2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 05:22 PM GMT del 27 Gennaio 2012

Share this Blog
44
+

The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.

How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.


Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.


Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.

Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."

Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.

Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.

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: 183 - 133

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

Quoting washingtonian115:
I went out and brought myself a iPod 2 days ago.And I downloaded a few of my 80's albums on it and WOW talk about the sound qaulity you get!!!!.It sounds like the songs were digitally remastered and sounds like today's songs!!!!!!!


I dont have 1 of those:( but dont really need one....I got youtube lol. I always set the Bass Boost on to max. at 50Hz and 24db and set studio quality on. sound s nice. Enjoy your Ipod. xD
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
I'm sure GW is real, but even if not, considering how human beings act, you need to look no further than what became of the passenger pigeon. Nobody is going to do anything in a society who's only concern is "not in my backyard, let my neighbor deal with it" until its almost too late. When people start to spontaneously combust on the way into work when their AC goes out, then the boss might think, "Hmmmm, I'm losing productivity" time to move to Antarctica. I hope they don't tax me for preventing bad things there, It's much cheaper for someone else to pay later than for me to pay today"

I remember hearing something that spoke of these vain, intolerable, selfish acts before, I'm trying to remember who was saying it, I think it was coming from some wealthy weird religious conservative group, that were gathering in a square building with a pointy roof with a lower case t on top, there was a smooth talking guy there wearing a toga reading from a big book, he was saying something like this...

"There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt. But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand. As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.
And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind? All his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness."

"There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men:
A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease."

"In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him."

Naturally I was appalled, since this strange religious group was advocating common sense in regards to social welfare, class warfare and distribution of wealth and was failing in speaking out against all this GW hippy non-sense.
Member Since: Agosto 27, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 686
Quoting RTSplayer:


Perhaps not quite that bad, but basicly right.

With energy prices continuing the inevitable increase, and the MSRP of most automobiles always going up, and insurance always going up, automobiles are literally becoming economically impractical in many cases.

If Gasoline hits $8 to $10 per gallon one day, in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that's bye bye autos.

I don't know what people will do to commute to work, but then again, if you didn't spend 1/4th of your income paying for an auto and the fuel, insurance, and maintenance, then you wouldn't need to work so much.

Maybe people will just sleep at work and drive home once per week or something.


I doubt it.

Right now EVs are cheaper to own and operate over a 12 year vehicle lifetime than ICEVs.

($32,000 Nissan Leaf using $0.08/kWh electricity vs. $20,000 30MPG gasmobile burning $4/gallon gas. 12,000 annual miles. No EV subsidies.)

EVs are almost certain to be less expensive to purchase than ICEVs in a few years. That will make the EV cheaper to purchase and vastly cheaper to operate than a gasmobile. Maintenance for EVs will be much cheaper than ICEVs - no oil changes, fewer brake rebuilds, etc. Insurance costs will drop as collision avoidance systems are added.

And mileage ranges are fairly certain to increase. A 175 mile battery range with <20 minute 95% recharges makes for a 500 mile driving day with only two short stops.

(The battery used in the Honda FiT EV, Toshiba's SCiB lithium-ion battery, will 95% recharge in 18 minutes. And it has a 4,000 full cycle rating which makes it a 400,000+ mile battery. Better and cheaper batteries are in the pipeline.)

Get the price of EVs down a bit and ranges up 50% or so and it will be bye bye petroleum fueled cars.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Weather and climate have always had political ramifications...to not see that (whatever view ya take) is to miss a LOT of the picture...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:

If the SST's were around 100f then the effects on the coastal marine life would probably be devastating,as they would not have the ability to withstand that kind of temperature for long periods. We could spend quite a while looking at the models we could create for simulation but effectively a significant amount of coastal sea life would die or even become species extinct in certain area.
Fish would probably seek out deeper, cooler waters but they would also have trouble finding food and although some species can live for long periods without food, their food supply once dead would also cause a decline in fish. We can add all the etc's to this we want.
In additionto this, as the temperatures increase any pollutants on the shores and in the shallow waters would become more volatile, giving off more gases and reacting more easily with other compounds.
All in all 100f waters are probably not desirable.


Oh I wasn't implying that it wouldn't be a bad thing. I was referring specifically to the comment about inland heat waves and famine. It is a certainty that 100F SSTs in the Atlantic/Gulf would have negative impacts for marine life.
Member Since: Ottobre 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1558
Quoting Jedkins01:


But not everyone wants to use transit systems, I for one am one of them who does not want to. I would much rather pay an expensive price for an electric car.

There needs to be more progress in the electric car world. If they make an electric 4x4 pickup truck I'll be one of the first to get one, if I could ever afford one anyway.


Electric engines are incredibly powerful and very efficient, much more so than ICEs. The problem is the energy capacity and recharge rates of batteries.

If we could develop an efficient powerplant or battery to supply the electricity for hauling, you can bet you'd see electric 4x4.
Member Since: Ottobre 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1558
I went out and brought myself a iPod 2 days ago.And I downloaded a few of my 80's albums on it and WOW talk about the sound qaulity you get!!!!.It sounds like the songs were digitally remastered and sounds like today's songs!!!!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


So your solution to being a more inclusive forum is to dumb down the discussion to exclude science?

What do you people not get about how the changing climate is changing weather? Do you think if we somehow deny that the planet is rapidly warming then weather will continue as it did in the 20th Century?

(Perhaps it's time you went back to school. Science doesn't seem to be a taught subject at your kitchen table.)




oh and uh, nothing is rapidly warming. 0.5 degree in 60 years ISNT rapid xD
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Quoting BobWallace:


So your solution to being a more inclusive forum is to dumb down the discussion to exclude science?

What do you people not get about how the changing climate is changing weather? Do you think if we somehow deny that the planet is rapidly warming then weather will continue as it did in the 20th Century?

(Perhaps it's time you went back to school. Science doesn't seem to be a taught subject at your kitchen table.)




they must not have humor where you live. well they got it here in NC. you can have some humor if you want
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Quoting keywestdingding:
I'm not understanding the graph with the la nina and el nino. i thought that 2010 was an la nina year and 2009,2006 were el nino years?


2010 was a very strong el nino year, La Nina ended with a bang and gave Australia a flood of devastation
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For those hoping for a cool ending to January and a cooler start to February, it's not looking so good for you, at least not in the early stages. The following maps from HAMweather show low temperature anomalies forecast for the next five days across the continental U.S.:

Warm

Warm

Warm

Warm

Warm

And the CPC says the first week of February isn't looking like the winter wonderland some may still be waiting for:

Uh-oh

Some last night were talking of a deep shot of Arctic air near the middle/end of the month. That could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath at this point...
Member Since: novembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting SPLbeater:


:( another blogger forced away due to the political topic of the blog:(

You climate change airheads n politicians oughta be ashamed of urself!!

LOL


So your solution to being a more inclusive forum is to dumb down the discussion to exclude science?

What do you people not get about how the changing climate is changing weather? Do you think if we somehow deny that the planet is rapidly warming then weather will continue as it did in the 20th Century?

(Perhaps it's time you went back to school. Science doesn't seem to be a taught subject at your kitchen table.)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting keywestdingding:
I'm not understanding the graph with the la nina and el nino. i thought that 2010 was an la nina year and 2009,2006 were el nino years?


Has to do with how La Nina/El Nino is defined. The statement from the link Dr. Masters provided:


A La Niña (El Niño) year is defined here as occurring when the first three months of a calendar year meet the La Niña (El Niño) criteria as defined by the CPC.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Now, that's what I don't get.


It's called baby boomers and sandwich generation, two of the most evil (and uneducated) groups of people in history.

Have a 65 year-older family member (by marriage) who insists that the solution to CO2 pollution is to just burn it. LOL.

Yah got that? He says, "let's just burn all the smoke!"


Unfortunately, that's what you're dealing with.

It's not just ignorance. It's WILLFUL ignorance. You cannot correct these people with any amount of evidence, because they refuse to learn anything, and they wouldn't know "STEM" if you hit them in the head with the text books.
Member Since: Gennaio 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting weatherh98:
Well popped in... I see this is more political than weather do I gues I leave for another 5 months until I'm happily surrounded by swirling clouds, wind and pressure reports an yes lots of trolls (inevitable) anyway hope all is well! See you guys later!


:( another blogger forced away due to the political topic of the blog:(

You climate change airheads n politicians oughta be ashamed of urself!!

