EXTENDING DOWN
TO 16N. EVEN THOUGH A VIGOROUS CLOSED MID-LEVEL LOW IS EXPECTED TO
DIG SOUTHWARD ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF
DAYS...THE SUBTROPICAL RIDGE IS EXPECTED TO BUILD AND EXPAND
WESTWARD AT THE SAME TIME. THIS SHOULD INDUCE THE DEPRESSION ON A
WEST TO WEST-NORTHWESTWARD COURSE WITH A NEARLY CONSTANT FORWARD
SPEED THROUGH THE NEXT FIVE DAYS. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
HWRF...WHICH SHOWS A MORE POLEWARD MOTION BEYOND DAY 3...THE TRACK
GUIDANCE IS TIGHTLY CLUSTERED...AND THE OFFICIAL FORECAST IS VERY
CLOSE TO THE MODEL CONSENSUS TVCE.

THE THERMODYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT NEAR THE DEPRESSION MAY NOT BE IDEAL
FOR CONVECTIVE DEVELOPMENT SINCE THE SYSTEM MOVED OVER COOL WATERS
AND THROUGH A REGION OF DRY AIR RESULTING FROM A GAP WIND EVENT
OVER THE GULF OF TEHUANTEPEC. HOWEVER...THE SYSTEM IS MOVING
TOWARDS A MORE CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT...AND DEEP CONVECTION SHOULD
BEGIN TO SLOWLY FILL IN OVER THE CIRCULATION. VERTICAL SHEAR IS
EXPECTED TO BE RELATIVELY LIGHT THROUGH THE FORECAST PERIOD...SO
STEADY STRENGTHENING IS EXPECTED. THERE IS SOME DIVERGENCE BETWEEN
THE SHIPS AND LGEM GUIDANCE BEYOND 24 HOURS...WITH THE SHIPS
SHOWING MORE AGGRESSIVE INTENSIFICATION. GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY IN
HOW MUCH THE THERMODYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT WILL IMPROVE...THE OFFICIAL
INTENSITY FORECAST LIES CLOSER TO THE LGEM MODEL.

BASED ON HISTORICAL RECORDS...TROPICAL DEPRESSION THIRTEEN-E IS THE
LATEST-FORMING TROPICAL CYCLONE IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC BASIN
SINCE TROPICAL DEPRESSION TWENTY-TWO-E IN 1987...WHICH FORMED ON
NOVEMBER 24. IF IT BECOMES A TROPICAL STORM...IT WOULD BE THE
LATEST-FORMING NAMED STORM SINCE HURRICANE WINNIE IN 1983...WHICH
FORMED ON DECEMBER 4.

FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INIT 19/2100Z 10.0N 101.0W 30 KT 35 MPH
12H 20/0600Z 10.2N 102.5W 35 KT 40 MPH
24H 20/1800Z 10.9N 104.5W 40 KT 45 MPH
36H 21/0600Z 11.4N 106.8W 45 KT 50 MPH
48H 21/1800Z 11.6N 109.0W 50 KT 60 MPH
72H 22/1800Z 12.0N 113.0W 60 KT 70 MPH
96H 23/1800Z 12.5N 118.0W 65 KT 75 MPH
120H 24/1800Z 13.5N 122.5W 55 KT 65 MPH

$$
FORECASTER BERG
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BULLETIN
TROPICAL DEPRESSION THIRTEEN-E ADVISORY NUMBER 1
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL EP132011
100 PM PST SAT NOV 19 2011

...RARE MID-NOVEMBER TROPICAL DEPRESSION FORMS IN THE EASTERN
PACIFIC...



SUMMARY OF 100 PM PST...2100 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...10.0N 101.0W
ABOUT 480 MI...775 KM S OF ACAPULCO MEXICO
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...35 MPH...55 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...W OR 280 DEGREES AT 12 MPH...19 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...1006 MB...29.71 INCHES

Expected to peak as a minimal Category 1 hurricane.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


I have been dying to talk to, and perhaps debate with an actual climate scientist onrom this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.
------------

Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_20 08.pdf


Quote:
In conclusion, a CR%u2013climate link seems to be a
plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
statistical studies and existing theoretical models.
----------



Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically you are saying an increase in surface albedo is causing a far greater warming affect than the CO2 warming?

Several things:

1. How can you say it is having a greater effect when it is unknown how much warming CO2 is responsible for and also unknown how much the albedo change is causing?

2. How can an increase in albedo warm the planet? More radiation being reflected back out to space would cool our planet if anything.

