Science and Global Warming

Electricity generation is where we should be putting the emphasis on alternative energy sources right now not transport.

Agree. Except the primary motivation behind most efforts for alternative energy in transport is political and economic. They know full well alternatives means expense, and the desire is to compress living space to advance those goals.

Thus the moves to nukes is tepid, and there is no serious effort to replace coal.

The environment is the least of environmental proponents concerns.

It seems that wind and solar are the only politically viable and favorable energy sources at this time.

Connecticut:

Enough snow for 2 winters
'Extraordinary 45 days' help produce record inch count
BY SAM COOPER REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN



It would have been a quaint New England winter — if only it knew when to quit.

Under a steady barrage of the white stuff, residents scrambled to clear the tops of homes as structures across the region succumbed to the weight of record-breaking snowfall. And most unusual for this region, the snow stayed on the ground all winter.
read more at http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2011/03/ ... 545490.txt

New York:

Weather Journal: Snow on the First Day of Spring


*

Natalie Keyssar for the Wall Street Journal
Remember snow? It’s expected to stage a comeback on the first day of spring Monday.

If you spent time outside Friday, you couldn’t be blamed for thinking that spring had arrived a few days earlier this year. Monday marks spring’s first full day, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at the forecast.

Snow showers will spread across much of the region Monday morning, changing to rain in the afternoon. ...

More significant snow chances return on Wednesday and Thursday. There’s even the potential for another “Norlun Instability Trough“-type situation similar to the one that dumped more than a foot of snow on southwest Connecticut earlier this winter. It’s way too early to forecast when or where or if snows of that magnitude may fall, but we will surely keep you up to date as we get more information.

Winter Review: At the risk of being premature, the official start of spring seems like a fitting time to look back on the winter that was (and that might not yet be over, as far as snow is concerned). As of Sunday, Central Park had officially booked its third snowiest winter since 1869, with the current total sitting at 60.9 inches — three times higher than normal. By the end of this week, we should be able to move into second place, less than three inches away.

January 2011 was New York City’s snowiest January ever, and there were five storms this winter where six inches or more fell. New Jersey set the state’s all-time record for heaviest snowfall with the Boxing Day Blizzard, and some parts of Connecticut had feet of snow on the ground for weeks until only recently. Upstate New York also had a crazy snow-filled winter, with Syracuse leading the way with totals approaching 15 feet.

read more at http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/03 ... _news_blog

Maine:

Spring in Maine: Wintry mix forces some schools to close early
PORTLAND, Maine — Some Maine school districts are closing early on the first full day of spring because of Old Man Winter: Some places are expected to get a half-foot of snow.

The National Weather Service says parts of northern and western Maine could see up to 6 inches by midnight. Along the coast, the forecast calls for rain and snow.

read more at http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c ... aine-Snow/

Meanwhile, Texas is having its third month of above average temperatures.

Meanwhile, Texas is having its third month of above average temperatures.

in texas, everything is above average.

Forecasters predict unusually active hurricane season
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is expecting seven to 10 hurricanes, with three to five carrying winds upward of 111 mph.

Exceptionally warm ocean waters and favorable atmospheric conditions are expected to bring an above-average number of tropical storms and hurricanes to the Atlantic and Caribbean, national weather forecasters predicted Thursday.

The forecast comes as Florida braces for the remnants of Tropical Storm Emily, which has pounded the Caribbean in recent days with rain and winds above 50 mph. The storm weakened considerably Thursday, but is expected to bring some rain and winds to Florida over the weekend.

In its latest outlook, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration raised the number of hurricanes to between seven and 10 — including three to five major hurricanes with winds of at least 111 mph. In May, the agency predicted six to 10.

Altogether, forecasters predict 14 to 19 tropical storms, which include the hurricanes. In May, forecasters predicted 12 to 18 tropical storms. The figure includes the five tropical storms that have already formed since the beginning of the season June 1. The season ends Nov. 30. ...

now look, this is Emily, right?
that's named storm #5 for the year so far.
it is 05AUG11

in comparison, by 04AUG05, they were up to Irene (#9)

Hurricane Katrina formed on 23AUG05 - that was named storm #11

by the end of the season, there had been 28 storms, of which 15 were Cat1 or worse Hurricanes.

so far, this year is running at half of 2005's activity level.
It may pick up, but it is so far unimpressive.
so let's not have any fnords like "exceptionally warm" and "above-average" now, all right, kiddies?

