Oklahoma's coldest morning on record: -31°F ; storm leaves 2 feet of snow

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 10. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:13 (GMT)

Share this Blog
7
+

Cold air pouring in behind yesterday's remarkable snowstorm over northeast Oklahoma has brought unprecedented cold to the state this morning, with a bone-chilling -31°F recorded at Nowata and -28°F at Bartlesville. These are the coldest temperatures ever measured in Oklahoma. According to Extreme Weather, the excellent weather records book by wunderground's weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, the previous coldest temperature in Oklahoma was -27°F set in nearby Watts on January 18, 1930. A personal weather station in nearby Hogshooter Valley also hit -28°F this morning (one wonders how the Valley got its colorful name!) Today's record is the second time since the year 2000 that one of the 50 states has set an all-time extreme cold temperature record. On January 16, 2009, Big Black River, Maine set a new state record with -50°F. In comparison, three states--Virginia, California, and South Dakota--have set all-time extreme heat records since 2000. Since 1990, nine states have set all-time extreme high temperature records, and eight states have set all-time extreme cold records. It was also very cold in Arkansas this morning, with a -20°F reading in Springdale. The all-time coldest temperature for Arkansas is -29°F, recorded on February 13, 1905, at Pond and Gavette. Relief is in sight, though--Tuesday's forecast calls for high temperatures in Bartlesville in the low 60s, a full 90 degrees warmer than this morning's low!


Figure 1. Record snows of 25" piled up in northeast Oklahoma near Jay on February 9, 2011. Image credit: wunderphotographer okieski.

Yesterday's major snowstorm blasted northeast Oklahoma, northwest Arkansas, and southwest Missouri with up to two feet of snow. The heaviest snows fell in northeast Oklahoma, with 25 inches reported at Jay. Siloam Springs in northwest Arkansas had 24.5", which is just 1/2" shy of the Arkansas state record for heaviest snowstorm of all-time, the 25" that fell on Corning on January 22, 1918. Yesterday's storm brought heavy snows of a foot or more to Kansas, Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming, according the the latest NOAA Storm Summary. Significant snows also hit much of the Southeast, with 4.5" recorded in Vernon, AL; 3.8" in Memphis, TN; 3.7" in Bowling Green, KY; and 1" in Asheville, NC. The snow has almost ended over the Southeast, as the storm is now centered off the North Carolina coast and is moving out to sea.

Snowiest month and year in Tulsa's history
The 6.2 inches of snow that fell in Tulsa, Oklahoma during yesterday's snowstorm gave that city its snowiest month on record, according to the National Weather Service. Tulsa has received 23" of snow this month, most of this in the February 1 blizzard. The previous record snowiest month was March 1924, when 19.7" fell. The total for the 2010 - 2011 season now stands at 26.6", a new record. The previous record was the 25.6" that fell in the winter of 1923 - 1924. Oklahoma City received 5.9" of snow, bringing their seasonal total to 19.6", still well shy of their all-time record of 25.2", set in 1947 - 1948.


Figure 2. Snowfall amounts in Western Oklahoma and Northwest Arkansas from the snowstorm of Feb 8 - 9, 2011, reached two feet (24 inches) in isolated regions. Image credit: National Weather Service, Tulsa.

Jeff Masters

NWArk Snow Event 3 (Suisan)
My youngest kitty, 3yr old CharleyGirl, is NOT amused.
NWArk Snow Event 3
Northwest Arkansas Record Snowfall (breezyk26)
A record snowfall hit NW Ark. today with totals upward of 20
Northwest Arkansas Record Snowfall

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: 587 - 537

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

587. bappit
12. helmikuuta 2011 klo 01:09 (GMT)
Quoting hcubed:
"...Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record..."

Like to see that, myself.

Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.

Whre did the other 300ppm come from?

The other 300 ppm is more or less a baseline amount created by the carbon cycle. It includes the sequestration of carbon dioxide in rock and the expulsion of carbon dioxide by volcanoes.

The graph posted by Patrap illustrates the situation.



Weren't you listening earlier? Shame on you for not listening.
Member Since: 18.05.2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5563
586. bappit
12. helmikuuta 2011 klo 01:01 (GMT)
Quoting hcubed:
"...Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record..."

Like to see that, myself.

Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.

Whre did the other 300ppm come from?

Perhaps we should call you guys oscillationists, believers in the ying and yang of the cosmos. Cold, wet vs. hot, dry. Male vs. female. Etc.
Member Since: 18.05.2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5563
585. hcubed
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 19:31 (GMT)
"...Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record..."

Like to see that, myself.

Scinetists sat we're responsible for about 85ppm (roughly) in the past 100 or so years.

Whre did the other 300ppm come from?
Member Since: 18.05.2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
584. hcubed
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 18:46 (GMT)
Quoting Patrap:

Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.

800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.


If we actually reach that 900ppm level by the year 2100, I'll personally apologize to everyone here. Of course, I'll be 148 years old, but hey, that's only a blink of an eye compared to the last 800,000 years.

We're seeing one of the ways the "scare" is induced - show drastic scenarios, but make the projections so far in the future that nobody currently alive will be able to verify it.
Member Since: 18.05.2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
583. Xandra
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:33 (GMT)
Quoting Orcasystems:
These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
Member Since: 22.11.2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1237
582. Orcasystems
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:28 (GMT)
Quoting Neapolitan:

In the United States, yes. But January 2011 was tied for the 11th warmest January since 1880. They don't call it "Global Warming" for nothin'... ;-)


OK, your own math again

130 years.... tied for the 11th warmest...

I wonder what it would be out of the last 2011 years?

Would it still be the 11th, or would it be lucky to make it into the top 50? WE DON'T KNOW. We have semi reliable data for 130 years...so you use that as the base line.




Member Since: 1.10.2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
581. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:23 (GMT)
NEW BLOG ENTRY
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
580. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:21 (GMT)
Quoting AussieStorm:


Coldest January since 1994
The average temperature in January 2011 was 30.0 F. This was -0.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 37th coolest January in 117 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

1.48 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.74 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 9th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.


In the United States, yes. But January 2011 was tied for the 11th warmest globally January since 1880. They don't call it "Global Warming" for nothin'... ;-)
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
579. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:19 (GMT)
Well,,Im going to go get dat sack o' eyrsters and start shucking um.

Oyster Po-boys and Oyster Rockefeller is on da menu in da Big Easy today and tonight.

ENjoy the next entry.


Ciao

Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
578. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:16 (GMT)
Garbage is in the Ears, eyes and nose of a collector.



Try this one then.

It covers your er,,lack of reasoning.


But I bet you can tie a Hell ofva a Knot when in a pinch.


The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

* By Brandon Keim Email Author
* December 9, 2009



Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it’s real. In some ways, it’s nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who’s studied public attitudes towards climate science, we’re in denial.

“Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We don’t just take it in and respond in a rational way,” said Norgaard.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun’s heat, they would — depending on human energy habits — heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet’s climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released. “This is the defining moment.”

Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC’s predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That’s 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.

Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.

Wired.com: Why don’t people seem to care?

Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.

That’s extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It’s been about people who believe in science, who aren’t out to question whether science has a place in society.

Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What’s their response?

Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.

For relatively privileged people like myself, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.

Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?

Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we’re constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.

If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.




Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
577. atmoaggie
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:15 (GMT)
Quoting Xyrus2000:


For the first 1800 or so years of that 2000 year period, humans were not altering the planet in any noticeable way. We were not increasing GHG concentrations, nor clear cutting millions of acres of forest land, nor spewing billions of tons of other chemical into the atmosphere and the environment.
Then, in science and experimental terms, we would actually have the control group that exhibits the monthly, yearly, and decadal variability that exists, but we have no measurement of. We have no control group...thus, the experimental group's measurements cannot be well quantified.
Member Since: 16.08.2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
576. AussieStorm
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:11 (GMT)


Coldest January since 1994
The average temperature in January 2011 was 30.0 F. This was -0.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 37th coolest January in 117 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

1.48 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.74 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 9th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.

Member Since: 30.09.2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15750
575. overwash12
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:10 (GMT)
Maybe if wasn't so cold we could cut down on some of carbon being put into air,buy not burning so much wood,natural gas,oil to heat our homes. Bring on the global warming!
Member Since: 24.06.2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
574. Xyrus2000
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:09 (GMT)
Quoting Orcasystems:



Define long term trend then....

Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?

That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.



For the first 1800 or so years of that 2000 year period, humans were not altering the planet in any noticeable way. We were not increasing GHG concentrations, nor clear cutting millions of acres of forest land, nor spewing billions of tons of other chemical into the atmosphere and the environment.

Your statements about the statistical significance of relative time periods are entirely incorrect. You may want to review a book or two on statistics and probability theory to see why from a mathematical stand point.

However, even without the mathematical issues, a month is not climatologically significant. Even a decade is too short as there is still too much noise induced by meteorological variation. Any good undergraduate text on climatology can give you a thorough explanation on the topic.
Member Since: 31.10.2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1226
573. Orcasystems
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:07 (GMT)
Quoting Neapolitan:

No. That's a very false equivalence due to the fact that long-term climate trends are visible over yearly and decadal scales.


Then you tell me the periods your using then. If you don't like my numbers, what numbers should I look at?

I gave you two examples, which one is it.

I just gave you an example of 100 years of the last 2011. You tell me what I should be comparing the last 100 years to... or the last 50, 10 or 1?

Your the one trying to tell us the last 100 shows global warming.. in comparison to what??

Member Since: 1.10.2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
571. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 15:00 (GMT)
Quoting cat5hurricane:

So you're now actually admitting it's long term.

Someone must of really used the dark roast blend to be exceptionally sharp this morning.

So, where does this put January 2011 if we go back to the year 1000 AD, or even 1400 AD. Do we know this? I guess didn't get the memo or see it on the bulletin board.

Wait! We don't know since we don't have accurate data from before 1880. Thats right, climate change began in 1880, sorry forgot. So, we are all aware long term does not come before the period when modern data instruments and observations (similar to the ones we use today) started appearing.

Gotcha.

Ever heard of proxy data? And before you dismiss it, I'd ask you whether you believe dinosaurs ever existed. After all, no one ever saw a dinosaur; all paleontologists have are fossils and a scattering of footprints.

Gotcha. ;-)
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
570. Orcasystems
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:59 (GMT)
Quoting Patrap:
Somewhere a Boatswain's Whistle goes "tweeeeet..



How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?


A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.


GIGO
Member Since: 1.10.2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
569. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:57 (GMT)
Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.



Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.
Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
568. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:57 (GMT)
Quoting jwh250:
Funny the alarmistas were singing a different tune when L.A. hit 113 a few months back and how surely that was proof of AGW even though SoCal had just had its coolest summer on record.

Really? Can you please provide references and citations of any AGWT scientists who said last year's all-time LA heat record was "proof of AGW"?
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
567. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:56 (GMT)
391.19ppm

Atmospheric CO2 for January 2011


Preliminary data released February 7, 2011 (Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)
Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
566. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:55 (GMT)
Quoting Orcasystems:



Define long term trend then....

Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?

That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.


No. That's a very false equivalence due to the fact that long-term climate trends are visible over yearly and decadal scales.
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
565. Xyrus2000
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:53 (GMT)
Quoting Levi32:


I'm all for reforming our energy systems. AGW or not, it needs to be done. That's not really an issue of debate amongst logical people.

Things are melting because we're in an interglacial, and it's more difficult than scientists would like to admit to determine exactly how much warming can be attributed to CO2, and we likely won't really know until we are solidly heading back into the next ice age. I'm not sure exactly when that's supposed to be, but we are near the end of this interglacial.


Technically we were already sliding back into a cold period until industrialization went into full force. We should be heading into a glacial period right now if past natural cycles hold true.

Scientists admit fully that the system is complex. However, the bulk of the research according to our best science shows that the planet is warming and that we are contributing to it. These results are provided with a high confidence level.

To date, NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS SCIENCE. This is the fundamental problem with stating that there is no AGW. Without someone providing peer reviewed science for your point of view, it's just personal speculation.

It would honestly be awesome if one or more scientists could show all this warming was just some flight of fancy. It really would. It wouldn't absolve us from preparing for the consequences of the warming, but we could rest easier knowing that at least we weren't making it worse. But other than crank sites and idle blog posts, no scientist or group of scientists has managed to muster any reviewed research indicating that the current research and thinking is wrong.

You seem 100% convinced that there is no AGW. You also seem to be an intelligent individual and motivated. My recommendation to you would be to write a paper and get it peer reviewed. You don't need to be a Ph. D to do this. You could get one of your professors to back you in an independent study. Get your paper published and you could very well win a Nobel for your work.
Member Since: 31.10.2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1226
563. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:52 (GMT)


Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.


Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.

Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
561. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:48 (GMT)
Somewhere a Boatswain's Whistle goes "tweeeeet..



How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?


A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
560. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:46 (GMT)
SH132011 - Tropical Cyclone BINGIZA

Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
559. Orcasystems
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:45 (GMT)
Quoting Neapolitan:

No. Not even close. In fact, to use your own analogy, relying on a meteorologist for long-term climate predictions would be like insisting the FBI look at crime statistics for just a single day, then use that to predict crime ten years from now.

I'll say this again: long-term trends are what's important. A cold day, week, or even month doesn't disprove AGW any more than a hot day, week, or month proves it.



Define long term trend then....

Lets only go back 2011 years.... your trying to say the last 100 years is critical and important... is 100 years a long term trend out of 2011?

That is saying the last month is the critical component of the last 16.5 years.

Member Since: 1.10.2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
558. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:36 (GMT)
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Ahhh. Ok, Neo. You might be on to something here.

Meteorologist vs. a Climatologist?

So, is this kinda like when one chooses to access the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) database in an effort to look at crime statistics as opposed to eagerly tuning into NPR itching to hear Al Sharpton's latest segment on the problems (and lack of problems) with crime in this country.

Kinda like that? Is that a fair analogy?

No. Not even close. In fact, to use your own analogy, relying on a meteorologist for long-term climate predictions would be like insisting the FBI look at crime statistics for just a single day, then use that to predict crime ten years from now.

I'll say this again: long-term trends are what's important. A cold day, week, or even month doesn't disprove AGW any more than a hot day, week, or month proves it.
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
557. Orcasystems
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:28 (GMT)
Complete Update





Member Since: 1.10.2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
556. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:26 (GMT)
2011 National Hurricane Conference

April 18-22|Hyatt Regency Atlanta|Atlanta, GA

The nation's forum for education and professional training in hurricane and disaster preparedness!





Purpose of the Conference

The primary goal of the National Hurricane Conference is to improve hurricane preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation in order to save lives and property in the United States and the tropical islands of the Caribbean and Pacific. In addition, the conference serves as a national forum for federal, state and local officials to exchange ideas and recommend new policies to improve Emergency Management.

To accomplish these goals, the annual conference emphasizes:



* Lessons Learned from Hurricane Strikes.

* State of the art programs worthy of emulation.

* New ideas being tested or considered.

* Information about new or ongoing assistance programs.

* The ABC's of hurricane preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation -- in recognition of the fact that there is a continual turnover of emergency management leadership and staff.



Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
555. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:23 (GMT)
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW 15U
10:00 PM WST February 11 2011
============================================

At 9:00 PM WST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 20.5S 103.5E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The low is reported as moving west at 12 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/2.5/D1.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 21.1S 100.6E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 21.6S 98.4E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 22.0S 94.9E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 22.0S 91.9E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)

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

Position based on animated VIS/near IR, aided by a tc_ssmis microwave image at 11:00 UTC.

