Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About blizzard1024

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
  • Gender
  1. So in a colder climate, the storms and extremes are weaker. All this flies in the face of baroclinic instability. That used to be the primary way that extratropical waves develop because of a temperature difference between the poles and the equator. With the Arctic warming faster, baroclinicity weakens and so do storms. That is what I learned. But I guess climatologists have figured something out new. A warmer Arctic means more storminess and extremes, which plays right into the hands of the global warming scare mongers. Nice politically correct paper....
  2. Regional Climate Centers Defunded

    Concur. Funding needs to be prioritized for research. 1) better forecasts and communications of severe storms, tornados etc and 2) short term climate variability (seasonal forecasting) are areas that benefit humanity and should be a priority. This climate change / global warming tunnel vision focus on CO2 has put our understanding of climate back at least one generation...
  3. Regional Climate Centers Defunded

    Why do we need regional climate centers? We have NCEI (formerly NCDC) at the National Level and each state has a climatologist for the details of each state. I never understood what they do. The state's handle the local level climate analysis, NWS offices handle and maintain the cooperative observer network and this covers all the local details. Great way to save funds...
  4. The main issue with this video is that he has only 4 blocks and assumes a 1 in 4 chance of a disaster from climate change and also a 1 in 4 chance of an economic disaster if take major steps to reduce CO2 emissions. There are way more outcomes that this oversimplified matrix. Way more. The chances of an all out climate disaster are very small. Conversely if we made major changes to energy infrastructure its probably not a 1 in 4 chance of an economic disaster, but if this was not done carefully I could see an economic disaster much more likely vs. a climate disaster.
  5. 2017 Global Temperatures

    Global UAH satellite temperatures now down to +.19C for March..... LT recovering to pre intense el nino levels. Let the pause begin again...
  6. Study: No Publication Bias Found in Climate Change Research

    underestimated the pace of climate change? what??? The climate models are producing too much warming. what are you looking at??
  7. Study: No Publication Bias Found in Climate Change Research

    This is because the people controlling what gets published has to be for the human-induced climate change narrative. If you don't prescribe to this and think natural variability has a larger impact than CO2 you simply don't get published. How can bias be even measured in any science? The way grant money is doled out and the "publish or perish" mentality leads to a lot of bias in all science. If you don't show a significant problem you don't get funds. Its only going to get worse with the lean Trump budgets in the near future....
  8. The article above states the weather service only takes a 5 percent hit. That's not bad. It looks like research, conservation and climate programs get hacked the worst. not good, but it doesn't surprise me that this is what the current administration would propose...
  9. What caused CO2 to rise and fall in the past and change the climate??? If CO2 is the global thermostat then what causes it to rise and fall and change the climate and lead to glacial and interglacial cycles???
  10. here we go at NOAA..... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article129716229.html
  11. Why Does Everyone Have to be a Believer or a Skeptic?

    This is an interesting topic which has been brought up before in posts. There are two extreme views. One that states that CO2 does little to nothing to the climate system and the other that the world will end as we know it if we don't drastically cut back our fossil fuel energy usage. These are the folks who state that the science is settled just like gravity is settled. The ones who state that CO2 does nothing are truly alt-science. It all comes down to how much will CO2 increasing affects the climate. Even if you take a middle of the road approach you get slammed and I believe that is why the whole topic gets people so fired up. a great example is on Dr Jeff Master's blog, if you question anything, these fanatics attack you and ultimately ignore you. very very political and not really science driven. Of course wunderground is owned by the weather channel which was owned by MSNBC so you can see why here. Its politics. As to the original post, 1, 2 and 3 are pretty well accepted. 4 is where the issues begin and 5 is a big risk in my opinion at this time. But if this "whole CO2 is deadly movement" gets humans to develop clean energy sources that are marketable and help the global economy than all will be good even if it doesn't warm that much...
  12. Greenhouse Effect 101

    This makes sense but I believe the increase in energy is below the radiating layer... I don't see how a GHG can increase energy for the whole system. The flux to the Earth increases and creates an imbalance down below, but aloft there is less energy outgoing and hence the energy budget for the whole earth + atmosphere remains the same. GHGs radiate more energy downward at a lower temperatures and hence emission actually drops above. I made a mistake on this way back.
  13. Greenhouse Effect 101

    Getting back to the basic greenhouse effect, if the atmosphere gains greenhouse gases, they will absorb more outgoing long wave radiation and warm the Earth. However, this will reduce the amount of OLR going to higher levels and hence there will be cooling above. This simple statement shows that a planet can't gain energy from its own atmospheric gases. The amount of energy that comes in, is balanced by the energy that leaves the system. How the energy is distributed is what GHGs do. There is no way the earth system including the ENTIRE atmosphere can gain energy. It can't happen. If you look at Venus, the higher atmosphere is much colder than the earth's because of the runaway greenhouse effect. See below...
  14. Factors of Climate Change

    The NCEP reanalysis data for specific humidity at 300 mb shows an overall long term decline as has been supposedly debunked that it is not accurate. I can see that point in the 50s, 60s and even 70s, but look at this since 1990 when there has been better assimilation schemes and radiosonde data. It still shows a slight drying in the upper troposphere since this time...that's 27 years. This data suggests a negative water vapor feedback in the higher levels of the troposphere where it really counts for the greenhouse effect. You can see short term trends where there is warming and the specific humidity goes up, so the recent AIRS study showing moistening over the last 4 years might be valid. But in the long term, the data is showing drying and hence the earth could be maintaining a constant greenhouse effect... see: