Slashdot Mirror

There's a warning out now for the West Cost of the US. Wave expected to hit between 7-7:30 AM PST. Only expected to be 3-4 feet high at this time. Avoid the beach.

http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/

You can see live data from the Tsunami warning bouys here.

http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/2011/03/11/lhvpdd/03/messagelhvpd9-03.htm

Since Slashdot summaries are always a bit dated, it's been bumped up to an 8.9 by the USGS. The good news is that it was off-shore and 15.2mi down, the bad news is that it was off-shore and generated a large tsunami that is still wrecking havoc in Japan and may be heading elsewhere.

Best of luck to the Japanese; if anyone is prepared it's them, but I don't know how one prepares for something quite like this.

Meanwhile for the US there are active tsunami warnings in Hawaii, and NOAA has just issued a watch for the US West Coast.

1. We can continue burning fossil fuels and we can observe temperatures not rising. That would falsify AGW.

2. You can find many actual temperature measurements that show the warming. To me what's more convincing is data beyond temperature measurements.

3. This is a misconception on your part. Excluding all possible variables that could influence an experiment is not part of science. When we hypothesize that gravity causes objects to fall at a certain rate, we do not have to show that aliens on Tau Ceti are not influencing the result. What you do in a controlled experiment is control for one variable (the independent variable) and measure the change in another variable (the dependent variable). You do not eliminate all other variables, because there is no possible way to know what the other variables could possibly be.

So, no, AGW is not a big guess. It is something that is easily predictable from knowing that burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

How can all the data be bad? We see many different signs of global warming all around the world. The land instrumental temperature record is only part of the data we have. We also have ocean temperature readings and satellite temperature readings. We see ice sheets and glaciers melting. How can all of it be bad? At some point, you have to admit we've gathered enough evidence. Or is no amount of evidence is ever enough?

No. What proves global warming is an entire range of observations consistent with warming. Simply put, we observe the warming and even many secondary effects caused by the warming, such as increased humidity. The planet most definitely is warming, at a much faster rate than over the past few thousands of years. At the current rate of warming, about 10% of Florida will be under water in a century.

The procedure for adjusting is outlined here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

Your finding of more warming in the adjusted data is interesting. Can you share your methods and data? I would like to take a look. Is it possible that you were using ungridded data? Simply taking an average of all stations will bias your results towards oversampled areas.

You can certainly be skeptical, but I see hardly anyone who is genuinely skeptical about AGW. I see lots of people who simply refuse to believe it, no matter what evidence is presented. They even argue that the evidence is all wrong. It reminds me of ID proponents who argue that all hominid fossils are fakes. As to your claim that much less work has been done on AGW, I should again point out that the hypothesis is over 100 years old, and all our observations and research are in agreement with the hypothesis. If you have some actual evidence that disagrees with AGW or a better hypothesis than AGW that explains the warming, let's have it. I have yet to see it. Don't throw a fit and say "You're not letting me be skeptical! Waaaa!" You sound like a baby. Present your argument. I have never seen a good one that suggests AGW isn't happening, but maybe you have something new.

Here's a bit more context.

Sunspot 1158 is currently facing towards earth. This is not terribly uncommon - but X series flares are relatively rare. This is the strongest flare in the last four years. What is notable about this event is that it's an X series flare AND its pointed straight at us. It's not in the top ten (X9.0 is the bottom of the top ten, and its a logarithmic scale) of what we've observed, BUT it is the strongest flare in modern history that has been pointed straight at us.

The CME will arrive in 24-48 hours. What the effects of the geomagnetic storm we're about to get will actually be, nobody's completely sure. The most likely case is a K7 or K8 geomagnetic storm. See this scale - and expect G3 or G4.

Realistically, this will mean some power utilities are paying very close attention to their systems and having to tweak things. HAMs will definitely notice it, and cell phones may have some issues (not that you'd notice much).

In summary, if you're anywhere north of 45 or 50 degrees lat and have some clear skies, get outside tonight and tomorrow night. Should be a good show.

Evolution can be tested by observing the rate of mutations in the lab, measuring the amount of genetic difference between two species, and performing simple math to determine when their most recent common ancestor lived. If the fossil record did not agree with the prediction, evolution could be falsified.

Anthropogenic global warming can be tested by using climate models to determine the amount of warming that will occur for a given increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the warming did not agree with the prediction, AGW could be falsified. I suppose I need to point out that the predicted warming matches closely with our observations.