Here's a graphic from the IPCC showing the relative influences of different climate forcing factors. As you can see, the decrease in cloud cover which causes an increase in albedo, causes cooling, not warming.





3. A far more realistic solution for less cloud cover is that warmer global atmospheric temperatures have raised dew point levels making it harder for condensation to occur.

4. What is a GCR? You never explained that anywhere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonekid:
Beautiful picture of Hurricane Irene.

Quoting interstatelover7165:
This Irene?


No!! *sarcasm on*
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drusafa:
According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.

The IPCC report says:

“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”

“This shows the depth of our ignorance of this subject,” says Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of the GWPF. “Whilst it is always important to think about the future in the light of changes we observe to the Earth’s climate, in trying to draw conclusions so far ahead based on what we know, the IPCC scientists are speculating far beyond any reasonable scientific justification.”

Even making the questionable assumption that our computer models are good enough to predict what will happen in the future, for projected changes by the end of the 21st century, the uncertainties in those computer models, and the range of natural climatic variability, are far larger than any predicted human-influenced effects.


How convenient.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.

The IPCC report says:

“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”

“This shows the depth of our ignorance of this subject,” says Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of the GWPF. “Whilst it is always important to think about the future in the light of changes we observe to the Earth’s climate, in trying to draw conclusions so far ahead based on what we know, the IPCC scientists are speculating far beyond any reasonable scientific justification.”

Even making the questionable assumption that our computer models are good enough to predict what will happen in the future, for projected changes by the end of the 21st century, the uncertainties in those computer models, and the range of natural climatic variability, are far larger than any predicted human-influenced effects.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting interstatelover7165:
This Irene?

Yup.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting interstatelover7165:
This Irene?

Yes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


A good point, but it applies to other scientists as well. Most professors wont lose their jobs if they don't secure research funds. Pay for graduate students and new computers may be largely based on getting study funding, but most professors are not paid from those funds. Same way with most NOAA/NASA scientists. To suggest that they must agree with a particular conclusion to maintain their livelihood is a bit of an exaggeration, especially when compared to other sources of money/power influence.

Great point. Besides, given that a) climate scientists who support AGWT outnumber those who don't by better than 30 to 1, and b) those in that minority rake in large sums from organizations with a vested financial interested in maintaining the fossil-fuel paradigm as long as humanly possible, doesn't it stand to reason that any scientist unethical enough to lie in the first place to keep his relatively meager grant money coming in would certainly be unethical enough to sell his or her credibility to those prepared to offer so much more?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting cyclonekid:
Beautiful picture of Hurricane Irene.

This Irene?
Member Since: August 18, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 994
Beautiful picture of Hurricane Irene.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
Jeff Masters is not a grant funded scientist. He works for...and owns a substantial equity interest in...a private, for profit weather service. Which company is dependent, to some extent, upon cultivating and maintaining a sizable public audience...as well as goodwill and credibility with same.

So...please answer me this:

What possible benefit could accrue to him from presenting false or misleading information?


A good point, but it applies to other scientists as well. Most professors wont lose their jobs if they don't secure research funds. Pay for graduate students and new computers may be largely based on getting study funding, but most professors are not paid from those funds. Same way with most NOAA/NASA scientists. To suggest that they must agree with a particular conclusion to maintain their livelihood is a bit of an exaggeration, especially when compared to other sources of money/power influence.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3197
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Tropical Depression likely tonight, tomorrow morning at the very latest. If I were the National Hurricane Center, I'd classify it at 1:00 PM PST (4 PM EST):

19/1745 UTC 9.9N 100.5W T2.0/2.0 90E -- East Pacific

Bahaha.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
TD 13E
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:
Meanwhile, in the Eastern Pacific...

Tropical Depression likely tonight, tomorrow morning at the very latest. If I were the National Hurricane Center, I'd classify it at 1:00 PM PST (4 PM EST):

19/1745 UTC 9.9N 100.5W T2.0/2.0 90E -- East Pacific
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Several of the computer models (GFS, CMC, NGP some of them) say that the area of disturbed weather in the central Atlantic will organize into a tropical storm over the next few days, and move northward. Shortly thereafter, the storm will split in TWO, and become another tropical storm.

Sounds goofy.


That's interesting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Just designated a TD:

EP, 13, 2011111918, , BEST, 0, 98N, 1005W, 30, 1006, TD, 34, NEQ, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1011, 210, 60, 0, 0, E, 0, , 0, 0, THIRTEEN, M,


Would they issue a special advisory on this if they classify it that early?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:
Meanwhile, in the Eastern Pacific...