LOL
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
"Google's homepage Doodle on Saturday celebrates the 125th anniversary of the largest recorded snowflake- a stone-cold behemoth said to be 15 inches in diameter. The freakishly massive flake reportedly drifted- or perhaps plummeted to earth at Montana's Fort Keogh in 1887."
Link

That's one record that's pretty safe this year :/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well popped in... I see this is more political than weather do I gues I leave for another 5 months until I'm happily surrounded by swirling clouds, wind and pressure reports an yes lots of trolls (inevitable) anyway hope all is well! See you guys later!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Part of the reason some folks aren't "getting it":

The Wall Street Journal yesterday published a climate change opinion piece signed by 16 "scientists". This opinion piece--a letter, really--urged politicians to do nothing in the way of mitigating CO2 emissions, and to support this viewpoint, they used many of the same tired and debunked bits of contrarian nonsense anyone familiar with the issue has already heard a thousand times. They also went out of the way to engage in some ad hominem attacks on a few prominent climate scientists, using out-of-context quotes to back them up. (And it turns out that every one of the 16 "scientists" who signed that letter have a serious and demonstrated lack of expertise in actual current climate science, but that's almost a moot point).

But what's truly telling about the whole mess is that the WSJ just recently (2010) rejected publication of a scientifically-accurate essay jointly authored (and, thus, in effect "signed by") 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences that urged politicians toward action on climate change.

Get that? A factual science article penned by 255 actual practicing scientists was turned down in favor of a misleading and error-filled piece signed by fewer than 1/15th as many people. Amazing. And disturbing. And dangerous.

If you dare or care to compare, check them both out (Note that after rejection by the WSJ, the science essay was submitted to, and published by, Science Magazine).

WSJ opinion/letter signed by 16

Science Magazine essay signed by 255 (PDF)

None of this is a shock, really; Rupert Murdoch, who owns both the WSJ and Fox "News", is known far and wide for his attacks on science. And it's also no surprise that many folks would so desperately cling to the WSJ piece (read some of the online comments if you don't believe me). But what is shocking is that so many people are willing to throw away their children's future because doing anything to help save it is simply just too darn much work.

Now, that's what I don't get.
Member Since: novembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Quoting Jedkins01:
"It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you."

This above is by Dr. Masters. It is probably one of the most honest and smartest Ive seen about Climate Change. The whole post is actually.

Big Oil puts $1 into Congress and gets $59 out


Member Since: novembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
I'm not understanding the graph with the la nina and el nino. i thought that 2010 was an la nina year and 2009,2006 were el nino years?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
While we're on the subject...

"Mark your calendar. On Sunday, May 20th, the sun is going to turn into a ring of fire. It's an annular solar eclipse--the first one in the USA in almost 18 years.

An annular eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly in front of the sun, but the lunar disk is not quite wide enough to cover the entire star. At maximum, the Moon forms a "black hole" in the center of the sun."


Link



Credit & Copyright: Dennis L. Mammana (TWAN)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

That is only one ingredient that is needed. The last 2 years have had very high SST's yet very few TC's.


I think you mean 'few US hurricane landfalls'?

Obviously, the last two seasons have featured 19 named storms, well above the average of 11 and certainly not below average.
Member Since: Luglio 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24471
156 AussieStorm "I so hope Iggy turns southerly quicker than forecast and heads towards the Perth area, they are having a severe heat wave."

Perth's AustraliaDay thunderstorm, "...worth getting wet for."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:
.

Not really. It depends on how such high SSTs impact the dominant weather patterns in the area. While SSTs do play a part in inland weather, they aren't the only factor.

The weather would be interesting, to say the least.


If the SST's were around 100f then the effects on the coastal marine life would probably be devastating,as they would not have the ability to withstand that kind of temperature for long periods. We could spend quite a while looking at the models we could create for simulation but effectively a significant amount of coastal sea life would die or even become species extinct in certain area.
Fish would probably seek out deeper, cooler waters but they would also have trouble finding food and although some species can live for long periods without food, their food supply once dead would also cause a decline in fish. We can add all the etc's to this we want.
In additionto this, as the temperatures increase any pollutants on the shores and in the shallow waters would become more volatile, giving off more gases and reacting more easily with other compounds.
All in all 100f waters are probably not desirable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:


But not everyone wants to use transit systems, I for one am one of them who does not want to. I would much rather pay an expensive price for an electric car.

There needs to be more progress in the electric car world. If they make an electric 4x4 pickup truck I'll be one of the first to get one, if I could ever afford one anyway.
MY HONDA hybrid gets 45.6 mpg city on a regular basis and the cool thing about it, which makes it different than other cars, when you stop for a light, it shuts off, thus not creating idling exhaust fumes for all those minutes waiting for the light to change, man i love this car
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
157. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center
Tropical Cyclone Advice #14
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
6:00 PM WST January 28 2012
=================================

At 5:00 PM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (975 hPa) located at 20.2S 110.5E or 425 km west northwest of Exmouth and 470 km northwest of Coral Bay has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south southwest at 3 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/D0.5/24 HRS

Storm Force Winds
================
45 NM from the center

Gale Force Winds
--------------------
100 NM from the center

Tropical Cyclone Iggy is expected to steadily intensify over the next 24 hours. Iggy has been moving slowly south southwest during the day but may move southeast towards the coast overnight and during Sunday before resuming a more southerly track.

Gales may develop near the Pilbara coast between Ningaloo and Mardie on Sunday morning including Exmouth and Onslow possibly extending south to Coral Bay late on Sunday. There is the slight risk of destructive winds in excess of 125 km/h developing in the Exmouth-Ningaloo region later on Sunday or Monday.

Heavy rainfall is most likely in near coastal parts of the warning area later on Sunday and Monday. Tides will be higher than expected between Mardie and Cape Cuvier. There will continue to be large swells along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts.

FESA State Emergency Service (SES) advises of the following community alerts:

BLUE ALERT: People in or near coastal and island communities between Mardie and Coral Bay including the communities of Mardie, Onslow, Exmouth and Coral Bay need to prepare for cyclonic weather and organise an emergency kit including first aid kit, torch, portable radio, spare batteries, food and water.

Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
=================================

A Cyclone WARNING is current for coastal areas from Mardie to Coral Bay, including Exmouth and Onslow.

A Cyclone WATCH is current between Coral Bay to Cape Cuvier and adjacent inland parts of the west Pilbara.
Member Since: Maggio 24, 2006 Posts: 51 Comments: 46145

I so hope Iggy turns southerly quicker than forecast and heads towards the Perth area, they are having a severe heat wave.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormTracker2K:
You never see SST near FL this warm in January Folks! Not a good sign for this years upcoming Hurricane Season.


That is only one ingredient that is needed. The last 2 years have had very high SST's yet very few TC's.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
154. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #38
FORTE TEMPETE TROPICALE FUNSO (08-20112012)
10:00 AM RET January 28 2012
=======================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Severe Tropical Storm Funso (973 hPa) located at 28.4S 41.2E has 10 minute sustained winds of 60 knots with gusts of 85 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southeast at 10 knots

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/4.0/W0.5/6 HRS

Storm Force Winds
=================
50 NM radius from the center extending up to 60 NM in the northeastern quadrants

Gale Force Winds
=================
120 NM radius from the center extending up to 140 NM from the center in the northeastern quadrant

Near Gale Force Winds
====================
180 NM radius from the center extending up to 220 in the northeastern quadrant

Forecast and Intensity
=======================

12 HRS: 31.2S 42.8E - 50 knots (Depression Extratropicale)
24 HRS: 32.8S 44.6E - 45 knots (Depression Extratropicale)
48 HRS: 35.1S 49.7E - 35 knots (Depression Extratropicale)
72 HRS: 37.4S 52.6E - 30 knots (Depression Extratropicale)

Additional Information
======================

Latest satellite pictures show that system begin to undergo a strengthening west-northwesterly vertical wind shear. Convection is progressively rejected toward the east but low level center is not totally exposed (DT at 3.5 with sheared pattern).

For the next 24 hours, system should continue on a quick enough south-eastward track under the steering influence of low to mid-level ridge located in the east northeast. Beyond, it might take a east southeastward track by decelerating on low-level ridge which will go down towards the south.

