NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label NOAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NOAA. Show all posts

20 September 2025

Protect NOAA and FEMA from Trump's Dangerous Budget Cuts 20SEP25



 

THOUGH America is headed for a government shutdown due to the irresponsible budget demands of the fascist heritage foundation's project 2025 on the NOT MY pres drumpf / trump, NOT MY vp vance, their cabinet and the almost total submission to them of the gop / greed over people-republican party it is still important that WE THE PEOPLE make our needs and expectations known by e mailing our elected officials. Please participate in this campaign for full funding for NOAA and FEMA from the Union of Concerned Scientist and be sure to personalize your letter if you can ( I did ). Before sending my letter through the link provided I copied and pasted it to e mails from me to my representative and senators ( see at the end of this post ). By the by, want to have more impact? Make your letter personal. More than 50 percent of Congress members report that form emails into their offices have some or a lot of influence over their position on an issue. But 92 percent report that individualized email letters have some or a lot of influence! Take action before disaster strikes, then it is too late.....

30 May 2014

NOAA Predicts Relatively Quiet Atlantic Hurricane Season & Hurricane Amanda Just Set an Ominous New Record 22&27MAI14

HURRICANE season starts 1 JUN 14, the predictions are for fewer Atlantic and more Pacific storms. I live in Virginia and there is a chance the Commonwealth could experience a hurricane. AND to all Virginians, the sales tax holiday for disaster preparedness supplies ends midnight Saturday 31 MAY 14. From +NPR and +Mother Jones  .....

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration expects a relatively quiet Atlantic hurricane season, with three to six hurricanes developing between June 1 and the end of November. Forecasters say they expect El Nino conditions to develop in the coming months, which should produce winds in the Atlantic that discourage hurricane formation.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:
From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Audie Cornish.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
And I'm Robert Siegel. Optimism and hurricanes are not words we usually utter together, but the Atlantic hurricane season begins June 1st, and today government forecasters offered some cautious optimism. They are expecting a relatively quiet year. Here's NPR's Jon Hamilton.
JON HAMILTON, BYLINE: Officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued this year's hurricane outlook from New York City's Office of Emergency Management. It's just a mile or so from areas of lower Manhattan that were under water after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. NOAA's administrator, Kathryn Sullivan, offered a preview of 2014.
KATHRYN SULLIVAN: NOAA predicts the Atlantic hurricane season in 2014 will have a range of eight to 13 tropical storms, three to six of which will become hurricanes.
HAMILTON: That's fewer tropical storms and hurricanes than in an average year. But Sullivan also cautioned that predictions are about probability not certainty.
SULLIVAN: Any section of our coastline can be hit by a severe tropical storm. And one storm, whatever the probabilities are, one storm can wreak tremendous havoc.
HAMILTON: Sullivan has reason to be cautious about seasonal forecasts. A year ago, NOAA predicted a busy season with at least seven hurricanes. They got just two and they were small ones. Still, NOAA's May forecasts are right about two-thirds of the time. And forecasters say this year there is strong evidence that conditions in the Atlantic won't be conducive to hurricane formation. One reason is water temperature. Gerry Bell, who is in charge of NOAA's seasonal forecast, says that since 1995, hurricanes have been fueled in part by unusually warm waters in the Atlantic.
GERRY BELL: This year, the Atlantic Ocean temperatures have cooled off and the computer models are indicating that we'll have a continuation of these near normal Atlantic temperatures through the season.
HAMILTON: Another factor likely to discourage hurricanes is what appears to be an emerging El Nino. El Nino starts in the Pacific but ultimately, it changes the wind patterns halfway around the world, in the Atlantic. Ben Kirtman, from the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School, says El Nino produces winds with more vertical shear, meaning the strength or direction is different at higher altitudes than it is closer to the ground.
BEN KIRTMAN: Hurricanes like to form where there's very little change with height in the strength of the winds. And so if there's a big change in strength with height, you just have this shearing effect that tends to reduce the number of hurricanes.
HAMILTON: And if the shear is strong enough, it can actually rip them apart. Kirtman says El Nino hasn't arrived yet. But he's pretty sure it will, based on his monitoring of about 100 different forecasts from across North America.
KIRTMAN: And I would say 65 or 70 percent of those 100 forecasts are calling for El Nino conditions to develop in the next two or three months. So, that's certainly good reason to have fairly high confidence that we are going to get an El Nino.
HAMILTON: Kirtman says El Nino conditions do more than discourage hurricanes. They also tend to increase rainfall in the southern part of the U.S.
KIRTMAN: And in fact, if this El Nino persists through the winter season like we think it's going to, there might be a little bit of a break in terms of the California drought, which has been very, very severe.
HAMILTON: However, the arrival of El Nino doesn't guarantee either rainfall or protection from potentially devastating hurricanes. During an El Nino in 1992, Hurricane Andrew became a Category 5 storm that destroyed Homestead, Florida. Andrew eventually killed 65 people and caused $26 billion in damage. Jon Hamilton, NPR News.