From TFA: Over the past 15 years, at least a dozen people have died in Death Valley from heat-related illnesses, and many others have come close. Another hiker vanished last June in Joshua Tree National Park. His body has not yet been found.
~12 people over 15 years? With over 200,000 visitors per year?

Seems like they're making a big deal about nothing.
Hell, you're more likely to get killed by lightening strike.

9/11 was when a handful of sheep herders armed with box cutters

That's quite racist and seriously underestimates the enemy. For example, Mohamed Atta was well-educated and studied architecture. al-Qaeda was well-funded and headed up by a son of an extremely wealthy businessman with ties to royalty.

killed fewer people than we lose to accidental drowning each year and did property damage that is pittance next to one of the many minor hurricanes that hit the US each year

They completely wiped out internationally recognized office buildings that were part of the crown jewels of New York City -- they changed the fucking skyline. They flew a plane into the Pentagon. These were high-valued targets, not just some random Joe getting into his accident on his way home from work.

As for actual property damage, your analogy is way off. This paper estimates the World Trade Center losses at around $20 billion. For hurricanes, this paper shows a mean loss of $7 billion for a Category 3 hurricane -- not exactly minor. Categories 2 and 1 show mean losses of $2 billion and $1 billion.

Furthermore, 9/11 is not the kind of event you want to see if they can repeat or top. Hurricanes are going to happen no matter what, and they're not scheming against us trying to outdo themselves.

We ratcheting back liberties we had defended for a few hundred years in the face of much scarier opponents

You mean like the concentration camps that we rounded up American citizens of Japanese descent into? Or how about the Sedition Act of 1918?

Too recent? Surely the Founders wouldn't tread on us? How about the Alien and Sedition Acts from 1798? Thank you, John Adams.

We did this, all the while ignoring real threats that actually kill millions of Americans... like cancer, heart disease, and eating too much fucking food.

Those threats haven't been ignored. They've been getting press and funding all along.

Pearl Harbor was tragic a moment that brought us to action. 9/11 was the day we pissed ourselves and surrendered to sheep herders. Please don't try and draw parallels between the two.

They both involved large-scale attacks on American soil that shocked the nation. If we really had surrendered to al-Qaeda, we would have pulled all our troops out of the Middle East, not invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, and not have captured or killed many of their members.

Contrary to the propaganda, al-Qaeda doesn't give a crap if we have less freedom or not. What they care about is our foreign policy.

...such as the difference between a tropical storm or a hurricane.

Sorry, but this isn't so.

Tropical Storm = Distinct rotary circulation, constant wind speed ranges 39-73 miles per hour (34-63 knots).

Hurricane = Pronounced rotary circulation, constant wind speed of 74 miles per hours (64 knots) or more.

I'm guessing you don't live in an area that regularly gets hit by these storms, as I really though this was common knowledge. Nothing arbitrary about it, unless we are using different definitions of arbitrary. Source: NOAA.

Just because the distinction between the two categories is precisely defined doesn't mean that it's not also arbitrary.

I guess the question would be, is 74mph arbitrary? Is there something observably different that happens at 74mph that doesn't at 73?

What's the difference between "distinct" rotary circulation and "pronounced" rotary circulation? How is that difference measured?

...such as the difference between a tropical storm or a hurricane.

Sorry, but this isn't so.

Tropical Storm = Distinct rotary circulation, constant wind speed ranges 39-73 miles per hour (34-63 knots).

Hurricane = Pronounced rotary circulation, constant wind speed of 74 miles per hours (64 knots) or more.

I'm guessing you don't live in an area that regularly gets hit by these storms, as I really though this was common knowledge. Nothing arbitrary about it, unless we are using different definitions of arbitrary. Source: NOAA.

Finally got this comment through the filter after removing MANY of the links.