Now Funso evolves over colder sea surface temperature and the west northwesterly vertical wind shear will soon become rapidly stronger. System should definitively be on a weakening trend. Extra-tropical transition should be completed before Monday morning.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Service on TC FUNSO will be issued at 12:30 PM UTC..
Member Since: Maggio 24, 2006 Posts: 51 Comments: 46145
153. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center
Tropical Cyclone Advice #13
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
3:00 PM WST January 28 2012
=================================

At 2:00 PM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (975 hPa) located at 20.2S 110.8E or 395 km west northwest of Exmouth and 450 km northwest of Coral Bay has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south at 3 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/D0.5/24 HRS

Storm Force Winds
================
45 NM from the center

Gale Force Winds
--------------------
100 NM from the center

Tropical Cyclone Iggy is expected to steadily intensify as it moves to the south or southeast off the Northwest Cape.

Gales may develop near the Pilbara coast between Ningaloo and Mardie on Sunday morning including Exmouth and Onslow possibly extending south to Coral Bay late on Sunday. There is the slight risk of Destructive winds in excess of 125 km/h developing in the Exmouth-Ningaloo region later on Sunday or Monday. Gales are no longer expected east of Mardie to Whim Creek including the Dampier-Karratha region.

Heavy rainfall is most likely in near coastal parts of warning area later on Sunday and Monday. Tides will be higher than expected between Mardie and Cape Cuvier. There will continue to be large swells along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts.

Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
=================================

A Cyclone WARNING is current for coastal areas from Mardie to Coral Bay, including Exmouth and Onslow.

A Cyclone WATCH is current between Coral Bay to Cape Cuvier and adjacent inland parts of the west Pilbara.

The Cyclone WATCH from Whim Creek to Mardie has been cancelled.

Forecast and Intensity
======================

12 HRS: 20.7S 111.1E - 65 knots (CAT 3)
24 HRS: 21.0S 111.6E - 75 knots (CAT 3)
48 HRS: 21.8S 111.8E - 85 knots (CAT 3)
72 HRS: 23.6S 110.9E - 75 knots (CAT 3)

Additional Information
=======================

TC Iggy has taken more of a southerly track in the past 12 hours and recent visible images indicate deep convection consolidating near the low level circulation center. This is consistent with the northeasterly vertical wind shear decreasing to 10-15 knots. Intensity of 50 knots based on curved band
pattern of 0.8 wrap giving DT=3.5; adjusted MET agrees. This is also consistent with SATCON estimates of 59kn [1minute mean].

Despite its recent southerly motion, most models suggest some southeast motion for the next 12-18 hours under the influence of deep northwesterly. During Sunday the system should experience very weak steering flow so a slow southerly track is predicted. It now appears likely that Iggy will remain over open waters off the northwest Cape on Sunday and Monday and not make landfall. By Monday it should take a more definite south or southwest path off the upper west coast.

Further intensification appears likely in the next 24-48 hours under the influence of lighter wind shear. The system's slow motion may stir up the ocean sufficiently to reduce the sea surface temperature and weaken as a result. Gradual weakening should occur in subsequent days over cooler waters.

The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 10:30 AM UTC..
Member Since: Maggio 24, 2006 Posts: 51 Comments: 46145
We're outside the "noise" now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
January 2012 -
The Daily records are 3100 to 150 when the sun is up -

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As heat came to Texas last May, I was looking at the NCDC site.
In the first 27 days of 2012 here's what we booked :

73 to 1

There have been 73 new Monthly Highs in the records for January 2012 when the sun is up, and just 1 New Monthly Low.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormTracker2K:
You never see SST near FL this warm in January Folks! Not a good sign for this years upcoming Hurricane Season.

We're all doomed!!!!!!!.We're all doomed!!!!!'
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:
The most memorable 90,s storms for me were 1990,s T.S Marco, which was rather nasty out on Boca Grande. The June 1992 tropical depression, which dumped 25 inches of rain on us. Andrew of course. T.S Gordon in 94, which made a mess of our marina. 1995,s Erin, which made landfall twice, once as a cat-2.. 1998 Georges, which whacked the Keys, and 99,s Irene, which was a particularly vicious storm for South Florida..I had to post Irene because it made the sky the weirdest peach color before landfall...Very eerie


Yeah I was actually speaking mainly in terms of general severe weather in Florida, like thunderstorms and such, as apposed to tropical activity, which I tend to separate from regular activity in Florida because there is rarely any correlation between the 2 as far as weather patterns and how they affect both.