Hurricane Amanda Just Set an Ominous New Record


The first eastern Pacific hurricane of 2014 set a new intensity record. Here's why we could see even stronger storms before the year is over.

| Tue May 27, 2014 3:56 PM EDT
Hurricane Amanda in the eastern Pacific on May 25
Usually, people living in the United States don't pay much attention to hurricanes in the eastern Pacific, the other basin where megastorms that can affect North America are formed. Mostly, these storms wallop Mexico, or travel harmlessly out to sea. So, given the standard myopia of the media, we rarely hear much about them.
But this year, perhaps, we ought to be paying more attention. The eastern Pacific hurricane season started on May 15, and already, with its first storm, it has set an ominous record. The hurricane in question, named Amanda, spun up south of the Baja California peninsula Thursday, and on Sunday it attained maximum sustained wind speeds of 155 miles per hour—just below Category 5 status. Or as National Hurricane Center forecaster Stacy Stewart put it when the storm reached its peak strength: "Amanda is now the strongest May hurricane on record in the eastern Pacific basin during the satellite era."
This record is notable for two reasons. First of all, even though there remains a great deal of uncertainty and debate about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming, the fact is that in many hurricane basins across the world, new storm intensity records have been set just since the year 2000. Amanda therefore fits into this broader pattern.
Second, there is growing evidence that El Niño conditions—characterized by an eastward shift of warm water across the great Pacific Ocean, with global weather ramifications—are developing in the Pacific right now. The latest forecast from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now gives us a greater than 65 percent chance that El Niño conditions will develop by this summer.
In El Niño years, we tend to see a great firing of hurricane activity in the eastern Pacific, and a suppression of these storms in the Atlantic. In fact, the strongest storm ever recorded in the eastern Pacific, Category 5 Hurricane Linda in 1997, occurred during the last super-strong El Niño year.
So if El Nino does occur, Amanda may not be the strongest storm that we see in the Eastern Pacific this year. That's potentially bad news for Mexico. In fact, there is even a tiny possibility that during an El Niño year, a storm might be able to travel as far north as Southern California (albeit in a pretty weakened state), as Hurricane Linda was at one point forecast to do. In fact, recent historical work on past hurricanes has revealed that in 1858, San Diego was struck by what appears to have been a Category 1 hurricane.
As of now, Hurricane Amanda has weakened and is not expected to affect land in a serious way. But this is definitely a storm whose significance extends well beyond its immediate impact.

01 June 2013

HURRICANE SEASON IS HERE; Remapping Our Awareness Of Storm Surge Danger 1JUN13

HURRICANE SEASON starts today, 1 JUN 13, and the federal government is doing their best to be prepared and to be able to warn those in danger of any of the seven to eleven hurricanes expected this year. People do have a responsibility to be prepared too, for their sake and because they do not have the right to put the lives of our first responders in jeopardy by not heeding evacuation orders. From NPR......
Streets flooded in the Staten Island borough of New York after Superstorm Sandy hit in October. The storm caused multiple fatalities, halted mass transit and cut power to more than 6 million homes and businesses.
John Minchillo/AP
Hurricane season begins Saturday, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is forecasting an active season, with perhaps seven to 11 hurricanes.
With memories of last year's destruction from Hurricane Sandy still fresh, meteorologists are working on ways to improve how they forecast storms and communicate warnings to the public.
When Sandy was making its way northward in the Atlantic and began to turn toward the East Coast, the National Hurricane Center tried to emphasize the danger that storm surge posed for residents, especially those near New York City.
The Hurricane Center's forecast warned of 6 to 11 feet of storm surge. As it turned out, the center was right on the money. Rising seawater, pushed by Sandy's powerful winds, came ashore and brought widespread flooding to New Jersey, Long Island, parts of Brooklyn and Staten Island.
"It was like the ocean came up on land," says Rosemary Caruso, who lives just a block from the water on Staten Island.
Underestimating Storm Surge
This wasn't the first time a storm had flooded Staten Island. There were storm surges in the 1930s, but back then many of the coastal areas were still undeveloped marshland.
When Sandy hit, thousands in vulnerable neighborhoods didn't evacuate, despite the warnings. More than 20 people died on Staten Island, most from drowning. Jamie Rhome, a storm surge specialist at the National Hurricane Center, says it's a problem seen in nearly every hurricane.
"In general, this nation does not understand storm surge, nor does it understand its vulnerability," Rhome says. "We've seen poll after poll of individuals, right at the coast, saying they're not vulnerable to storm surge."
As Sandy showed, it's a threat that's not limited to states along the Gulf and in the Southeast.
"The New York area is, what I think, one of the most vulnerable areas in the entire East Coast," says William Fritz, a geologist and president of the College of Staten Island.
Months before Sandy, Fritz worked with Alan Benimoff to map areas on the island vulnerable to storm surge. The map proved prescient. The morning after the storm, Benimoff was out on Staten Island charting the surge.
"It was terrible. I never saw anything like it," he says.
In some neighborhoods, he says, Sandy's storm surge reached 14 feet. It matched Fritz and Benimoff's model almost exactly.
With the help of supercomputers at the University of North Carolina, Fritz says, his team is now prepared to do real-time modeling to understand the threat of storm surge as a hurricane approaches.
The problem, he says, is that public awareness of the threat of storm surge now lags behind science's ability to forecast it.
The National Hurricane Center is working on new storm surge maps — like this one of Miami-Dade County in Florida — to help residents understand their risk.
The National Hurricane Center is working on new storm surge maps — like this one of Miami-Dade County in Florida — to help residents understand their risk.
National Hurricane Center
"Some of the people that lost their lives ... were a few blocks away from safe ground," Fritz says. "But they didn't know ... where the safe ground was."
Fritz is calling for a public education campaign similar to that used in the northwestern U.S. for tsunamis; one that would include signs identifying surge-prone areas and the nearest high ground.
An Easier-To-Understand Message
Learning from the experience of Sandy, Florida's Miami-Dade County has recently drawn up new maps dividing the county into five evacuation areas now relabeled "storm surge zones."
On the new maps, the number of people who live in areas that could potentially be evacuated has tripled. Emergency Management Director Curt Sommerhoff says that's nearly 2 million residents — most of the people who live in Miami-Dade County.
"We're in the most hurricane-prone area of the most hurricane-prone state in the United States," Sommerhoff says. Since Florida is a peninsula, he says, it faces storm surge threats on three different fronts.
In a hurricane, emergency managers advise residents to shelter in place when at risk from high winds. But when there's a risk of storm surge — which causes the most damage and takes the most lives — they tell residents to evacuate.
Efforts to get that message to the public are also underway at the National Hurricane Center. One of the new tools is graphics and mapping software designed to be read and easily understood by the public.
Instead of technical terms like "height above mean sea level," the map tells coastal residents how deep the water is likely to be in their neighborhoods. The map is color-coded, too, explains Rhome, who helped design the software.
"The brighter the color, the deeper the water has the potential to be," he says. "But more importantly, people don't understand how far the water goes inland. This map clearly shows how far the water goes inland. If you're in one of those colored areas, you need to do something to protect your life."
The new storm surge maps were intended to be ready by next year, National Hurricane Center officials say, but because of the need and strong demand by emergency managers, they hope to begin using them this summer. 
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/01/187726555/new-maps-aim-to-raise-awareness-of-storm-surge-danger?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20130601