In a field where all you really have are climate data and computer models, refusing to share them with the world is akin to a physicist claiming that he’s invented Cold Fusion, but refusing to show exactly how (except perhaps to a couple of his friends). Gavin of course defended him saying that while maybe THEIR data wasn’t available, HIS data was available, and so that made it all better. (Which it didn’t – it rather just highlighted their shady behavior). ... [ShakaUVM]

Gavin wasn't just saying that other data was available, he was saying that CRU doesn't do any primary data collection:

... Claims that data has been destroyed or lost are untrue. Claims that there is no access to the raw temperature data are untrue. There is nothing in any of the CRU archives that is particularly special or noteworthy and that isn't mostly available to anyone already via NOAA. ... [Gavin Schmidt]

... If you want the very original hand-written records from individual stations, ask the National Met. Service in the relevant country, not the people who collate the homogenised records for use in tracking climate change. [Gavin Schmidt]

The raw data is in the custody of the met services who originated it. CRU is just a collation, not a temperature measuring organisation. [Gavin Schmidt]

No data has been destroyed, the original files and numbers are with the national weather services that provided them. Removing a copy of a original file because it is not useful for my purposes is not 'deleting data' [Gavin Schmidt]

The raw data is the GHCN data (v2.mean.Z) (publicly available, as has been the case for decades). [Gavin Schmidt]

Unsurprisingly, that's also what the reviews said:

The Unit does virtually no primary data acquisition but has used data from published archives and has collaborated with people who have collected data. ... [Oxburgh panel, p2]

The CRU dataset, which forms the land surface component of the HadCRUT global temperature record, was compiled with the aim of comprehensiveness. The majority of the data in it are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA. ... [UK House of Commons Inquiry, p13]

Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. ... Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so. [Muir Russell Review, p48,53]

Somehow, you managed to twist the fact that it was impossible for CRU to prevent access to the raw data into a

There are nice long data series on ppm of CO2 in the air as measured in HI for example. We've tripled it.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

1960: 315 ppm

Today: 390 ppm

I don't think you know what "tripled" means, do you?

CO2 and methane are gasses that prevent thermal energy from escaping into space
The CO2 and methane levels have been RISING
Human activity generates CO2 and methane

Once upon a time 100% was not made by human technology. That CO2 is still there and we have put more into the air.

Look up the figures for the proportion of CO2 in the air. A quick Google says 389 parts per million now and 315 in 1960. There is a nice graph at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ but there are plenty more if you look around.

CO2 is not poisonous. If there was none, we would die. The same could be said about a lot of things. It is the change that is bad.

Now factor in the simple fact that all leaked hydrogen will naturally rise through the atmosphere to the ozone layer, and that ozone is naturally "hypergolic" with hydrogen --the two chemicals instantly react

Not quite, although you clearly know enough chemistry to have confused yourself, or accepted someone else's confusion.

Molecular hydrogen is far shorter lived in the atmosphere than inert CFCs. That's why CFCs were such a problem - they hang around in the troposphere long enough to mix up into the stratosphere. Molecular hydrogen is for the most part scrubbed out by the hydroxyl radical (OH) in the troposphere (via H2 + OH --> H2O + H and bacterial decomposition by soil).

So, any effect of hydrogen leaks on stratospheric ozone has to do with increased water vapour rather than direct reaction of H2 + O3. (Stratospheric water provides the surfaces required for ozone depletion reactions to take place on - polar stratospheric clouds - that's why water is important. See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html)

That's not really relevant, though, as estimates put the effect of even substantial hydrogen leaks on ozone depletion so small as makes no difference:

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/Pyle.pdf

There was an earlier study claiming it was a problem, but that's basically been debunked, both by the paper above (which assumes there will be significant losses, but finds they don't affect stratospheric ozone) and - much more recently - this paper which estimates that losses will actually be very low, comparable to hydrogen production from our existing vehicles (yes, internal combustion engines release small amounts of hydrogen).

I am an atmospheric scientist, I am not your atmospheric scientist, etc...

Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988. [Dumb Scientist]

That’s great, but I’m not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It’s possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess. [ShakaUVM]

No, what you and Michaels are doing isn't "great" in any sense of the word. Again, by "summarizing" the IPCC AR1 WG1 report as though it only gave one scenario, you pulled a "Pat Michaels".

As I've explained ad nauseum, the dynamical nature of climate models means that evaluating a GCM ensemble requires comparing projected forcings to the actual forcings. In other words, each scenario is an "if-then" statement: "If greenhouse gas concentrations rise at rate X, then temperatures will rise at rate Y." You and Michaels not only chopped off the first part of that sentence, you both presented it as the only scenario... which "coincidentally" makes it seem like scientists are discrediting themselves by making bad predictions.

The correct approach is to open the AR1 to the Annex on page 333, and examine the rates of CO2 rise given in the top-left of figure A.3. Scenario "A" (BaU in that plot) only applies if CO2 levels exceed 400ppm by 2010, which hasn't happened. The top right graph also shows that methane rises to over 2000ppm in that scenario by 2010, and once again that hasn't happened either.

