ForecastTheFacts.Org

[superjames1992]

Interesting discussion. Let me tell you a story, as a TV met. And it scared the hell out of me.

I went to an AMS Broadcast Conference years ago, after a period of extremely warm weather. They have various vendors there, and one of them was from a company called ICECAP. The man at the booth was Joe D'Aleo, who I knew from my days at The Weather Channel (he is one of the creators of ICECAP). I was curious to see what they were handing out to the TV mets.

Immediately after saying hello, he said (approximately) "I see you were correlating the extreme warmth with global warming on your station." He does not live in my TV market. How did he know what I said on a single broadcast? I had shown a global temperature anomaly map for the previous month, and about 80% of the world had positive anomalies, with virtually NO negative anomalies. I remember commenting that the warmth wasn't just local-it was worldwide. There was no "alarmist" comment that went along with that FACT.

Some of these people are watching us. They are trying to squash any attempt at explaining the science on-air or on blogs. It's about time some organization called attention to some of the OPINION-related "skeptics" on local TV and even on networks (have you ever heard some of the CNN mets?)

Glenn

Thanks for the first-hand account, Glenn. I agree that is a pretty poor move by Joe D'Aleo. It's a shame that these sort of political pressures are spread in the scientific community.

I certainly agree that AGW is caused by humans and that we need to do something about it, but I feel that some people take the alarmism too far sometimes. However, there was nothing wrong with what you said on-air. You didn't even mention that the warm anomolies could be caused by anthropogenic means, which makes D'Aleo's statement even worse.

By the way, you used to be at WRAL back in the day, I see!

[rygar]

We are setting such a good example.

I don't see how 'per capita' really matters in this case. We're talking overall impact on a global scale. US is improving, China is not. US produces less overall, China more. The atmosphere doesn't care that on a per person scale the US emits more tons of carbon.

Your graph is very useful in showing the US, like all countries, can still do more, but that is about it. Canada and Australia are close 2nd and 3rd behind the US, and they are non players in the grand scheme of things.

[rygar]

To me, this is more meaningful and doesn't give 'credit' to countries like China where population control issues skew their CO2 impact. Of the Top-25 C02 emitting countries, here is their rank in CO2 metric tons per square mile of territory.

1) 18500 MT / Sq Mi - Taiwan

2) 13200 MT / Sq Mi - South Korea

3) 8300 MT / Sq Mi - Japan

4) 5700 MT / Sq Mi - Germany

5) 5600 MT / Sq Mi - United Kingdom

6) 3800 MT / Sq Mi - Italy

7) 2600 MT / Sq Mi - Poland

8) 1900 MT / Sq Mi - China

9) 1700 MT / Sq Mi - Spain

10) 1500 MT / Sq Mi - France

11) 1500 MT / Sq Mi - United States

12) 1400 MT / Sq Mi - Thailand

13) 1400 MT / Sq Mi - Ukraine

14) 1400 MT / Sq Mi - India

15) 900 MT / Sq Mi - Turkey

16) 900 MT / Sq Mi - South Africa

17) 800 MT / Sq Mi - Iran

18) 600 MT / Sq Mi - Mexico

19) 600 MT / Sq Mi - Indonesia

20) 500 MT / Sq Mi - Saudi Arabia

21) 300 MT / Sq Mi - Russia

22) 200 MT / Sq Mi - Kazakhstan

23) 100 MT / Sq Mi - Canada

24) 100 MT / Sq Mi - Australia

25) 100 MT / Sq Mi - Brazil

[WeatherRusty]

I don't see how 'per capita' really matters in this case. We're talking overall impact on a global scale. US is improving, China is not. US produces less overall, China more. The atmosphere doesn't care that on a per person scale the US emits more tons of carbon.

Your graph is very useful in showing the US, like all countries, can still do more, but that is about it. Canada and Australia are close 2nd and 3rd behind the US, and they are non players in the grand scheme of things.

Unilateral action is obviously not the solution to the climate crisis. Nothing less than a global treaty with teeth to it will suffice. In my opinion such a treaty is not forthcoming any time soon. The draw down on global emissions which is necessary isn't going to happen.

It's not that solutions and mitigation strategies are not available to us, it's more that recognition of the problem is a difficult sell both locally and on the global scale. The U.S. and other world powers seem not up to the challenge.

[salbers]

How is a TV meteorologist supposed to advocate climate change?

Is he supposed to say, "Today's high is 87 degrees. That's a record high for today as we continue to see a string of hot weather which could potentially be related to global warming..."

That would be a stupid thing to say as a string of hot weather does not necessarily prove or disprove AGW. I don't see many opportunities for TV mets to bring up the subject. They have a limited time and have to fit a lot in there already.

It's easy for them to report that record highs outnumber record lows by a factor of 2:1 or so...

[salbers]

Alot of us conservative don't deny there is increasing warmth, I could tell just looking at the temps and comparing them to the so called average temps over the years. My main problem is that these climate scientists want to limit our economic growth and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations....sounds like socialism! I heard there are ways to limit or even reverse the trends such as cooling the oceans as well as the atmosphere which can help block the sun to some extent by having sulphur put into it.. Why not think in those terms instead of limiting co2 and harming our country and stop us from drilling for more oil and gas, besides I don't believe China or India will limit their growth!

If we want to separate out the rich vs poor nation issue, then we can have a global treaty sharply reducing CO2 emissions per dollar instead of per capita. George Bush actually proposed it, though I'm not sure if it was on a steep enough trajectory.

On the other hand, it's hard to sustain economic inequality in an increasingly connected world.

I thought China was waiting for us. There is a valid issue about historical emissions that remain in the atmosphere. So should long time emitting countries pay for past emissions?

Blocking the sun would mess up astronomical observations, as well as reduce precipitation and photosynthesis.

[dabize]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/09/bangladesh-war-against-climate-change

Wasn't sure as to whether I should put this here or in the Florida thread, since they are going to have a similar experience there in a decade or so.

I wonder if Americans will be as practical about adaptation as coastal residents of Bangladesh when the consequences of AGW become impossible to ignore.

[ben4vols]

http://www.guardian....-climate-change

Wasn't sure as to whether I should put this here or in the Florida thread, since they are going to have a similar experience there in a decade or so.

I wonder if Americans will be as practical about adaptation as coastal residents of Bangladesh when the consequences of AGW become impossible to ignore.

Yeah I'm sure the people of Florida will be surprised by land falling hurricanes. You do know that there has been a decrease in both Hurricane intensity and frequency here in the US if you compare the current 50 year period to the previous 50 year period. So if, as you predict, this happens in a decade or so, it isn't unprecedented and happened back when greenhouse gas quantity was much smaller. This is just more hot air (no pun intended) by the alarmism crowd.

[Vergent]

Yeah I'm sure the people of Florida will be surprised by land falling hurricanes. You do know that there has been a decrease in both Hurricane intensity and frequency here in the US if you compare the current 50 year period to the previous 50 year period. So if, as you predict, this happens in a decade or so, it isn't unprecedented and happened back when greenhouse gas quantity was much smaller. This is just more hot air (no pun intended) by the alarmism crowd.

We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.short

As usual BX is half right.

[SVT450R]

Oh look another blame it on global warming.

[ben4vols]

Ahhh so one side of the globe is seeing an increase (of course it doesn't deal with land falling Hurricanes it deals with their fluctuations over open water, for whatever that matters) and the other side is seeing a decrease. So the conclusion drawn is...it must be AGW. Imagine my surprise.

[WeatherRusty]

Oh look another blame it on global warming.

Is it your position then that as the climate warms we should not expect any change in the weather?

The climate today is warmer than yesteryear. Should we be experiencing more dynamic weather as a result or not?

[WeatherRusty]

Ahhh so one side of the globe is seeing an increase (of course it doesn't deal with land falling Hurricanes it deals with their fluctuations over open water, for whatever that matters) and the other side is seeing a decrease. So the conclusion drawn is...it must be AGW. Imagine my surprise.

Should the average weather be identical to that of past decades when the oceans and LT were cooler?

[ben4vols]

Is it your position then that as the climate warms we should not expect any change in the weather?

The climate today is warmer than yesteryear. Should we be experiencing more dynamic weather as a result or not?

So warming SST's equals more intense Hurricanes?

[Jonger]

[/background][/color][/size]

http://www.sciencema...5742/1844.short

As usual BX is half right.

60-70 years ago, if a hurricane in the middle of the pacific or atlantic hit cat 5 and stayed off shore, nobody would know it ever hit cat 5.

Analogy time: This is like buying a metal detector and finding a gold coin or two and stating that there is now an increase in gold coins in the ground. You had NO eyes in the sky 50 years ago or so, most of what happened in the arctic or middle of the ocean was unknown before satellites or a passing boat sailed in the path.

[SVT450R]

Is it your position then that as the climate warms we should not expect any change in the weather?

The climate today is warmer than yesteryear. Should we be experiencing more dynamic weather as a result or not?

From some articles that i have seen there is no increase globally of hurricanes if the earth continues to warm then we could see more intense hurricanes.

[Vergent]

60-70 years ago, if a hurricane in the middle of the pacific or atlantic hit cat 5 and stayed off shore, nobody would know it ever hit cat 5.

Analogy time: This is like buying a metal detector and finding a gold coin or two and stating that there is now an increase in gold coins in the ground. You had NO eyes in the sky 50 years ago or so, most of what happened in the arctic or middle of the ocean was unknown before satellites or a passing boat sailed in the path.

The number of ships at sea, all keeping weather logs, make it highly unlikely that a hurricane would have been missed in the last hundred years.

[SVT450R]

The number of ships at sea, all keeping weather logs, make it highly unlikely that a hurricane would have been missed in the last hundred years.

I would have to disagree posting current ships around the world has no merit you really believe it was the same 100 years ago.

[Jonger]

The number of ships at sea, all keeping weather logs, make it highly unlikely that a hurricane would have been missed in the last hundred years.

Yup, and they survived penetrating the eye wall..... Please try again.

You sure put a lot of stock in early record keeping, if you took a trip back in time and saw recording equipment on these ships and vessels, you would return back with a big sigh.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I would have to disagree posting current ships around the world has no merit you really believe it was the same 100 years ago.

I would think it would take a miracle for a major hurricane within the last 100 years to be missed.

It takes one ship to find it or even a couple ships to notice it and not even come in direct contact with it.

jonger has always treated the past like the stone age ended 300 years ago.

60-70 years ago was 1942-1952. The first Weather Satelittes had visible images in 1961(USA) & 1959(russia). I doubt we missed Major Hurricanes ten years prior.

Hell, Ben Franklin mapped the gulf stream in the 1700s. We have detailed records of hudson bay ice melt and freeze in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I think we have a good idea of these things.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yup, and they survived penetrating the eye wall..... Please try again.m

Or they took readings outside the eye wall and mets extrapolated the slp and winds.

[Jonger]

I would think it would take a miracle for a major hurricane within the last 100 years to be missed.

It takes one ship to find it or even a couple ships to notice it and not even come in direct contact with it.

jonger has always treated the past like the stone age ended 300 years ago.

60-70 years ago was 1942-1952. The first Weather Satelittes had visible images in 1961(USA) & 1959(russia). I doubt we missed Major Hurricanes ten years prior.

Hell, Ben Franklin mapped the gulf stream in the 1700s. We have detailed records of hudson bay ice melt and freeze in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I think we have a good idea of these things.

Poooft.

*simulated farting sound*

[Jonger]

Or they took readings outside the eye wall and mets extrapolated the slp and winds.

See my last post in reference to the entire ocean being monitored for cat 5's before satellite.

[Jonger]

You have 50 years of data, even then... without recon flights, you can't really tell a cat 3 from 5 always from a primitive satellite. Its 2012 and we use recon flights today.

[Jonger]

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_15152.html

Now that we know what the very specific definition of "how strong" officially is, how do we measure it over the ocean? Fortunately (for them), ships at sea usually scatter away from the strongest winds in a hurricane; hence, they very rarely measure its maximum winds. This routinely leaves us with a measurement void at a level and a location we have used to define intensity.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Cat 5s would be hard to record. But major hurricanes wouldnt be.

Ships traffic before aviation had to be a booming business.

[Jonger]

Cat 5s would be hard to record. But major hurricanes wouldnt be.

Ships traffic before aviation had to be a booming business.

Actually most freight is still by boat, I bet there is a massive increase in freighter traffic since the early 1900s.

[WeatherRusty]

So warming SST's equals more intense Hurricanes?

Yes it should, as a consequence of higher available convective energy derived from increased atmospheric water vapor. Also the area exceeding threshold temperature (80F) SST should be expanded and increased allowing storms greater opportunity for development and intensification.

[WeatherRusty]

From some articles that i have seen there is no increase globally of hurricanes if the earth continues to warm then we could see more intense hurricanes.

That's right, maybe fewer Atlantic storms overall due to increased upper air shear. However, when conditions are otherwise conducive, the warmer SSTs will promote greater intensification.

[SVT450R]

I would think it would take a miracle for a major hurricane within the last 100 years to be missed.

It takes one ship to find it or even a couple ships to notice it and not even come in direct contact with it.

jonger has always treated the past like the stone age ended 300 years ago.

60-70 years ago was 1942-1952. The first Weather Satelittes had visible images in 1961(USA) & 1959(russia). I doubt we missed Major Hurricanes ten years prior.

Hell, Ben Franklin mapped the gulf stream in the 1700s. We have detailed records of hudson bay ice melt and freeze in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I think we have a good idea of these things.

We can't say for sure that some were not missed you could just imagine the smaller tropical cyclones and cat 1-2 hurricanes that were passed under the radar so to say.