El Niño y La Niña seem to be highly correlated with hurricanes.

now look, this is Emily, right?
that's named storm #5 for the year so far.
it is 05AUG11

in comparison, by 04AUG05, they were up to Irene (#9)

Hurricane Katrina formed on 23AUG05 - that was named storm #11

by the end of the season, there had been 28 storms, of which 15 were Cat1 or worse Hurricanes.

so far, this year is running at half of 2005's activity level.
It may pick up, but it is so far unimpressive.
so let's not have any fnords like "exceptionally warm" and "above-average" now, all right, kiddies?

We are only at the beginning of the season. Labor Day weekend is close to the season maximum for Atlantic hurricanes. A second peak is in October and that is for Gulf of Mexico hurricanes.



Here are two maps showing strike probabilities:

hur_strike_freq_600x405.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

now look, this is Emily, right?
that's named storm #5 for the year so far.
it is 05AUG11

in comparison, by 04AUG05, they were up to Irene (#9)

Hurricane Katrina formed on 23AUG05 - that was named storm #11

by the end of the season, there had been 28 storms, of which 15 were Cat1 or worse Hurricanes.

so far, this year is running at half of 2005's activity level.
It may pick up, but it is so far unimpressive.
so let's not have any fnords like "exceptionally warm" and "above-average" now, all right, kiddies?

We are only at the beginning of the season. Labor Day weekend is close to the season maximum for Atlantic hurricanes. A second peak is in October and that is for Gulf of Mexico hurricanes.

underlined meet underlined.
half is the definition of the median average, no?

2005 was a very busy season. This season has had a slow start. My point is that up to now, we have been in the low storm count zone and only now are ramping up to the busy part of the season.

A slow, early season can be very misleading. For example, in 1992, up to this point in the calendar, there had been no named storms, and only one named storm for the entire season. That storm was the 3rd Cat 5 ever to hit the U.S.

2005 was a very busy season. This season has had a slow start. My point is that up to now, we have been in the low storm count zone and only now are ramping up to the busy part of the season.

A slow, early season can be very misleading. For example, in 1992, up to this point in the calendar, there had been no named storms, and only one named storm for the entire season. That storm was the 3rd Cat 5 ever to hit the U.S.

2005's record being the known top end
0 storms being the known low end
halfway between the two is.....?
right: average.

2005 was a very busy season. This season has had a slow start. My point is that up to now, we have been in the low storm count zone and only now are ramping up to the busy part of the season.

A slow, early season can be very misleading. For example, in 1992, up to this point in the calendar, there had been no named storms, and only one named storm for the entire season. That storm was the 3rd Cat 5 ever to hit the U.S.

2005's record being the known top end
0 storms being the known low end
halfway between the two is.....?
right: average.

Your sampling is not correct for calculating averages. You need to sample every year, not just the min-max years. The average number of named storms formed in the Atlantic Basin by Aug. 1 is 2.3. We are at 5. We are at slightly more than twice the average. This has already been a busier year than average.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/

2005 was a very busy season. This season has had a slow start. My point is that up to now, we have been in the low storm count zone and only now are ramping up to the busy part of the season.

A slow, early season can be very misleading. For example, in 1992, up to this point in the calendar, there had been no named storms, and only one named storm for the entire season. That storm was the 3rd Cat 5 ever to hit the U.S.

Don't forget that the named storm criteria were changed in 2002 to include storms that would have never been named in prior years; thus one cannot directly compare named storm frequency prior to 2002 with named storm frequency post 2002 ....

Linky?

2005 was a very busy season. This season has had a slow start. My point is that up to now, we have been in the low storm count zone and only now are ramping up to the busy part of the season.

A slow, early season can be very misleading. For example, in 1992, up to this point in the calendar, there had been no named storms, and only one named storm for the entire season. That storm was the 3rd Cat 5 ever to hit the U.S.

Yeah. Whatever. But Bush still did it....

NASA sees drop in global sea level

Global sea-level dropped significantly over the past year, NASA satellite data show, bucking a long-term trend toward sea-levels driven higher by a changing climate.

But the drop of about a quarter inch on average does not signal a reversal of global warming, said Josh Willis, a Jet Propulsion Laboratory climate scientist who reported the latest data this week.

“We expect that, within the next year or so, we’ll see sea-level rising again,” Willis said Wednesday. “And actually, the very latest data suggest that’s probably already started.”

The drop is the largest in the generally upward curve of sea level measured over the past 18 years, although there have been other downward bumps. ...

But the drop of about a quarter inch on average does not signal a reversal of global warming, said Josh Willis, a Jet Propulsion Laboratory climate scientist who reported the latest data this week.