03 August 2012

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution 28JUL12

WHAT a surprise for the koch brothers, their money wasn't able to buy results! That is more amazing than the actual report, because the report just confirms what we have known for a few years now.... From ThinkProgress....
ten year data analysis comparison graph
The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” Via BEST.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.
UPDATE (9 pm, 7/28): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”
Here is the money graf:
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
Yes, yes, I know, the finding itself is “dog bites man.” What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!
It gets better:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!
UPDATE (9 AM, 7/29): The UK Guardian has a good story up, “Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds: Earth’s land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible.”
And here’s an amusing tweet from a top U.S. climatologist, Michael Mann:
Below is some background on BEST followed by a longer excerpt of the op-ed.

A group of scientists led by one well-known skeptic, Muller — and whose only climatologist listed is Judith Curry, a well-known confusionist [see Schmidt and Annan and Steig andVerheggen, and CP] — decided to reexamine all of the temperature data they could get their hands on. I broke the story of their initial findings in March 2011 (with the help of climatologist Ken Caldeira) – see Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”
The top figure is an updated chart of their findings from March of this year. They found a lot of warming.
Indeed, their key paper from 2011 found:
… our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions.
So the only remaining question for BEST was: What is the cause of that warming? Of course, those who read ClimateProgress or the scientific literature already knew the answer to that question (see the 12/11 post, It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was).
BEST is set to release those findings this week. The excellent UK Guardian reporter, Leo Hickman, tweeted earlier today that “Significant climate-related news will be breaking on Guardian website in next 24-36 hours” and then he tweeted an hour ago the link to the excerpt of Muller’s op-ed.
Here is more of the op-ed:
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
Well, in fact, to be seriously considered, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does CO2 — and it must offer some mechanism that counteracts the well-known warming effect of CO2. Not bloody likely.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes.
Hope springs eternal. Unless, you’re a denier. Then the expression is “nope springs eternal.”
I asked Caldeira for a comment on Muller’s op-ed. He writes:
I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly  everyone else had come to more than a decade ago.
The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important.  However, their result may be politically important.  It shows that even people who suspect climate scientists of being charlatans, when they take a hard look at the data, see that the climate scientists have been right all along.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/ 

14 May 2012

2 Years Later, Grim Photos From the BP Disaster 7MAI12

A picture is worth a thousand words, and these pictures should be enough to show bp and the government lied to us about the severity of bp's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the short and long term damage done to the environment. There are links to several related articles following this. KEEP IN MIND, BIG OIL WANTS TO BRING THIS SAME TECHNOLOGY AND THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE ARCTIC. Greenpeace, the NRDC and other environmental organizations are fighting them every step of the way, go to their websites for more information on their campaigns. This from Mother Jones / MOJO......
|
It's been two years since the Deepwater Horizon disaster unleashed 4.9 million barrels of oil on the Gulf of Mexico. In the midst of the disaster, BP and its contractors did everything they could to keep people from seeing the scale of the disaster. But new photos released Monday offer some new insight to just how grim the Gulf became for sea life.
The images were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that Greenpeace filed back in August 2010, asking for any communication related to endangered and threatened Gulf species. Now, many months later, Greenpeace received a response from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that included more than 100 photos from the spill, including many of critically endangered Kemp's Ridley sea turtles dead and covered in oil.
Most photos are missing dates and descriptions, though the FOIA request covered the period of April 20, 2010, to July 30, 2010. But they're pretty shocking—which is probably why they weren't made public at the height of the spill. "It just makes me furious," said John Hocevar, a marine biologist who works for Greenpeace. "I had so many conversations with people in various government agencies working on the Gulf spill, and I feel like they were hiding things from all of us."
"The White House was sitting on this stuff for over two years, at the same time they were saying everything was fine, that the oil was gone, and while they were rushing ahead with plans for new drilling in the Gulf, the Arctic, elsewhere," Hocevar continued. "It's just not okay. This is not an acceptable type of collateral damage."
Mother Jones has requested comment from NOAA but had not received a response at press time.
Jump below the fold to see some of the photos that have been kept under wraps for the past two years: