Something I missed a few weeks back, ran across it while looking around fro Georgia flooding news: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090910-sea-levels-rise.html

The North Atlantic coastal ocean rose almost two feet last June, and stayed that way for months.

The author of this article for some reason takes pains to state that global warming was not involved - while citing probable causes, such as slowing of the Gulf Stream and unusual winds, that are famously linked to global warming predictions. Oh well.

Here we come Africa..

Not global warming, there's no such thing.

http://www.wunderground.com/data/640x480/mmm_marine.gif

See the extremely warm temperatures down by the Indian subcontinent? It indicates El Nino, a rather heavy El-Nino...I'd imagine India by the end will have had higher than average Rainfall along the Northwestern rim.

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/tmp/labeling/2131168_dyn.jpg
Oceanic currents isn't my forte...but I believe a decreased South Atlantic gyre is the result of increased Western Pacific temperatures. As a result, much much colder surfaces temperatures dip down from Northern Canada which can be seen in Image1.

Colder temperatures north East of America results in a larger thermal gradient
http://weather.ou.edu/~nguyen/wx/300k.png
These are isotherms, see the High over Eastern Canada and the Low over the Eastern Seaboard?

Not to mention you would see a more pronounced gradient from Colder oceanic temperatures to warm continental in the morning, resulting in higher tides.

Not global warming, there's no such thing. We're back to that one again? I thought we had moved to "sure it's getting warmer, but it's part of a natural cycle".

If you can figure out how this latest Nino, unlike any other, slowed the Gulf Stream and brought a predominantly onshore wind for months, get in touch with the guys trying to figure it out. They're still working on it.

I was just kind of amused by the interjected comment in the article, right out of the blue - "(hint: it wasn't global warming)" - when nothing of the kind was indicated in the article or by the researchers involved, and the evidence might reasonably be taken as supporting the proposition that the cause was, in fact, global warming. I mean, WTF? In a science oriented publication ?

Not global warming, there's no such thing.
That statement is more than a bit trollish, and that is coming from a luke warmer.


See the extremely warm temperatures down by the Indian subcontinent? It indicates El Nino, a rather heavy El-Nino
FFS! That kind of image does not show El Nino conditions. It shows that equatorial waters are a lot warmer than polar waters. A La Nina, even a strong one, would appear to be more or less the same with that kind of image. To see whether El Nino or La Nina conditions prevail, you need to look at a temperature anomaly graph.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure1.gif


In comparison, here is what a strong El Nino looks like:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/anomnight.12.19.1997-thumb.gif


This current El Nino is a rather weak one.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928194832.htm

"Unless present El Niņo conditions intensify, I believe this El Niņo is too weak to have a major influence on many weather patterns," [Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory] says. "A macho El Niņo like that of 1997-1998 is off the board, but I'm hoping for a relaxation in the tropical trade winds and a surprise strengthening of El Niņo that could result in a shift in winter storm patterns over the United States. If the trade winds decrease, the ocean waters will continue to warm and spread eastward, strengthening the El Niņo. That scenario could bring atmospheric patterns that will deliver much-needed rainfall to the southwestern United States this winter. If not, the dice seem to be loaded for below-normal snowpacks and another drier-than-normal winter."

I was just kind of amused by the interjected comment in the article, right out of the blue - "(hint: it wasn't global warming)" - when nothing of the kind was indicated in the article or by the researchers involved, and the evidence might reasonably be taken as supporting the proposition that the cause was, in fact, global warming. I mean, WTF? In a science oriented publication ?
Perhaps because the writers are legitimate scientists, and legitimate scientists are careful not to tie everything to AGW? Perhaps because this particular rise in sea level apparently has nothing to do with global warming?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/EastCoastSeaLevelAnomaly_2009.pdf

There are two probable mechanisms responsible for the June – July 2009 high SL residuals. The first is northeasterly (NE) wind forcing. In June 2009, winds over the entire geographic areafrom Cape Hatteras, NC to the Gulf of Maine had a moderate NE wind component, whosetransport caused coastal SL to rise. South of Cape Hatteras, winds were primarily southwesterly (SW). The other mechanism is the changing transport of the Florida Current, which is measured in the Florida Straits before it supplies the Gulf Steam off of Cape Hatteras, NC. When the Florida Current / Gulf Stream transport is low, the eastward-rising cross-current slope relaxesand raises coastal SL. In June 2009, the SL residual rise was concurrent with a noted decrease intransport of the Florida Current. The June – July 2009 SL event decays in mid-July 2009 as the SL residuals diminish. During this period, transport of the Florida Current sharply increases and the winds oscillate between SW and NE along the East Coast. The June – July 2009 SL anomaly is unique in that the NE winds were not at a multi-year high or the Florida Current transport at its low.