Deep convection remains persistent to the northwest of the LLCC in a strongly sheared environment [CIMSS estimate at 12:00 UTC 30-40 kt]. However weaker shear exists just southwards of the system under the upper level ridge axis. Outflow remains good to the north. Recent satellite imagery suggest outflow could be improving to the south.

Dvorak DT=2.5 based on shear pattern with <.75deg separation between LLCC and cold cloud. FT=2.5 [MET=2.0 adjusted +0.5 by PAT].

Forecast track based on a consensus of models steering the system to the west southwest under the influence of a mid-level ridge to the south of the system. This moves the system closer to the upper level ridge, so shear is forecast to decrease during the next 24 hours. The low is forecast to intensify slowly, becoming a TC early Saturday, before weakening later during the weekend as it moves further WSW over colder waters [west of about 100E].

The next tropical cyclone bulletin on Tropical Low 15U will be issued at 19:00 PM UTC..
Member Since: 24.05.2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43701
554. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:23 (GMT)
Im on Vacation today,,and the new entry will be up Momentarily.


Have you learned anything from the NOAA info?
And does yer spouse know you have this Love fer me?

LOL






Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
553. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:23 (GMT)
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #10
TEMPETE TROPICALE MODEREE BINGIZA (05-20102011)
16:00 PM Reunion February 11 2011
=====================================

At 12:00 PM UTC, Moderate Tropical Storm Bingiza (993 hPa) located at 14.7S 53.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 40 knots with gusts of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south at 4 knots.

Gale Force Winds
===============
40 NM from the center

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
70 NM from the center extending up to 100 NM in the western semi-circle

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/3.0/W0.5/24 HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 14.8S 53.7E - 40 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
24 HRS: 15.1S 53.8E - 45 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
48 HRS: 15.3S 52.8E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 15.9S 50.6E - 80 knots (CYCLONE Tropical)

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

BINGIZA is located about 380 NM north northwest of Réunion and 250 NM east northeast of Sainte-Marie Island, Madagascar. Cloud pattern remains the same than previously but vigorous convection has started near the center recently. A slow southeastward then southward at 4-5 knots has been observed today. System still remains in a weak steering flow environment with a barometric col to it south and a mid level equatorial ridge to its northeast. This synoptic pattern should continue tomorrow and so for the expected motion of the system.

Saturday, all dynamical guidances from 0:00z are still in rather good agreement for a rebuilding ridge to the south (although it does not appear very strong) and a more west southwestward to southwestward track towards the eastern coast of Madagascar with a landfall likely on Monday or Monday night between Antalaha and Mahanoro. In fact, at present time, the threat seams higher for the areas between Cao Masoala and Toamasina.

Due to southeasterly shear and potential of cooler sea surface temperatures, BINGIZA has slightly weakened. This appears to be very temporarily as latest guidance suggest a weaker wind shear tomorrow and good upper level divergence polewards Sunday. Present intensity forecast shows a gradual re-intensification up to 24 hours and then steady intensification until landfall. It is worth noting that all guidance show a strong and potentially dangerous system by that time.

THE THREAT IS GETTING STRONGER FOR THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR AND IT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT FOR UNHABITANTS OF THIS REGION TO CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 18:30 PM UTC..
Member Since: 24.05.2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43701
551. MissNadia
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:20 (GMT)
Good Morning,
Awoke to forecast of partly cloudy and temps in the 40s... it is now sleeting on the Carolina Coast !!!!!!!
Member Since: 27.07.2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2877
550. Patrap
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:17 (GMT)
Fascinating rebuttal.

LOL
Member Since: 3.07.2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
548. calusakat
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:11 (GMT)
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


There is a difference between criticism and tough testing of a hypothesis, according to the great philosopher of science Karl Popper Science is all about attempts to falsify hypotheses, and what I call "pseudo-skepticism", a perverse kind of nihilistic postmodernism that denies all objectivity and instead engages in personal attacks on scientists, calling them liars and dogmatics.