Just like in Hansen88, AR1's scenario B is the closest match to the actual forcings. That's not really surprising, considering that Hansen was a contributing author for sections 6 and 8, table 2.2 on p52 repeatedly references Hansen88's radiative forcings and corrects a typo on p9360 of Hansen88, and chapter 3 repeatedly references Hansen88. Unsurprisingly, the emissions scenarios used in both studies seem very similar.

I thought you'd be able to learn something from the eerie parallels between your mistake and Michaels's, but apparently I was wrong. Again.

Unlike many other scientists, I don't think Michaels is lying because his "rebuttal" seems to indicate that he's trying to draw conclusions based entirely on each scenario's legend, and that he doesn't understand the difference between dynamical and empirical models. If he thinks that climate models are empirical, it makes sense that he wouldn't understand the reason for making three different projections. In that case

Find me anyone in the 70's talking about AGW. Would be even better if you could produce a study predicting this as you claimed.

How about Ramanathan & Coakley (1978)? This is a cornerstone paper. If you are interested in the subject it is one that you really should read. Looking for something earlier? how about The 1970 SCEP report? This predicted a 2C warming with doubling of CO2.

My point in saying it only works in a greenhouse is to say: it does not work in the atmosphere.

The radiative properties of CO2 are different in the atmosphere than they are everywhere else? This is a bold theory indeed. By what process do you suppose this change comes about?

I know that nobody knows exactly how the "greenhouse effect" works. For instance, consider radiative cooling, something not considered in the greenhouse effect, yet we know it exists. How can you leave radiative cooling out of any equations? Or solar cycles? Volcanic activity? The list goes on and on. To claim that because we understand how gases behave in the lab means that we know how gases behave in the atmosphere is naive.

The climate is not simple. Luckily neither are we. All of the things you mention are considered. I'm rather shocked that you think you have come up with a half dozen items that the scientists somehow missed.

Please tell me what would falsify 'greenhouse effect'. Or did you just conclude that it could not be falsified?

Here's an idea. What if we took an infrared camera and measured the observed opacity of the atmosphere? If it didn't line up with the theoretical value then we would know something was wrong with the theory. What if we measured incoming and outgoing long wave radiation? What if we measured it over time to see if the delta matched the predicted value? Darn! If only scientists had thought to do this! Then we wouldn't have to be arguing about radiative physics 101!

href="http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/02/14/climate-scientist-phil-jones-no-global-warming-since-1995.php">for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

You mentioned this before. I pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it means. You will need to study statistics for this one. Any first year textbook should do it. Ok, for the next few paragraphs you descend into conspiracy theory territory. I'm not going to follow you there and you would do well not to stray there yourself. You may end up sounding a little nutty. Let's stick to the facts.

You ignore the raw data from NOAA, met office, calling them “Cherry picked”

I didn't say that the NOAA data was cherry picked. It's just not in a format that I think you will be able to process. It's available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2. I encourage you use it to investigate the decade over decade increases. Note that the rate of increase is accelerating. Also note that the change for each decade is greater than that found in the NASA data. This is because NASA adjusts for UHI. This adjustment decreases the rate of warming.

That was not the consensus view

No, I guess the consensus view then was that the globe was uncontrollably cooling due to man's pollution.

You are mistaken. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses.

From EPA.GOV

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere behave much like the glass panes in a greenhouse.

That was easy. Greenhouse effect is a unproven theory that lies at the heart of AGW. I'm telling you it's just a theory just like AGW is, and you should avoid calling it fact when it is not.

I asked that you explain your theory and make it falsifiable.

You actually quoted me and then went on to not answer the question? You cannot falsify it, can you? Doesn't that make you question the theory? Why not answer that simple question?

The 70's were 0.03C wamer than the 60's. The 80's 0.18C warmer than the 70's. The 90's 0.12C warmer than the 80's. The 2000's 0.24C warmer than the 90's. This is exactly consistent with the theory.

Citation please.

And then the warming stopped?
Fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade
decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages) 2001 - 2009
decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade

But really, you need to provide links to the sources of your information, I'm not going to just take your word for it. If you can't do that than this is sort of pointless.

They don't keep all the accumulated heat. The heat inertia effect is closer to 50%.

Actually...

“The oceans are absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat from global warming,” he says. “If you aren’t measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren’t measuring global warming.” [Dr. Josh Willis]

Josh's estimate is plausible because:

• Oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface.
• Water's specific heat is over four times greater than that of rock.
• Water stores heat using the heat transfer mechanisms present in rock plus convection.
• Water is more transparent than rock so visible light warms more than just the very top layer.

But I'm not sure why you're saying that oceans aren't warming.

Nice link, but he's probably referring to a (resolved) problem with the Argo data that's discussed in that same article:

“So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis.

Speaking as a non-angry representative of the "global warming crowd" I would argue that your logic is sound but your implicit assumption that proxy data sets are based on one sample is demonstratably incorrect. If you applied the same assumptions and logic to instrumental data you would also come to the same conclusion, ie: one sample is no more convincing than an anecdote.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html

I like to go where the science is being done, rather than the claims from either side on what I should think based on a dare, er, I mean bet. Not a dare, a bet. That's so much more scientific. ;)

OK you said:

"Their historic range has grown because a lack of an adequately lengthy freeze during the winter is allowing them to live longer. "

then I said :

"In case you haven't noticed the only US state without snow this week is Florida.
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/ [noaa.gov], I'm sure that'll put a dent in those little beetles."

and you followed with

"an insect called Mountain Pine Beetle that lives in Canada and the Western US wouldn't be around, would it?). The temperature needs to get down to about -30F for a week or two to kill these things. "

now I'm going out on a limb here but if it takes -30F for a while to kill these little suckers, and it has to be that for a week or two, and there range is the forests of western North America from Mexico to central British Columbia. ; in a good sized chunk of their range, the beetles have never been killed due to low temperatures since the last iceage.

>>In addition to that, it is the oceans that are supposed to keep all the accumulated heat. But according to the best available measurements (the ARGO probes), it is just not showing up

They don't keep all the accumulated heat. The heat inertia effect is closer to 50%.

But I'm not sure why you're saying that oceans aren't warming -
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100121_globalstats.html

In case you haven't noticed the only US state without snow this week is Florida.
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/, I'm sure that'll put a dent in those little beetles.
you know even Phil Jones says there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for 15 years, and 15 years is half a climatic period.

How about this from the NOAA?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats.html

Hansen is known for tweaking the data, anything that comes out of his mouth is suspect.

Having endured a 1000 year flood in Tennessee last year, flooding of this level is destructive in ways unimaginable to those who haven't experienced it. In one day the Cumberland River turned into something resembling a white-water Mississippi River. Many had to be plucked from their homes via helicopter, and hundreds of homes and businesses were reduced to rubble. It crippled the local economy for months. In sheer destructiveness it exceeds an earthquake or hurricane, though mercifully limited in geographic extent. My deepest sympathies to anyone who has to go through something like that.

magnetic pole shifting is common and a well known phenomenon. it is called magnetic declination. is it so well known, actually, that surveyors have been taking this deviation into account for some 50+ years now. a tool which could be used for adjustment to such measurements is http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/Declination.jsp

90% of the thermometers in the United States have Climate Reference Network Rating of class 3 or higher resulting in expected errors => than 1C, 61% of the USHCN stations are class 5 with expected errors => 5C! The real tragedy is the US is considered the gold standard for climatological data!

My definition of "on record": http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Sorry, I can't check your link at the moment as it appears that the android browser can't copy from content. Any chance you'd run that through a url shortener so it'd be easier to transcribe?

And where I'm living, it's more than ten degrees Celsius above the historical average for this time of year. And none of this means anything, until we factor it into the global average. For what it's worth, November was the second warmest November on record according to the NOAA. It'll be interesting to see whether the anecdotal reports of a colder December reflect the true global mean, when that information is available.

No, you get multiple areas of local cooling. A more thorough treatment might reveal that although multiple areas cool down, more areas may be warmer, and significantly more warmer than the other areas are cooler.

Hey, look at that...someone already did this for us. Some places got cooler (UK and Australia among them), lots of places got warmer.

1) The sun is the biggest driver of the Earth's Climate

This is like saying the Earth is the biggest driver of the Earth's climate. It's an essentially meaningless statement.

2) There is already more than enough CO2 for a 'full' greenhouse effect so more will not make it 'worse.'

You are simply lying with this one. A 'full' greenhouse effect would mean that 100% of heat is retained. That's impossible, but you can look at worlds where heat retention is in the 99% range, such as Venus.

3) The Earth has been cooling since 2007.

Bull shit. Even if it was true, climate is not weather, the same way macroeconomics is not family household planning. Climate change is measured across decades, not years.