Just designated a TD:

EP, 13, 2011111918, , BEST, 0, 98N, 1005W, 30, 1006, TD, 34, NEQ, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1011, 210, 60, 0, 0, E, 0, , 0, 0, THIRTEEN, M,
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Meanwhile, in the Eastern Pacific...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see a lot of small swirls right on the edge of the convection:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:
Heck Dr. Masters post about the rising of water puts Tampa under water in 100years or so. I just gotta remind my wife to bury me on high ground so i don't float up and look like a stupid ass!

LOLOL!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A good send off for 2011, a two-fer.
Member Since: Juli 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128616
NOGAPS - Two storms:



GFS - Two storms:



CMC - Two storms:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Several of the computer models (GFS, CMC, NGP some of them) say that the area of disturbed weather in the central Atlantic will organize into a tropical storm over the next few days, and move northward. Shortly thereafter, the storm will split in TWO, and become another tropical storm.

Sounds goofy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
Jeff Masters is not a grant funded scientist. He works for...and owns a substantial equity interest in...a private, for profit weather service. Which company is dependent, to some extent, upon cultivating and maintaining a sizable public audience...as well as goodwill and credibility with same.

So...please answer me this:

What possible benefit could accrue to him from presenting false or misleading information?

Maybe you should ask Rupert Murdoch about it - that model seems to be working for him.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Rookie was correct when stating that OSHA recommends a maximum CO2 exposure of 1000 ppm--which can induce headaches, fatigue, and eye/throat irritation--while prohibiting exposures over 5000ppm.


Regardless, it is a silly argument in terms of atmospheric CO2.

And you know it, Nea. :)
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
10:00 AM PST Tropical Weather Outlook (TWO)
------------------------------------------------- -------

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1000 AM PST SAT NOV 19 2011

FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..

A LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM LOCATED ABOUT 475 MILES SOUTH OF ACAPULCO
MEXICO CONTINUES TO PRODUCE SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS...BUT THIS
ACTIVITY IS NOT YET CONCENTRATED NEAR THE CENTER OF CIRCULATION.
HOWEVER...THE CIRCULATION IS BECOMING BETTER DEFINED...AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS APPEAR CONDUCIVE FOR THE LOW TO DEVELOP
INTO A TROPICAL DEPRESSION OVER THE NEXT DAY OR SO. THIS SYSTEM
HAS A HIGH CHANCE...80 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE
DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS AS IT MOVES WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AT 10 TO 15
MPH.


ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER BERG
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1:00 PM EST Tropical Weather Outlook (TWO)
------------------------------------------------- -------

TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
100 PM EST SAT NOV 19 2011

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS OVER THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC OCEAN EXTENDING
APPROXIMATELY 800 TO 900 MILES EAST AND NORTHEAST OF THE
LEEWARD ISLANDS ARE PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH A SURFACE TROUGH
INTERACTING WITH AN UPPER-LEVEL LOW. THIS SYSTEM REMAINS POORLY
ORGANIZED...AND ONLY A SLOW DEVELOPMENT IS ANTICIPATED. THERE IS A
LOW CHANCE...20 PERCENT...OF SUBTROPICAL OR TROPICAL CYCLONE
FORMATION DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.


ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER AVILA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1:00 PM EST Tropical Weather Discussion (TWD)
------------------------------------------------- -------

TROPICAL WEATHER DISCUSSION
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
105 PM EST SAT NOV 19 2011

TROPICAL WEATHER DISCUSSION FOR NORTH AMERICA...CENTRAL
AMERICA...GULF OF MEXICO...CARIBBEAN SEA...NORTHERN SECTIONS OF
SOUTH AMERICA...AND ATLANTIC OCEAN TO THE AFRICAN COAST FROM THE
EQUATOR TO 32N. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS BASED ON SATELLITE
IMAGERY...WEATHER OBSERVATIONS...RADAR...AND METEOROLOGICAL
ANALYSIS.

BASED ON 1200 UTC SURFACE ANALYSIS AND SATELLITE IMAGERY THROUGH
1735 UTC.

...ITCZ/MONSOON TROUGH...

A SMALL PORTION OF THE MONSOON TROUGH CURVES THROUGH SRN SENEGAL
INTO THE ATLC ALONG 13N17W TO 10N20W. IMMEDIATELY TO ITS W...A
SURFACE TROUGH IS ANALYZED FROM 10N21W TO 5N22W. THE ITCZ STARTS
FROM 7N23W CONTINUING WESTWARD 5N30W 7N40W TO 5N46W. SCATTERED
SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS ARE FROM 2N-8N BETWEEN 16W-48W. THE
SURFACE TROUGH WILL CONTINUES TO TRACK WESTWARD EMBEDDED IN THE
ITCZ OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

...DISCUSSION...

GULF OF MEXICO...
THE WEATHER IS FAIRLY QUIET THIS AFTERNOON OVER A GREAT PORTION
OF THE BASIN WITH DRY ZONAL WESTERLY FLOW ALOFT ACROSS THE
ENTIRE GULF. THE ONLY TWO AREAS OF LOW LEVEL MOISTURE ARE NOTED
OVER THE FAR WRN AND NE CORNER WITH ISOLATED SHOWERS POSSIBLE W
OF 96W N OF 22N AND E OF 88W N OF 26N. A SURFACE RIDGE DOMINATES
THE REMAINDER OF THE GULF ANCHORED BY A 1034 MB HIGH OVER THE
WRN ATLC EXTENDING A RIDGE AXIS ACROSS NRN FLORIDA TO NEAR
TAMPICO MEXICO. THE SURFACE RIDGE WILL CONTINUE TO SHIFT E
MAINTAINING A TIGHT PRESSURE GRADIENT ACROSS E AND SE GULF
THROUGH THE WEEKEND AND SE RETURN FLOW OVER THE W GULF. A COLD
FRONT WILL MOVE OFF THE TEXAS COAST EARLY WED WITH CONVECTION.

CARIBBEAN SEA...
SCATTERED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS ARE OVER THE SW CARIBBEAN S
OF 14N W OF 75W...ASSOCIATED TO THE MONSOON TROUGH ANALYZED
ACROSS COSTA RICA INTO NRN COLOMBIA ALONG 10N84W 11N79W 10N74W.
THIS AREA OF CONVECTION IS EXPECTED DRIFT WESTWARD INTO ERN
NICARAGUA DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS. A SMALL AREA OF WEAK SHOWERS
REMAIN OVER THE NW BASIN FROM 18N-20N W OF 80W ASSOCIATED TO THE
DISSIPATED STATIONARY FRONT FROM YESTERDAY. ELSEWHERE ACROSS THE
BASIN...MOSTLY FAIR WEATHER IS OBSERVED ACROSS THE AREA ON
VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGERY WITH LOW-TOP ISOLATED SHOWERS DOTTING
THE BASIN MOVING ALONG WITH THE MODERATE TO FRESH TRADE WIND
FLOW. IN THE UPPER LEVELS...WEAK UPPER RIDGE COVERS MOST OF THE
CARIBBEAN W OF 70W...WHILE AN UPPER TROUGH OVER THE CENTRAL ATLC
EXTENDS OVER THE FAR E CARIBBEAN AND THE LESSER ANTILLES. MOSTLY
DRY STABLE AIR IS ACROSS THE AREA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME
MOIST TROPICAL AIR OVER THE SW CARIBBEAN ASSOCIATED TO THE
MONSOON TROUGH. FRESH TO STRONG NE TO E WINDS WILL PERSIST OVER
THE N CARIBBEAN AND N OF THE LEEWARDS INTO EARLY NEXT WEEK.

ATLANTIC OCEAN...
A BROAD UPPER LEVEL TROUGH COVERS THE WRN NORTH ATLC SUPPORTING
THE REMNANTS OF A WEAKENING STATIONARY FRONT THAT ENTERS THE
DISCUSSION AREA ALONG 32N58W TO 26N74W. NO SIGNIFICANT SHOWER
ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING IN THE VICINITY OF THE FRONT. A SURFACE
RIDGE IS W OF THE FRONT INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO ANCHORED BY A
1034 MB NEAR 39N63W. THE SAME UPPER LEVEL FEATURE SUPPORTS A
MORE VIGOROUS FRONTAL SYSTEM FARTHER EAST. THIS IS A COLD FRONT
EXTENDING SW ACROSS THE CENTRAL NORTH ATLC...BECOMING A SURFACE
TROUGH AS IT ENTERS OUR DISCUSSION AREA ALONG 31N51W TO 23N56W.
TO THE SOUTH OF THIS BOUNDARY...ANOTHER SURFACE TROUGH IS
ANALYZED FROM 22N53W ALONG 17N53W TO 11N55W. THIS TROUGH IS
SUPPORTED ALOFT BY AN ELONGATED UPPER LEVEL LOW EXTENDING S INTO
THE TROPICS. THIS UPPER LEVEL FEATURE IN PARTICULAR IS PROVIDING
STRONG DIFFLUENCE ALOFT...INFLUENCED BY A HIGHLY AMPLIFIED UPPER
RIDGE TO THE E OF THE UPPER LOW. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THESE
FEATURES IS GENERATING A N-S ELONGATED AREA OF SCATTERED SHOWERS
AND THUNDERSTORMS N OF 13N BETWEEN 45W-51W. THE REMAINDER OF THE
ERN ATLC IS DOMINATED BY A SURFACE RIDGE ANCHORED BY A 1028 MB
HIGH CENTERED NEAR 33N35W. THE CENTRAL ATLC SURFACE TROUGH WILL
REMAIN NEARLY STATIONARY BEFORE DEVELOPING A SURFACE LOW WITHIN
THE TROUGH WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS.


FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT
HTTP://WWW.HURRICANES.GOV/MARINE

$$

GARCIA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


First, OSHA is 5000ppm, and that is indoors where it is being artificially trapped.

Second, I had to go through this a few years ago with someone also. Stop the silliness.

Do you realize what the atmospheric ppm, as measured at Mauna Loa has to bee to get that kind of concentration on the ground?

It's silly to even discuss. It is not toxic unless you are a mountain climber. Period.

It is a colorless, odorless, harmless gas in that context.

Feel free to actually believe we can pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere for it actually to be toxic on the ground. But, that would be silly.

Rookie was correct when stating that OSHA recommends a maximum CO2 exposure of 1000 ppm--which can induce headaches, fatigue, and eye/throat irritation--while prohibiting exposures over 5000ppm.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Perhaps you may wish to rethink your statement? Your statement is not exactly correct.

"The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure."

Link

and

Link

and

Link

I agree that the amount of O2 present is a factor. Since carbon molecules combine with O2 molecules to form both CO and CO2, then O2 is being consumed to form the CO and CO2 molecules. Thus lowering the amount of O2, in the atmosphere.


First, OSHA is 5000ppm, and that is indoors where it is being artificially trapped.

Second, I had to go through this a few years ago with someone also. Stop the silliness.

Do you realize what the atmospheric ppm, as measured at Mauna Loa has to bee to get that kind of concentration on the ground?

It's silly to even discuss. It is not toxic unless you are a mountain climber. Period.

It is a colorless, odorless, harmless gas in that context.

Feel free to actually believe we can pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere for it actually to be toxic on the ground. But, that would be silly.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Here is the continuation of my post number 313

part 2,

On the opponents' side in this dangerous game stands the Climate itself, thousands of scientists from all over the world, and for example these scientific organizations and academies,

Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei - Italy, Academy of Science of South Africa, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Australian Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences United States of America, Polish Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Royal Irish Academy, Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Royal Society United Kingdom, Russian Academy of Sciences , The Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), Science Council of Japan, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), Australian Coral Reef Society, Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, European Geosciences Union, European Physical Society, National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members), Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), American Association of State Climatologists, US Geological Survey (USGS), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute - Ocean and Climate Change Institute, World Meteorological Organization, United Nations Environment Program, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences, International Council on Science, State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), American Astronomical Society, The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society, American Institute of Physics, Pew Center on Climate Change, World Wildlife Fund, Texas A&M - Department of Atmospheric Sciences Unanimous Endorsement of the IPCC

I think this "Age" will be named "The Age of Stupid" by the future generations.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I have read what you all have written and here is my contribution to the subject.

It seems that one can not post a long post (I have tried) so I have divided it into two parts. ;)

Part 1,

I find it very strange that many choose to turn its back on what the scientists say about this subject and the science that our entire history is based upon. The science which formed the basis for the physics and the chemistry we learnt in school. A science that, among other things, means that we can send people to space and give us our weather forecasts and made us aware of other planets in our solar system.

And yes, it is also true that this is about politics. It has always done but I think it is very sad that some people are so blind that they don't realize that this is also what we can call "a dangerous game with our planet" where one side in the game is made up of by a few scientists and politicians whose only politics is based on greed and the slogans "don't steal the Taxpayers money" and "this is a communist agenda"

A policy that allow scientists and politicians like Jim Inhofe, Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels willingly let themselves to be bribed by the oil industry to deny AGW. A policy which was the reason that Fred Singer underplayed the danger of the hole in the Ozone layer and defending the Tobacco Industry's views about smoking. A policy with no scientific merit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 362 - 312

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

Partly Cloudy
54 °F
Teils Wolkig