Wow.

Am I impressed.

You have thoroughly read and comprehended the AGW Talking Points Handbook. Perfect execution to boot.

A for you.

How exciting!!!


Member Since: 10.10.2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
547. MTWX
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:01 (GMT)
Quoting IKE:

I'm tired of cold weather. Ready for spring.....my low this morning 31.3.

It's 14 right now here!! So ready for this spring warm-up these next couple of weeks!!
Member Since: 20.07.2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1391
546. kwgirl
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 14:01 (GMT)
Good Morning all. Woke up to a dreary day here in the Keys. Lots of cloud cover, but it still does not look like rain. 73 degrees right now and it is forecast to clear. I looked at the radar and the rain is traveling west to east just north of the keys in the bay. If we get any rain, it won't be much.
Member Since: 28.03.2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1532
545. greentortuloni
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 13:45 (GMT)
Quoting cat5hurricane:

You're exactly right.

It's ultimately up to the individual to decide what he or she thinks and then act accordingly.


Thanks, nice to have someone agree. : ) Oc oruse, that's only as long as everyone does it within the limits of rational decision making, i.e. the course taken is that which minimizes percent chance times loss. Otherwise what you said is just a truism.

But either way, the discussion shouldn't be AGW yes/no but something like:

Likelyhood AGW (-1,-.75,-.5,-.25,0,.25,.5,.75,1)
Seriousness of AGW in degrees C (-20, -10, -5, -2, 0, 2, 5...)
Cost of Damage (plus moral value) for each value of C.
Cost of course of possible courses of action

Put those togather that could be one way to decide how much money to devote to AGW.

For me, I think the only cost to green technolgy is loss of state sponsered terrorism so it is an easy choice: win/win for going green.


Member Since: 5.06.2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
544. Neapolitan
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 13:24 (GMT)
Quoting Jedkins01:


I never said I questioned the effects of Green houses gasses now did I? I have also taken classes now in the same, I am working on my MET degree, which unlike some like STL and Neapolitan say, you learn a lot about Climate Change in a MET degree.

I'm not stupid, science is more complex then that. To just say the planet will continue to warm leading to devastation because of humans increasing the Co2 content in the air is a theory. However, its just not, that, simple, there is much yet to be known how things will be shaped. There is NOT an absolute authority. I will say again, that's for religion. In the world of science, things just don't work that way.

I can't speak for MichaelSTL, but I never said a met didn't learn about climate; what I have said--and what I stick by--is that the mission of a meteorologist is quite different from that of a climatologist. The former looks at the short term; the latter is concerned with the long term. Here's a good analogy I've heard recently: a meteorologist is like someone who studies the ocean and can tell you how high the next six waves are likely to be, while a climatologist can tell you when and how big next Wednesday afternoon's high tide will be.

If I want to know how hot it was here last Tuesday or the chances for rain here next Monday, I'll ask a meteorologist. On the other hand, if I want to know how cool it was here 12,000 years ago or how wet it's likely to be in 200 years, I will ask a climatologist. That's not disparaging either profession; that's simply stating a fact.
Member Since: 8.11.2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
543. IKE
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 13:16 (GMT)

Quoting cat5hurricane:

Well that's something nice to finally look fwd to. It seems like ages before that would happen again.
I'm tired of cold weather. Ready for spring.....my low this morning 31.3.
Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
540. IKE
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 12:59 (GMT)
My forecast......:)

Monday: Sunny, with a high near 67.

Monday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 35.

Tuesday: Sunny, with a high near 70.

Tuesday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 37.

Wednesday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 68.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 47.

Thursday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 73.
Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
538. IKE
11. helmikuuta 2011 klo 12:48 (GMT)
Bye-bye snow on the ground in the eastern USA....


Member Since: 9.06.2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858

Viewing: 587 - 537

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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
43 °F
Puolipilvistä