Blaming everything on global warming, and anthropogenic global warming, is downright dishonest -- and incorrect. Was this slowdown in the Gulf Stream due to AGW? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061129/full/news061127-8.html

http://www.wunderground.com/data/640x480/mmm_marine.gif

See the extremely warm temperatures down by the Indian subcontinent? It indicates El Nino, a rather heavy El-Nino...I'd imagine India by the end will have had higher than average Rainfall along the Northwestern rim.
No it doesn't, El Nino is a Pacific Ocean phenomenom that has follow on effects over most of the world (including upsetting the Indian monsoon season).
The Indian Subcontinent is in the Indian Ocean, not the pacific ocean, and finally this map is from 2002, and so has no bearing on what's being discussed in the OP (and as has already been pointed out to you, is the wrong kind of map to clearly show el nino/la nina.

As a result, much much colder surfaces temperatures dip down from Northern Canada which can be seen in Image1.

Colder temperatures north East of America results in a larger thermal gradient
http://weather.ou.edu/~nguyen/wx/300k.png
These are isotherms, see the High over Eastern Canada and the Low over the Eastern Seaboard?

Not to mention you would see a more pronounced gradient from Colder oceanic temperatures to warm continental in the morning, resulting in higher tides.
This image shows Isobars and relative humidity, not isotherms.

The Indian Subcontinent is in the Indian Ocean, not the pacific ocean, and finally this map is from 2002, and so has no bearing on what's being discussed in the OP
No, it is current. Not only that, it is a live link. The image updates every four hours and now reads "00 UTC Sat Oct 03".

No, it is current. Not only that, it is a live link. The image updates every four hours and now reads "00 UTC Sat Oct 03".

Oh right, so it's MM DD not MM YY like I thought - my bad.

The rest of what I had to say stands though (Namely that it doesn't show what the poster claims it shows).

lets see we have had the longest drought in history even going back geologically rather than through recorded records. The fire seasons are constrantly ABOVE the skale designed to rate them to the point that there is concideration for throwing it out and starting again because it no longer works. Massive disaster level bushfires are increasing in frequency even when population is taken into acount and thats even WITH increased bushfire management and lastly record temps are being broken multiple times on a yearly basis now rather than maybe once every 10 or so years. Anyone who doesnt understand global warming exists by now is either a conspiracy nutjob or simply wants to exploit the statice quoe without any concideration of the damage that will cause even to there children

Perhaps because the writers are legitimate scientists, and legitimate scientists are careful not to tie everything to AGW? The usual way to do that is to not tie the matter to AGW.
Perhaps because this particular rise in sea level apparently has nothing to do with global warming? Well, that is not true. Whether the rise was tied to global warming is very much an open question, under investigation, and apparently quite possibly the case.

In other words, the assertion was of something the author could not have known, and was completely inappropriate.

The author went out their way to make an assertion not supported by the content of their report, or ( as far as we know) by any of the research or researchers being reported on.

Now that was possibly an editing problem - maybe there was support for the remark in researcher observations or something, left in the editor's bin. But what it looks like is that the writer thinks attributing the rise to a slowing Gulf Stream and onshore winds somehow replaces attributing it to global warming.

The usual way to do that is to not tie the matter to AGW.
Isn't that what they did?

This two foot rise in sea level was localized and temporary. It is not the scary rise in sea level used to hype AGW. National Geographic ranks quite high amongst the proselytizers of the AGW religion. They appear to have learned that over-hyping the religion can backfire.

To Trippy: I knew it was El-Nino, I had intended to link to the updated value image. I accidentally linked to a historic image. And it does have worth, because the El-Nino 3.4 region is often used to determine weather events world wide. It's a highly volatile region.

And you're wrong about the Isothermal image, look in the bottom right. It says "Isentropic analysis" not "Isobaric analysis".


To: DH The current El-Nino has greatly decreased Hurricanes this year, more tropical storms than average seem to have tracked through Northern Mexico as a result.

To Trippy: I knew it was El-Nino, I had intended to link to the updated value image. I accidentally linked to a historic image. And it does have worth, because the El-Nino 3.4 region is often used to determine weather events world wide. It's a highly volatile region.

And you're wrong about the Isothermal image, look in the bottom right. It says "Isentropic analysis" not "Isobaric analysis".

Take another look at your own image - specifically the bit where it keys RH (Relative Humidity) on a scale from 70 to 90.

Then realize that Isentropic = isoentropic = equal entropy.
And realize that entropy ≠ heat, so to claim that an isoentropic map is an isothermal is simply wrong.

I could, for example, generate an isoentropic map that has an even/equilibrium thermal component.

Take another look at your own image - specifically the bit where it keys RH (Relative Humidity) on a scale from 70 to 90.

Then realize that Isentropic = isoentropic = equal entropy.
And realize that entropy ≠ heat, so to claim that an isoentropic map is an isothermal is simply wrong.

I could, for example, generate an isoentropic map that has an even/equilibrium thermal component.

You could. You're right, they're not isotherms. I automatically equate the two, because it is a charting of potential temperatures. In either case I was wrong.

Does that matter much?

The usual way to do that is to not tie the matter to AGW.
”
Isn't that what they did? No, it isn't. The writer made a false claim about the knowledge of any ties to AGW - a false claim about a matter directly under investigation by the very people whose research the writer was covering.

This two foot rise in sea level was localized and temporary. It is not the scary rise in sea level used to hype AGW. National Geographic ranks quite high amongst the proselytizers of the AGW religion. They appear to have learned that over-hyping the religion can backfire. So they have instructed their writers to interject unnecessary, possibly (quite likely) false claims into articles on weather phenomena?

Claims directly contrary to the direction of the research being reported?

Bending over backwards understates that kind of response.

Are you being intentionally thick?

Global warming fanatics claim that global warming might cause at most a two foot rise in global sea level by the end of this century. This particular two foot rise was localized in time and place. It is not the scary global two foot rise.

Another way to look at it: This is just weather. Making the claim that every incident of weather that might be attributable to global warming is without a doubt caused by global warming weakens the argument for global warming. Doing so elevates the weather-based counterclaims of those who claim there is no such thing as global warming. If you want to make the claim that this localized rise in sea level was caused by global warming then you had better be prepared to accept the claims of unseasonably cold weather in Timbuktu as a valid counter argument to global warming.

It is best not to argue this way. Responsible climate scientists, even those who fervently believe in the claims of AGW, know this and warn their fellow believers to stop using individual weather events as signs of global warming. Unseasonably cold weather will continue to strike random spots on the Earth for quite some time even if the claims of AGW are true. Unseasonably hot weather will strike random spots on the Earth even if the claims of AGW are utter nonsense. Individual weather events are not evidence of the presence or absence of global warming. There are just weather.

Are you being intentionally thick?

Global warming fanatics claim that global warming might cause at most a two foot rise in global sea level by the end of this century. This particular two foot rise was localized in time and place. It is not the scary global two foot rise. So? Nobody but you is talking about any scary global two foot rise. There are no global warming "fanatics" visible anywhere on the scene.

Certainly not the researchers, or the writer of the article.

The false claim of knowledge by the writer, the unscientific and misleading interjection, involved the research and phenomenon the writer was reporting on, not some other phenomenon.

Making the claim that every incident of weather that might be attributable to global warming is without a doubt caused by global warming weakens the argument for global warming. No such claim has anything to do with this discussion. Nothing even close to that is visible anywhere in this discussion, except in your posts. Why are you dragging that issue into this?

The author of this article for some reason takes pains to state that global warming was not involved - while citing probable causes, such as slowing of the Gulf Stream and unusual winds, that are famously linked to global warming predictions. Oh well.

if this happened 50 years ago who would have noticed?

if this happened 50 years ago who would have noticed? Probably every shipping company and fisherman on the east coast.

Two feet is kind of a lot.

there is still a high tide and a low tide it is very likely that this has happened many times. flooding is so common near an ocean all times of the year plus you would have never either if you didnt read the article.


Something I missed a few weeks back, ran across it while looking around fro Georgia flooding news

there is still a high tide and a low tide it is very likely that this has happened many times. flooding is so common near an ocean all times of the year plus you would have never either if you didnt read the article. If you want to believe that the fishermen and shipping outfits of the east coast would overlook a consistent two foot difference in water level around their docks, marinas, launch ramps, repair and loading setups, clearance on hazards, etc; including in the heights of the tides and floods and so forth; you go right ahead.

this is not really belief, the question is...is it possible?

i would have to say - Yes, it is possible.

for one thing structures are no built with in a foot or two clearance to water, secondly boats have ballasts and there are workarounds for hight tides and rising sea levels, which is very common. so NOW do you see how it could have gone unnoticed? UNLESS someone is specifically looking for it.