4) Current computer models of the Earth's long-term climate are not necessarily correct.

This is irrelevant to historical analysis, which shows a clear warming trend across decades. But unlike yourself, scientists do endeavor to be honest, and refine their model as new data is available. Most excess heat is getting dumped into the oceans.

There are others, of course, but you get the idea. Never say any of the above in the presence of believers.

Because you'll get called out for being the liar that you are.

1) The sun is the biggest driver of the Earth's Climate

This is like saying the Earth is the biggest driver of the Earth's climate. It's an essentially meaningless statement.

2) There is already more than enough CO2 for a 'full' greenhouse effect so more will not make it 'worse.'

You are simply lying with this one. A 'full' greenhouse effect would mean that 100% of heat is retained. That's impossible, but you can look at worlds where heat retention is in the 99% range, such as Venus.

3) The Earth has been cooling since 2007.

Bull shit. Even if it was true, climate is not weather, the same way macroeconomics is not family household planning. Climate change is measured across decades, not years.

4) Current computer models of the Earth's long-term climate are not necessarily correct.

This is irrelevant to historical analysis, which shows a clear warming trend across decades. But unlike yourself, scientists do endeavor to be honest, and refine their model as new data is available. Most excess heat is getting dumped into the oceans.

There are others, of course, but you get the idea. Never say any of the above in the presence of believers.

Because you'll get called out for being the liar that you are.

Note that the auroras are aligned to the magnetic poles, so you can't just use latitude. As a result, people in places like Ohio are more likely to see them than people in Oregon. Here's a web page with the current conditions: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html

I posted this earlier, figured this was an appropriate thread to post it again with some additions:

If you want a warning when auroras are likely to be occurring (so you can scurry outside and look), check out the NOAA's SWPC mailing lists. Go for the K-Index lists, and sign up for all those that apply for your location.

To figure out which minimum k-index results in visible aurora from your location, check out this helpful page; just enter in your latitude and longitude, and it'll give you your "magnetic latitude"; match that up with a k-index using the table, and you know which mailing lists to sign up for.

If your phone does email, you can get the alerts anywhere; if your phone doesn't but your provider has an email-to-sms gateway, you could just forward emails for the same effect. :)

Additional links:

• Spaceweather.com has a similar service that they charge money for (and likely gets the data from NOAA list anyways), but that does work if you need alerts on the phone and can't get them through email. They also have news posts and images whenever a large geomagnetic storm rolls around.
• NOAA's 3-day estimated Kp-index has the current Kp index and the last 3 days'
• CSSDP's real-time aurora oval is one of the most accurate current images of the aurora over Earth, showing roughly where it's visible and how strong (assuming perfect skies); green is weakest
• NOAA's Aurora Oval is similar

I posted this earlier, figured this was an appropriate thread to post it again with some additions:

If you want a warning when auroras are likely to be occurring (so you can scurry outside and look), check out the NOAA's SWPC mailing lists. Go for the K-Index lists, and sign up for all those that apply for your location.

To figure out which minimum k-index results in visible aurora from your location, check out this helpful page; just enter in your latitude and longitude, and it'll give you your "magnetic latitude"; match that up with a k-index using the table, and you know which mailing lists to sign up for.

If your phone does email, you can get the alerts anywhere; if your phone doesn't but your provider has an email-to-sms gateway, you could just forward emails for the same effect. :)

Additional links:

• Spaceweather.com has a similar service that they charge money for (and likely gets the data from NOAA list anyways), but that does work if you need alerts on the phone and can't get them through email. They also have news posts and images whenever a large geomagnetic storm rolls around.
• NOAA's 3-day estimated Kp-index has the current Kp index and the last 3 days'
• CSSDP's real-time aurora oval is one of the most accurate current images of the aurora over Earth, showing roughly where it's visible and how strong (assuming perfect skies); green is weakest
• NOAA's Aurora Oval is similar

I posted this earlier, figured this was an appropriate thread to post it again with some additions:

If you want a warning when auroras are likely to be occurring (so you can scurry outside and look), check out the NOAA's SWPC mailing lists. Go for the K-Index lists, and sign up for all those that apply for your location.

To figure out which minimum k-index results in visible aurora from your location, check out this helpful page; just enter in your latitude and longitude, and it'll give you your "magnetic latitude"; match that up with a k-index using the table, and you know which mailing lists to sign up for.