Actually, the first half of the 2000's was very active also around here. Weather got more "lame" around here by 2006 or 2007. Of course we have definitely had some exciting weather still in recent years, but consistently we have had less big rain events, less large scale strong to severe storm events, and just generally more drought and stable then not over the last 3 to 5 years as apposed to normal. Its been many years since we've even had a tropical cyclone of any kind affect us.

Last year we finally had above average rain after being below normal every single year here since 2005 which was near normal.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Issac will probally be the name everyone will be talking about this season.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Electric cars already have the range to get to and from work, and advanced materials research is showing promise in improving battery chemistry for both charging and capacity.

Or, once the price gets too high, maybe this country will get a clue and improve the mass transit systems.

Or maybe do a little forward planning so that when these high prices come down the pipe, it won't be some big emergency (yeah right, we don't do things like that here).

At any rate, there will be options. Which ones and how painful they will be remains to be seen.


But not everyone wants to use transit systems, I for one am one of them who does not want to. I would much rather pay an expensive price for an electric car.

There needs to be more progress in the electric car world. If they make an electric 4x4 pickup truck I'll be one of the first to get one, if I could ever afford one anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you."

This above is by Dr. Masters. It is probably one of the most honest and smartest Ive seen about Climate Change. The whole post is actually.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In some regions, the man-made rate of change in ocean acidity since the Industrial Revolution is hundred times greater than the natural rate of change between the Last Glacial Maximum and pre-industrial times," emphasizes Friedrich. "When Earth started to warm 17,000 years ago, terminating the last glacial period, atmospheric CO2 levels rose from 190 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm over 6,000 years. Marine ecosystems had ample time to adjust. Now, for a similar rise in CO2 concentration to the present level of 392 ppm, the adjustment time is reduced to only 100 -- 200 years."

Unprecedented, human-made trends in ocean's acidity

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/1201 22152542.htm
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In Memory of the Brave crew of Space Shuttle Challenger




Excerpt from President Ronald Reagan's speech to the Nation after The Challenger Loss.

We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for twenty-five years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and, perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's take-off. I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program. And what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute.

We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.

I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA, or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."

There's a coincidence today. On this day three hundred and ninety years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, "He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it." Well, today, we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and "slipped the surly bonds of earth" to "touch the face of God."

Thank you.

Member Since: Luglio 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129090

Quoting Xyrus2000:


Not really a whole lot of time left for them to drop either. Maybe we'll luck out and have shear kill everything before it can become threatening. Or maybe we will have unfavorable winds which will blow everything out to sea.

And right after that happens, I'll win the lottery!
The Lottery: a tax on poor people who don't do math.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Perhaps not quite that bad, but basicly right.

With energy prices continuing the inevitable increase, and the MSRP of most automobiles always going up, and insurance always going up, automobiles are literally becoming economically impractical in many cases.

If Gasoline hits $8 to $10 per gallon one day, in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that's bye bye autos.

I don't know what people will do to commute to work, but then again, if you didn't spend 1/4th of your income paying for an auto and the fuel, insurance, and maintenance, then you wouldn't need to work so much.

Maybe people will just sleep at work and drive home once per week or something.


Electric cars already have the range to get to and from work, and advanced materials research is showing promise in improving battery chemistry for both charging and capacity.

Or, once the price gets too high, maybe this country will get a clue and improve the mass transit systems.

Or maybe do a little forward planning so that when these high prices come down the pipe, it won't be some big emergency (yeah right, we don't do things like that here).

At any rate, there will be options. Which ones and how painful they will be remains to be seen.
Member Since: Ottobre 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1558
.
Quoting RTSplayer:


Everyone would be dead from inland heat waves and famines if SST was that high.


Not really. It depends on how such high SSTs impact the dominant weather patterns in the area. While SSTs do play a part in inland weather, they aren't the only factor.

The weather would be interesting, to say the least.

Member Since: Ottobre 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1558
Quoting SPLbeater:


2012 will be my 4th season trackin in Atlantic:D

5th! Lol But it doesnt feel that long ago...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The sun erupted on January 22-23, 2012 with an M8.7 class flare, captured here in a movie by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The flare wasn’t quite as strong as an X-class, but the associated solar energetic particle (SEP) event caused the biggest solar radiation storm since 2003. (Credit: NASA/SDO/Helioviewer)

Classifying Solar Eruptions

ScienceDaily (Jan. 25, 2012) — Solar flares are giant explosions on the sun that send energy, light and high speed particles into space. These flares are often associated with solar magnetic storms known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs). While these are the most common solar events, the sun can also emit streams of very fast protons -- known as solar energetic particle (SEP) events -- and disturbances in the solar wind known as corotating interaction regions (CIRs). All of these can produce a variety of "storms" on Earth that can -- if strong enough -- interfere with short wave radio communications, GPS signals, and Earth's power grid, among other things.

The amount of solar activity increases approximately every 11 years, and the sun is currently moving toward another solar maximum, likely in 2013. That means more flares will be coming, some small and some big enough to send their radiation all the way to Earth.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has devised categories for the flares and various storms. The biggest flares are known as "X-class flares" based on a classification system that divides solar flares according to their strength. The smallest ones are A-class (near background levels), followed by B, C, M, and X. Similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes, each letter represents a 10-fold increase in energy output. So an X is ten times an M and 100 times a C. Within each letter class there is a finer scale from 1 to 9.

C-class and smaller flares are too weak to noticeably affect Earth. M-class flares can cause brief radio blackouts at the poles and minor radiation storms that might endanger astronauts.

And then come the X-class flares. Although X is the last letter, there are flares more than 10 times the power of an X1, so X-class flares can go higher than 9. The most powerful flare measured with modern methods was in 2003, during the last solar maximum, and it was so powerful that it overloaded the sensors measuring it. The sensors cut out at X15, but the flare was estimated to be as high as an X28.

The biggest X-class flares are by far the largest explosions in the solar system and are awesome to watch. Loops tens of times the size of Earth leap up off the sun's surface when the sun's magnetic fields cross over each other and reconnect. In the biggest events, this reconnection process can produce as much energy as a billion hydrogen bombs.

As the sun moves towards its next solar maximum and heats up, we are already seeing an increase in activity. The first X-class flare of the current solar cycle erupted on February 15, 2011, and there were more over the summer. On January 23, 2012, the sun unleashed an M8.7 flare accompanied by a CME and an SEP that created one of the strongest radiation storms since 2005.

If they're directed at Earth, such flares and associated solar events can create long lasting radiation storms that can harm satellites, communications systems, and even ground-based technologies and power grids. NASA and NOAA -- as well as the US Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) and others -- keep a constant watch on the sun to monitor for X-class flares and their associated magnetic storms. With advance warning many satellites, spacecraft and technologies can be protected from the worst effects.
Member Since: Agosto 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9874
Unprecedented, Human-Made Trends in Ocean's Acidity

ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2012) — Nearly one-third of CO2 emissions due to human activities enters the world's oceans. By reacting with seawater, CO2 increases the water's acidity, which may significantly reduce the calcification rate of such marine organisms as corals and mollusks. The extent to which human activities have raised the surface level of acidity, however, has been difficult to detect on regional scales because it varies naturally from one season and one year to the next, and between regions, and direct observations go back only 30 years.

Combining computer modeling with observations, an international team of scientists concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 100 to 200 years have already raised ocean acidity far beyond the range of natural variations. The study is published in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change.

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST.

Link
Member Since: Agosto 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9874
136. wxmod
Quoting SPLbeater:
ok well the blog topic isnt favorable tonight...buncha climate change and tree huggers on tonight, so i goin 2 bed. night!


I think you are having a little trouble with blaming
the messenger. It's a common problem dating back to pre Shakespeare times.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


NASA Sees a Weakening Cyclone Funso's 'Closed Eye'

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2012) — Powerful Cyclone Funso's eye has been clear in NASA satellite imagery over the last several days until NASA's Aqua satellite noticed it had "closed" and become filled with high clouds on January 27.
Member Since: Agosto 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9874
ok well the blog topic isnt favorable tonight...buncha climate change and tree huggers on tonight, so i goin 2 bed. night!
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Quoting HurrikanEB:


It starts getting weird once you've started tracking hurricanes for more than the 6 year cycle. I started in 2004 with Alex, and now that the lists are repeating, it's like: "oh.. i remember those guys" :P


2012 will be my 4th season trackin in Atlantic:D
Member Since: Agosto 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488

Viewing: 183 - 133

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.