Oh yes it duzzz. Better break out the thermal underwear.

i really think that if we all changed our way of life some- we could be able to save the planet we are on.
http://iamaloserspammer/

And I think that if people stopped posted spam for wrinkle creams, all the little children would laugh and sing "Kumbaya". That's just me.

i really think that if we all changed our way of life some- we could be able to save the planet we are on.
http://iamaloserspammer/

And I think that if people stopped posted spam for wrinkle creams, all the little children would laugh and sing "Kumbaya". That's just me.

Don't feed the spam troll.

i really think that if we all changed our way of life some- we could be able to save the planet we are on.
http://iamaloserspammer/

And I think that if people stopped posted spam for wrinkle creams, all the little children would laugh and sing "Kumbaya". That's just me.

Don't feed the spam troll.

The mods have to eat something. Don't feed it so it can be purged for their dinner.

Or do spammers go to the tortoise pits?

Waiting for an admin to escort the spammer to the pits.

Linky?

Sorry, I didn't notice your post until today, and if it is in reference to my post immediately above it, here' a link:

The criteria for naming storms has also changed - most recently, in 2002, when subtropical storms started to be named along with tropical storms and hurricanes. [snip irrelevant sentence for clarity] ¹²

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA565.html

The footnote leads to this document:

http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/resources/docs/Further_DeMaria.pdf

In which I found this:

In addition, NHC began naming subtropical storms in 2002, using the
same list of names previously restricted to purely tropical systems.

on page 6.

Thus, named storms frequency after 2002 includes subtropical storms, whereas named storm frequency prior to 2002 do not. Thus, direct comparison of named storm frequency spanning the 2002 time frame is not possible, due to the expansion of the definition of a named storm in 2002. Any attempt at direct comparison of pre-2002 named storm frequency with post-2002 named storm frequency would be skewed by the addition of subtropical storms after 2002.

Of course, if one were to remove post-2002 subtropical storms from the named storm data, a valid comparison of frequency spanning 2002 could be made.

as of right now, the scoreboard:

Total depressions: 17
Total storms: 16
Hurricanes: 4
Major hurricanes (Cat. 3+): 3

a bit high on the named storms count, below average for the hurricane count.
the high named storms count may reflect what Elmo posted, above.

At PJ Tatler:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project today released some information about their research. Judith Curry, one of the co-authors, reports this here. The BBC has a story here, and the Economist reports it here.

These stories both play out as “the CO2-forced AGW model is confirmed,” which is a whole lot stronger than the actual results.

Watts had been asked to review one of the papers, which was a follow-on to the site quality work he’s led over the last several years. He found some significant errors, and submitted his reviews just a few days ago; those errors weren’t corrected before the PR push.

Lesson: Be cautious about the reporting of a scientific paper that hasn’t been published yet, and be doubly cautious about how a paper is reported when it’s a politically sensitive topic.

At PJ Tatler:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project today released some information about their research. Judith Curry, one of the co-authors, reports this here. The BBC has a story here, and the Economist reports it here.

These stories both play out as “the CO2-forced AGW model is confirmed,” which is a whole lot stronger than the actual results.

Watts had been asked to review one of the papers, which was a follow-on to the site quality work he’s led over the last several years. He found some significant errors, and submitted his reviews just a few days ago; those errors weren’t corrected before the PR push.

Lesson: Be cautious about the reporting of a scientific paper that hasn’t been published yet, and be doubly cautious about how a paper is reported when it’s a politically sensitive topic.

Watts is an idiot. He's been pushing the "temperature record is crap" meme for years now; it's the thing that "made" his website. Now yet another in a long line of studies comes out and vindicates the instrumental record, again, and the main argument he's been pushing has collapsed, again. Watts' critique is rather pathetic; he's actually claiming that the study used too many weather stations (almost 40,000). He also thinks it matters that they looked at 60 year trends and not 30 year trends (it doesn't). Earlier this year he was gushing about how great the BEST group was, and that their methodology was the bee's knees, and look! they're using so much more data than everybody else, yada yada yada. He said he would abide by whatever their results turned out to be; he didn't count on the results not being what he wanted, so now he's claiming the group has been corrupted.
As for the paper not being published yet (another Watts criticism), that didn't stop Watts a few years ago from claiming, without having done a single calculation, that the instrumental record was hopelessly defective in an online piece for the Heartland Institute. It took two years for a paper to get written and then published in an actual journal, and the final paper actually supported the robustness of the temperature record. That he's criticizing the BEST group for pre-releasing the paper is the height of hypocrisy. What is ironic is he's ripping a paper whose results are consistent with the paper he co-authored.

There will never be any evidence that Watts will accept, because he was never a skeptic in any meaningful sense of the term.