Welcome to American Weather


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About blizzard1024

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
  • Gender
  1. 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.
  2. Global UAH satellite temperatures now down to +.19C for March..... LT recovering to pre intense el nino levels. Let the pause begin again...
  3. underestimated the pace of climate change? what??? The climate models are producing too much warming. what are you looking at??
  4. 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....
  5. 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...
  6. 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???
  7. here we go at NOAA..... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article129716229.html
  8. 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...
  9. 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.
  10. 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...
  11. 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:
  12. Delta E is change in Energy? Power? or power/area? I assume E for energy. Q and W redistribute energy. I get that so they don't change the total energy. But, in order for energy to be conserved if some system gains energy another has to lose energy. So your "transport" or flux terms simply move energy. So where is the energy that is lost? This energy is moving from one place and "collecting" in another. The Earth system I argue is a closed system with the sun. Others disagree which is fine. If the Earth system - Sun is a closed system than delta E can't be non-zero for the entire Earth system including the whole atmosphere. "Additionally, the Earth doesn't cool off because it radiates more. The temperature simply increases until the temperarure dependant radiation and other outgoing Q fluxes balance against the incoming q flux." If any object radiates or emits more all else remaining equal, it loses energy and hence cools. I think what you are trying to say is that when you increase GHGs, the effective radiating layer rises to cooler levels of the troposphere. Hence the emission is reduced because cool air has lower emission. If the emission is reduced, for the same incoming SW radiation, the temperature must rise to increase emissions to balance what the incoming solar or SW radiation is. This does indeed warm the tropopshere. However, in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with height and hence GHGs lead to cooling. Emission increases with height!! GHGs do not create energy. I know we can agree on that. They slow the transfer of energy through the Earth system leading to warming down low(troposphere) and cooling way up (I mean stratosphere to exosphere) way way up! My struggle is how is the Earth system - Sun not a closed system? The earth receives practically all its energy from the sun. So how can this not be a closed system? If someones has a good explanation for this, please share.... Thanks.
  13. Ok. So you are both saying that greenhouse gases increase the energy of the entire atmosphere even if there is some cooling above the troposphere. The transient state as you both speak of is when there is an imbalance in the entire Earth system. The imbalance that would cause warming of the entire atmosphere and Earth system would be less radiation leaving than is coming in leaving a positive energy imbalance. So, by adding greenhouse gases you create energy. This can't be. The imbalance only can be in the lower atmosphere to conserve energy. How can you say there is more cooling to balance the warming by the Earth radiating to space? If the Earth has more greenhouse gases and the planet's atmosphere warms it radiates more strongly which leads to cooling. The cooling seen would be the upper levels of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases cannot create energy. They simply redirect photons in all directions. Some reach the Earth and warm while some radiate to outer space more strongly. Net effect is zero gain in energy of the entire Earth system. Again greenhouse gases redirect photons of IR. That's all they do. You can't warm an entire atmosphere by this process. drstuess- you equation in the transient state has a delta E > 0 which is creating energy. Msalgado- This is the case and because of this, it cools at high levels. the energy reservoir you talk about is the Oceans, Land and Troposphere which I agree would warm up. But there has to be compensating cooling at high levels. This is a tough concept and even PHD scientists struggle with it. Appreciate the civil discussion. I am going to contact a PHD scientist I know in radiative transfer and thermodynamics and see if I can get a better explanation of this or some clarification. thanks.
  14. I don't have time at this point...look at donsutherland1's post....