If your phone does email, you can get the alerts anywhere; if your phone doesn't but your provider has an email-to-sms gateway, you could just forward emails for the same effect. :)

Additional links:

• Spaceweather.com has a similar service that they charge money for (and likely gets the data from NOAA list anyways), but that does work if you need alerts on the phone and can't get them through email. They also have news posts and images whenever a large geomagnetic storm rolls around.
• NOAA's 3-day estimated Kp-index has the current Kp index and the last 3 days'
• CSSDP's real-time aurora oval is one of the most accurate current images of the aurora over Earth, showing roughly where it's visible and how strong (assuming perfect skies); green is weakest
• NOAA's Aurora Oval is similar

The urban heat island effect is well compensated for. A recent study that used Anthony Watts surfacestations.org list of well and poorly sited weather stations found that poorly sited stations actually show slightly less warming compared to the well sited stations. (Menne 2010)

Other studies showing the urban heat island effect is not a significant factor affecting temperature trends:
Peterson 2003
Parker 2006
Jones et al 2008

The NASA page you cited discussed the causes and effects of the UHI effect but says nothing about its effect on global temperature trends.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a "warm oceanic cycle". While changes in currents and atmospheric effects can change the distribution of heat in the oceans which will effect adjacent land temperatures it doesn't change the total heat energy stored in the oceans. Over 99% of the heat energy in the Earth system, including the oceans comes from greenhouse warming. Without the buffering effect of the oceans absorbing over 90% of the enhanced greenhouse warming we would already have surface temperatures much higher than they are now.

I probably shouldn't be making any 20 year bets since I'm old enough that it's at best 50-50 whether I'll still be among the living in 2030.

Regarding climate models, they don't make any predictions. In order to make a realistic prediction they would have to know the inputs of things subject to natural variability ahead of time. Inputs such as insolation, CO2 levels and the timing of events like ENSO among other things. Instead they make projections based on various input scenarios. They are tested and validated by hindcasting using the actual observations of those inputs.

In 1988 James Hansen made projections based on three scenarios (A, B & C). Scenario B came out closest to reality and the projections based on it are reasonably close to the reality we observe today. Here is a discussion of that.

As far as falsification of greenhouse gas (mostly CO2) driven climate change one of the most straightforward predictions made by the theory is that the stratosphere will cool some because of it. This has been observed. If it hadn't it would call into question the theory. If the warming were being driven by increased insolation the stratosphere would be expected to warm.

The urban heat island effect is well compensated for. A recent study that used Anthony Watts surfacestations.org list of well and poorly sited weather stations found that poorly sited stations actually show slightly less warming compared to the well sited stations. (Menne 2010)

Other studies showing the urban heat island effect is not a significant factor affecting temperature trends:
Peterson 2003
Parker 2006
Jones et al 2008

The NASA page you cited discussed the causes and effects of the UHI effect but says nothing about its effect on global temperature trends.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a "warm oceanic cycle". While changes in currents and atmospheric effects can change the distribution of heat in the oceans which will effect adjacent land temperatures it doesn't change the total heat energy stored in the oceans. Over 99% of the heat energy in the Earth system, including the oceans comes from greenhouse warming. Without the buffering effect of the oceans absorbing over 90% of the enhanced greenhouse warming we would already have surface temperatures much higher than they are now.

I probably shouldn't be making any 20 year bets since I'm old enough that it's at best 50-50 whether I'll still be among the living in 2030.

Regarding climate models, they don't make any predictions. In order to make a realistic prediction they would have to know the inputs of things subject to natural variability ahead of time. Inputs such as insolation, CO2 levels and the timing of events like ENSO among other things. Instead they make projections based on various input scenarios. They are tested and validated by hindcasting using the actual observations of those inputs.

In 1988 James Hansen made projections based on three scenarios (A, B & C). Scenario B came out closest to reality and the projections based on it are reasonably close to the reality we observe today. Here is a discussion of that.

As far as falsification of greenhouse gas (mostly CO2) driven climate change one of the most straightforward predictions made by the theory is that the stratosphere will cool some because of it. This has been observed. If it hadn't it would call into question the theory. If the warming were being driven by increased insolation the stratosphere would be expected to warm.

The heat wave in Russia this past summer was unprecedented. A Russian scientists stated it had been at least 1000 years since such a heat wave has occurred there.

... your point being? Let's see what NOAA has to say about that heat wave:

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.

The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

As far as the cold over Europe and the US it is not record setting.

You might want to revise that.

December is on course to be the coldest since records began in 1910, the BBC weather centre has said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12078425

Coldest December in Sweden in 110 years - http://www.thelocal.se/31072/20101226/

In Berlin gab es Anfang Dezember den absoluten Kälterekord, "seit 100 Jahren war es hier nicht so kalt wie in der ersten Dezember-Dekade", so Globig. Das gelte auch für andere Regionen Deutschlands. - http://wetter.t-online.de/winter-extrem-neue-kleine-eiszeit-ist-jetzt-moeglich-/id_43699628/index

Chicagoans shivered through the coldest December open in 27 years - http://blog.chicagoweathercenter.com/2010/12/chicago-books-its-coldest-december-open-in-27-years-highs-nearly-30-degrees-below-a-year-ago.html

Sometimes I wonder if it's really the global warming advocates who seem to ignore science, at least when it's science and data that don't fit their agenda.

Everything you just posted is completely normal for a negative AO.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

AO history:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml

Maybe you're young enough to believe that mostly-positive is "normal"? That's only since the end of the 70s (see first link) - it seems we're going to back to the climate regime we had in the decades previous to that right now.

The oceans are about 5% explored. More resources should be geared toward the oceans as well.

You never know...we might find some creature under there that has some complex protein mankind could use to treat chronic diseases like diabetes, AIDS and the like.

How'z that?

Or make a weapon from it.
There, fixed that for ya.

The oceans are about 5% explored. More resources should be geared toward the oceans as well.

You never know...we might find some creature under there that has some complex protein mankind could use to treat chronic diseases like diabetes, AIDS and the like.

How'z that?

Still not seeing any citations, but perhaps you should be reviewing your own examples. The hockey stick has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence:

McIntyre 2004 claimed that the Mann 1999's hockey-stick graph shape was a result of the analysis method used (principal components analysis), and was not statistically significant. However, the National Center for Atmospheric Research reconstructed (Wahl 2007) the graph using a variety of techniques (with and without principal components analysis), and with some slightly different temperatures in the 15th century, confirmed the hockey stick. Furthermore, independent measurements from boreholes (Huang 2000"), stalagmites (Smith 2006) and glaciers (Oerlemans 2005) all confirm the same dramatic recent temperature rises. Mann 2008 combines these with ice cores, coral and lake sediments to confirm the same hockey stick shape over the last 1300 years, without requiring the disputed tree-ring data.

If you're referring to Steig 2009, perhaps you can point us to evidence that discredits this? You'll have to forgive us for not taking your claims that it is "unmitigated bollocks" at face value. Rather, measurements from the GRACE satellite (Velicogna 2009) show very clearly that the Antarctic land ice sheet has lost around 900 gigatonnes in the last 7 years, and this loss rate is accelerating, even in the previously-thought-stable East Antarctica (Chen 2009). The Antarctic sea ice sheet is actually increasing, however, for numerous possible reasons, but at a lower rate than the land ice loss.

Still not seeing any citations, but perhaps you should be reviewing your own examples. The hockey stick has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence:

McIntyre 2004 claimed that the Mann 1999's hockey-stick graph shape was a result of the analysis method used (principal components analysis), and was not statistically significant. However, the National Center for Atmospheric Research reconstructed (Wahl 2007) the graph using a variety of techniques (with and without principal components analysis), and with some slightly different temperatures in the 15th century, confirmed the hockey stick. Furthermore, independent measurements from boreholes (Huang 2000"), stalagmites (Smith 2006) and glaciers (Oerlemans 2005) all confirm the same dramatic recent temperature rises. Mann 2008 combines these with ice cores, coral and lake sediments to confirm the same hockey stick shape over the last 1300 years, without requiring the disputed tree-ring data.

If you're referring to Steig 2009, perhaps you can point us to evidence that discredits this? You'll have to forgive us for not taking your claims that it is "unmitigated bollocks" at face value. Rather, measurements from the GRACE satellite (Velicogna 2009) show very clearly that the Antarctic land ice sheet has lost around 900 gigatonnes in the last 7 years, and this loss rate is accelerating, even in the previously-thought-stable East Antarctica (Chen 2009). The Antarctic sea ice sheet is actually increasing, however, for numerous possible reasons, but at a lower rate than the land ice loss.

I think he was engaging in some hyperbole for effect, but..

Most of Wisconsin gets over 4' of snow per year, and portions of northern Wisc. get over 13 feet.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/climate/avg-wi-snow.gif