Category Archives: Climate (be civil ! )

The climate gods have a sardonic sense of humor

Things haven’t been going too well for Global Warming. First, there has been essentially no change in global mean temperature for 14 – 17 years (depending on which of 4 measures you use). So Global Warming was rebranded as Climate Change. Then, we’ve been told that climate change would lead to more and more ‘extreme weather events’ (translation hurricanes, tornadoes etc. etc.) So in one of the coolest New England summers within memory and with nearly half of the 6 month hurricane season gone, we have a very quiet, not to say comatose, hurricane season.

At the onset of the 2014 season NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) predicted a 70% chance of a below average season. The numbers they expected were

8 – 13 Named storms (top winds over 39 mph — not very impressive)

3 – 6 Hurricanes (top winds over 74 mph)

1 – 2 Category 3 storms (sustained winds over 110 mph)

This was updated 7 August to a 70% probability of an even less exciting season

7 – 12 Named storms (top winds over 39 mph — not very impressive)

3 – 6 Hurricanes (top winds over 74 mph)

0 – 2 Category 3 storms (sustained winds over 110 mph)

So instead of extreme weather events, we have extremely boring (but pleasant) weather and just 2 named storms which turned into hurricanes. No category 3 events, and as of this writing, the Atlantic is extremely quiet. This has been blamed on dry air from Africa and (amazingly enough) unusually cool water temperatures in the Atlantic. Recall that it has been argued that the stability of global temperature over the past decade is due to heat going into the deep ocean where we can’t see it.

To be noted if you look at the graph in http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/atlantic-tropical-threat-possible-gulf-coast/32555368, which is of hurricane frequency vs. date, and try to mentally integrate the area under the curve in your head, that only about 20% of the hurricanes have occurred by this time. Peak frequency is 2 weeks from now (11 September) and the frequency of 20 August is half maximal.

Would anyone like to guess when (not if) this will be blamed on Global Warming/Climate Change? I’d be very surprised if it weren’t, and if it is, remember that a theory which can explain anything explains nothing.

At the Alumni Day

‘It’s Complicated’. No this isn’t about the movie where Meryl Streep made a feeble attempt to be a porn star. It’s what I heard from a bunch of Harvard PhD physicists who had listened to John Kovac talk about the BICEP2 experiment a day earlier. I had figured as a humble chemist that if anyone would understand why polarized light from the Cosmic Background Radiation would occur in pinwheels they would. But all the ones I talked to admitted that they didn’t.

The experiment is huge for physics and several articles explain why this is so [ Science vol. 343 pp. 1296 - 1297m vol. 344 pp. 19 - 20 '14, Nature vol. 507 pp. 281 - 283 '14 ]. BICEP2 provided strong evidence for gravitational waves, cosmic inflation, and the existence of a quantum theory of gravity (assuming it holds up and something called SPIDER confirms it next year). The nice thing about the experiment is that it found something predicted by theory years ago. This is the way Science is supposed to operate. Contrast this with the climate models which have been totally unable to predict the more than decade of unchanged mean global temperature that we are currently experiencing.

Well we know gravity can affect light — this was the spectacular experimental conformation of General Relativity by Eddington nearly a century ago. But how quantum fluctuations in the gravitational field lead to gravitational waves, and how these waves lead to the polarization of the background electromagnetic radiation occurring in pinwheels is a mystery to me and a bunch of physicists had more high powered than I’ll ever be. If someone can explain this, please write a comment. The articles cited above are very good to explain context and significance, but they don’t even try to explain why the data looks the way it does.

The opening talk was about terrorism, and what had been learned about it by studying worldwide governmental responses to a variety of terrorist organizations (Baader Meinhof, Shining Path, Red Brigades). The speaker thought our response to 9/11 was irrational — refusing to fly when driving is clearly more dangerous etc. etc. It was the typical arrogance of the intelligent, who cannot comprehend why everyone does not think the way they do.

I thought it was remarkable that a sociologist would essentially deprecate the way people think about risk. I’m sure that many in the room were against any form of nuclear power, despite its safety compared to everything else and absent carbon footprint.

Addendum 7 April — The comment by Handles and link he provided is quite helpful, although I still don’t understand it as well as I’d like. Here’s the link https://medium.com/p/25c5d719187b

The Empire Blinks

Physicists 100+ years ago were perturbed that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury as predicted by Newtonian mechanics was off by 38 arc seconds (roughly one part in 1/100,000). It took relativity to straighten things out.

None of the climate models mentioned in Science in 2009 [ Science vol. 326 pp. 28 - 29 '09 (2 Oct '09 ) ] predicted a pause in warming as long as we are currently experiencing (17 years and counting), even when they were run for a total of 700 years. The longest pause found was 15. They should be run again for many more years with the faster computers of today, to see if they produce the present pause. If not, the models, and their recommendations should be abandoned.

It is a perversion of language to call the absence of continued warming a pause, because this implies (without actually saying so) that the warming will continue after a bit, something for which there is no evidence. Global warming in fact has stopped for 17 years. What it does when there is some sort of change from the stasis, is anyone’s guess. Models which didn’t predict the stasis are of no help.

The mainstream scientific press is finally sitting up and taking notice. This week’s Nature (16 Jan ’14) has an editorial (pp. 261 – 262) and a news item (pp. 276 – 278) concerning the pause. It is claimed that the Pacific is taking up the heat, without heating up much. The heat capacity of water is USED to define the calorie — it is 1 calorie per gram of water — in contrast the heat capacity of methane with the same molecular mass is 1/116th of water. So there’s plenty of heat capacity in the ocean.

Adding a new parameter to explain unexpected results is good science when the system being explained is complex. Consider the additions to the central dogma of molecular biology — introns, exons, microRNAs, ceRNAs, reverse transcription etc. etc. Certainly global climate is equally complex. However, more than a little humility is in order.

This begs the point about whether the ocean as a heat sink was included in the model cited in 2009. If it was, the model had better predict the pause. If it wasn’t and if the latest explanation given for the pause is correct, the model should be thrown out along with its recommendations.

There Is Nothing So Tragic As A Beautiful Theory Destroyed By An Ugly Fact. — Sherlock Holmes

The fact that Nature came to deal with the pause is significant. They were quite defensive when ClimateGate came out — see http://luysii.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-empire-strikes-back-nature-on-climategate/

Count Floyd rides again

We were fortunate to live close enough to Canada in the ’80’s that we could watch SCTV each week, a 90 minute mockery of Canadian TV put on by Second City, Toronto contingent. They were an incredibly talented bunch — John Candy, Eugene Levy, Rick Moranis, Howard Ramis, Martin Short. One character was Count Floyd (Joe Flaherty), the host of Monster Chiller Horror Theater. Dressed like a vampire from Transylvania, he would howl, look at the camera and say ‘scary kids, scary’. The films were invariably terrible and not scary, so the Count was reduced to saying things like “Vow, kids…vasn’t it SCARY vhen the vaitress put ketchup on those french fries?”

Which brings us to the predictions about the late hurricane season– http://luysii.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/where-are-the-hurricanes-2013-edition/ As late as early August, when very little had happened (see the previous link) NOAA was predicting an above average Hurricane season — http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130808_atlantichurricaneupdate.html. Scary kids, scary

Well, we know what happened. A better way to measure how severe a hurricane season actually was, is something called ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy). It essentially multiplies the the square of the maximum wind speed of hurricanes and tropical storms by the time the storm stays strong. (Why the square? Answer at the end). It’s a much better indicator of seasonal strength than the number of named storms, which are gamed to make the predicted numbers. Several tropical storms this year lasted less than a day with wind speeds under 45 miles an hour.

The ACE this year was the 6th lowest (35) since 1951. The range is 17 to 250, and the median is in the 90s.

It’s been a bad year for the Climate Change crowd. Global mean temperature has now entered its 18th year without any increase. So what used to be called Global Warming has been rebranded as Climate Change.

Even worse, a recent event could have been scripted by the Onion: “Ship carrying Climate Scientists to Antarctica to Publicize Sea Ice loss due to Global Warming trapped in Sea Ice. Rescue by helicopter is Planned.” I’m not making this up.

Addendum 3 Jan ’14 — Now the Chinese Icebreaker to which the climate scientists were brought by helicopter is also stuck in the ice. Life imitates the Onion. Al Gore — call your office.

Addendum 4 Jan ’14 — Clearly the affair was partly (or entirely) a publicity stunt as reporters from the BBC and the Guardian were members of the expedition. Fox News apparently wasn’t invited.

Addendum 5 Jan ’14 — A picture is shown of a Green Party Senator elect in Australia doing calisthenics on board the Russian ship. Certainly, all scientific expeditions must have a politician of the Green persuasion on board — in order to be free of any sort of bias.

Addendum 7 Jan ’14 — The Times covered the event quite fairly in today’s Science section. They say the ship was ‘carrying scientists and adventure tourists’– no mention of the press or the Green senator from Australia. Skeptics are quoted fairly ‘they pointed out that a group whose journey was meant to highlight the effects of global warming was trapped by a substance that was supposed to be melting’ All this in the first paragraph, not buried later on.

Then lots of technical detail was added, in particular that comparing the two poles is really comparing apples and oranges — the North pole being open ocean surrounded by land while the South pole is land surrounded by open ocean. They do note that Antarctic ice is increasing in some areas and decreasing in others, but the net increase is 1%/decade. No figures are given for the % of Arctic ice loss.

Here’s a link from Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-record-low. Look at the figure showing the extent of ice for each month and its standard deviation over a 30 year period. The maximum extent occurs in March and the standard deviation range is between 14.5 and 16 for the past few 30 years. The minimum extent occurs in September and ranges between 5 and 8 — 2012 was a record low. This year will come in (according to their chart) at the low end of the range (but within it). So it doesn’t look as though maximum Arctic sea ice extent has budged in the past 30 years. The September range has always been twice that of the the March range. Whether this is cherry picking the data I leave up to you.

The question could easily be settled, and hopefully someone has done it, simply by integrating the area under the curve for each year and plotting the results vs the year. A trend should be obvious.

Addendum 8 Jan ’14 — The leader of the expedition (Chris Turney) was given space to defend its purpose in the current Nature vol. 505 p. 133 ’14. The 19 comments so far are brutal. Have fun.

Closer to home, after seeing a movie the day after Christmas, we went to a bar for some food. Playing on the zillions of flat screens (they must be pretty cheap now) was something called the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsetta Bowl. I’m not making this up either.

The wind velocity is squared because kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared.

The short (but useful) life of Gabrielle

In an appalling use of the definition of Tropical Storm we now have Gabrielle. Recall that to be a Tropical Storm winds must exceed 38 mph. Many such storms were predicted, and like a high school wrestler taking diuretics and laxatives to make weight Tropical Storm Gabrielle was born today between 000 and 300 Greenwich Mean time. Winds have been no higher than 40 miles/hour, until its demise today between 1200 – 1500 GMT when its winds sunk to 35 mph and it became a Tropical Depression. It is about to cross over the island of Hispaniola (fortunately not its Haitian western end). It lasted about as long as Tropical Storm #6 Fernand.

At least they are not calling it a Tropical Cyclone, which they did in previous years, linguistically correct but semantically confusing it with the much worse Cyclones in the Pacific (which have a different definition).

It’s one way to make what increasingly appears to be a defective model work. For more details see — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/where-are-the-hurricanes-2013-edition/

Addendum 10 Sep ’13 — Gabrielle has strengthened in the past few hours, and is now a tropical storm again, with winds 2 mph over the minimum. I’m surprised they didn’t rename it so they could count it twice.

Where are the Hurricanes — 2013 Edition

When Sandy hit last year, the air was filled with dire predictions that this was just the start, and that global warming (which seems to have morphed into climate change, since although among the hottest on record, there has been no INcrease in global temperature in the past 16 years) was at it’s root.

So you can have it both ways — it’s hot, but it also isn’t getting warmer. [ Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. vol. 108 pp. 11790 - 11793 '11 ] “Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore, global surface temperature declined .2 C between 20005 and 2008.”

More to the point an article in Science 2 October ’09 pp. 28 – 29 (sorry I don’t have the volume number — it should be 326 if my calculations are right) noted this. The most interesting part was the response of the climate modelers, who reran their simulations 10 times for a total of 700 years, and found 17 episodes of stagnating temperature lasting a decade or more. The longest period of stagnation was 15 years, and I think we’re now at 16 years. The modelers would have had more credibility if they’d published this when their models first came out.

I’m not sure if they’ve run the models again to find periods of stasis longer than 15 years. They should.

Update 30 Aug ’13 — The hiatus in warming is quite real, and this week Nature published a paper online trying to figure out why this might be so. It has to do with La Nina. All very lovely, but this mechanism wasn’t contained in the model, so why should we trust it. Here’s the link — http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html The editorial [ Nature vol. 500 p. 501 '13 ] says “Although a prolonged hiatus in warming does not necessarily contradict prevailing theory, this one came as a surprise” — I’ll say.

Which brings us to the current hurricane season. There haven’t been any, and none are in sight. Historically mid August to mid September is the time of greatest likelihood of hurricanes. The graph of hurricane likelihood peaks sharply here– see this link http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/tropical-atlantic-hurricanes-gulf/16915197. On 25 August we’re nearly at the top of the curve.

What we’ve had so far are a bunch of very piddling tropical storms. They are defined has having winds of from 39 to 73 miles an hour — more than that is a Hurricane. We’ve had 5 complete tropical storms — here are their durations in days — 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, and their peak winds 55, 40, 55, 50, 35, 40. Less than impressive. Not even close to hurricane force.

Fernand (tropical storm #6 was born today 25 August 5PM), and I doubt it will last long, as it’s about to make landfall in Mexico. (Update 26 August 8:30 AM — Fernand we hardly knew ye. Downgraded to a tropical depression presently — maximum winds 35 mph, barely over 12 hours after being upgraded from same. Just like a teenaged wrestler taking diuretics and dieting to make weight, the people deciding what is and what isn’t a tropical storm, will count Fernand as a tropical storm so their predictions will work out just the way they want.)

So we’ve had predictions of more frequent and more violent hurricanes, and of continued rises in global temperature — neither of which have happened (this year for hurricanes and the past 15 – 16 years for global temperature).

Let’s assume that we have no hurricanes at all this year, and a few more of the piddly tropical storms we’ve seen so far. They fit the definition, but are unimpressive. The average northeaster on the Jersey coast is worse. Also, if anyone knows, how long does the wind have to be above 38 miles an hour for something to be called a tropical storm? I can’t seem to find this anywhere.

A variety of responses are possible. The most scientific would be to re-evaluate the models, or run them for longer periods, to see just how likely such behavior actually is (e.g. could the models even predict it).

The absolute worst would be to explain the absence of the hurricanes by global warming. This would make global warming what Karl Popper called an unfalsifiable theory, something inherently not scientific. A theory that can explain everything, explains nothing. Ditto for a theory that makes an incorrect prediction, doubles back and predicts the opposite.

As Neils Bohr said “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”

A few more scientific questions for our politicians

For some reason American politicians are being asked to weigh in on matters scientific, notably global warming and evolution.   I’d love to know what Angela Merkel thinks of the models supporting climate change (she has a PhD in physics after all).  Why a governor’s or representative’s opinion on something far beyond their area of expertise should be of interest is beyond me.

To join in the fun, here are a few more questions for politicians, that I doubt you’ll find anyone in the press asking.

#1.  This year a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (volume 108 pp. 11790 – 117930) contained the following “Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008.  Furthermore, global surface temperature declined .2 degrees Centigrade between 2005 and 2008″.  Data are data, and the paper went on to try and explain why.  Do you find these explanations convincing?

#2.  Do you think race is a scientific concept?  Now that we can sequence the genomes of many people so easily, people are writing papers like the following [ Science vol. 328 p. 1342 '10 ] showing a common genetic ancestry for Jews.  Another study [ Science vol. 324 p. 575 '09 ] studied 98 American Blacks, 3194 blacks from 113 African populations and 952 people from all over, showing that only 71% of the American Black genome is from western Africa, and 13% is from Europeans.  It appears to validate the concept of race.  Do you think this sort of research should be stopped?  promoted?  Hitler would have had a field day with it.  If elected would you support or oppose such research?

#3. Do you think intelligence is hereditary? Assuming IQ testing actually measures intelligence, most studies support some degree of heritability.  Do you think group differences in IQ results mean anything?   Should IQ testing be stopped?  Assuming race exists (see #2) how do you explain differences in IQ between races?  What would you do about it if elected?

#4.  We are embarking on a huge social experiment.  Existing children are being adopted by same sex couples, and produced by artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood.  Are you aware of any studies concerning the rate of mental illness, drug use, criminality in such offspring.  Should such a study be done?  Would you fund it if elected?

Don’t hold your breath until such questions are asked of people running for office.

Here are the hurricanes (fudged statistics and all)

Suppose you had performed the following 10 physical  measurements (never mind of what): 15, 16, 13, 16, 15, 28, 1o, 15, 17, 10.  What would you say about them?  Would you throw out the 28?   Would you say the 28 predicted that subsequent measurements would be a lot higher than the 5 before the 28?   Some did.  They were sorely disappointed by the subsequent 4 measurements.  But they still predicted that measurement #11 would be higher.  

Well you can’t throw out the 28 because it is a presumably accurate measurement (see later).   What is being measured?  Try to guess before paging down.

The numbers are the number of tropical storms in the North Atlantic (which includes the Gulf of Mexico) for the years 2000 – 2009.  Where did I get them?  From http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp   which has all the data going all the way back to ’86 (that’s 1886). They are grouped by year, and each year can be viewed separately and the number of tropical storms turning into hurricanes can be counted (for the definition of tropical storm, hurricane, hurricane season  see the previous post in this series).  It also gives the wind strength of the storm every six hours for as long as it’s around.

Here are 10 more numbers: 7, 9, 4, 7, 9, 15, 5, 7, 5, 3.  You can probably guess what they are — the number of hurricanes for each of the 10 years. Today there is an article in the mainstream press about the current hurricane season and how it is heating up (at last).  Aside from the previous post (and comments on it in this series), do you recall reading any articles anywhere  about just how quiet the current season had been (until the past week). I don’t.

What do we have?  There have been 10 tropical storms, of which 4 have been hurricanes.  The most recent tropical storm (Julia) has the potential of developing into a hurricane.  The rest are over.  

It looks like NOAA’s prediction of an above average hurricane season will be fulfilled.  Above average to them means over 11 topical storms. They expect an ‘active’ to ‘extremely active’ hurricane season (I can’t find their definitions of these terms).  3/10 of the tropical storms have developed in the past 7 days, so they’ve been bailed out.   Before that, things didn’t look so good for them. 

Not so, for the other two predictors mentioned in the previous post (18 – 21 tropical storms or worse, ‘as many as’ 18).

Take a look at the actual data for each of the 10 tropical storms/hurricanes for 2010.   Some of them barely made it, and (to me) it looked like some serious fudging of the numbers was going on.  

Consider the first hurricane (Alex) — it lasted all of 36 hours at most.  Hardly a major event.

Consider Bonnie — a tropical storm — recall that a storm fits into this category if the winds are 40 miles an hour or more.  Bonnie just fit (top winds 40 mph).  How long was Bonnie at this level?  UNDER A DAY.

Consider Gaston — a tropical storm — just like Bonnie, top winds of 40 mph, and that for under a day.

Tropical Storm Hermine also lasted under two days, but counts as real as it dumped 10 inches of rain in a day near Austin Texas. 

It’s too early to tell about Julia — she just made into the category today, and the top winds are only 40 at present.

So of the 10 tropical storms, I’d throw out 2 (Bonnie, Gaston), and of the 4 hurricanes, I’d throw out Alex.  

My count of the season thus far:   8 tropical storms of which 3 have been hurricanes.

I think the statistics as presented to the public thus far are intellectually sleazy if not downright dishonest.  Stay tuned.

Have a good week

Off to band camp for adults. I’ll be back 23 Aug.  I’ve got 2 reading assignments thanks to Yggdrasil and Wavefunction, and also a book reference from Wavefunction from years ago, which I’m going to try to get through “Molecular Driving Forces” as I lay out on the dock and listen to the afternoon string master classes.  It’s a tough life but someone has to do it.

The Hurricane season remains incredibly quiet with 3 named storms, only one of which was a hurricane, and one of which barely made it into the tropical storm category with top winds of 40 mph, and all of this for less than 24 hours.  Also looking at accuweather as of 12;20 PM EST, nothing in the North Atlantic is even being investigated as possibly having the potential of turning into a tropical depression.

He who lives by the hurricane, dies by the hurricane, or so I thought. Not so.  This AM the NYTimes has a front page article (complete with scary pictures) about the unusual weather in Chicago, Russia and Pakistan as signs of global warming.  I couldn’t bring myself to read the article to see if (as predicted earlier) the ABSENCE of hurricanes would be blamed on global warming.

Derek says next week’s In the Pipeline won’t be as depressing (how could it be?).  Have a good week.

Where are the Hurricanes?

 

 

The chemical blogosphere is pretty quiet.  Even Derek Lowe isn’t posting, so it’s time to talk about something NOT making the news — e.g. hurricanes.   All sorts of hellfire and damnation has been predicted for the current hurricane season.  But it is now 20 July and there has been just one hurricane (the only named storm so far), which hit Mexico 110 miles south of Brownsville, Texas.  By definition, the hurricane season stretches from 1 June to 30 November.  But most occur in July, August and September.  I grew up 1000 feet from the Atlantic ocean and can’t recall any in November (Nor’easters yes, hurricanes no). 
 

Here are a few of the dire predictions so far 

NOAA issued its 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook on May 27, 2010. According to the forecast, there is an 85% change of an above-average hurricane season in 2010. We can expect an “active to extremely active” season

On June 21, Joe Bastardi, Chief Hurricane Meteorologist for AccuWeather.com, revised his earlier forecast to predict that 18 to 21 named storms will occur in the 2010 hurricane season, four of which are expected to occur during July. The revised forecast expects five or six of the named storms to be hurricanes.  My brother says that if you listened to AccuWeather, you’d never go outdoors. 

Dr. William Gray and Dr. Phillip Klotzbach of Colorado State University‘s Tropical Meteorology Projecthave published their scheduled June 2 update to their 2010 hurricane season forecast.The famed forecasting team now predicts as many as 18 named storms, an increase of two since the original forecast on Dec. 9. According to the updated forecast, we can expect 10 hurricanes to form in the Atlantic basin, up from 8 in the original forecast. As in the initial forecast, five hurricanes are expected to become major hurricanes (Category 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir/Simpson scale). The revised numbers were based on the above-average warm waters in the Atlantic and the likelihood that a weak La Nina will form in the Pacific Ocean. Gray and Klotzbach will issue their final forecast for the 2010 season on August 4

Amusing no?  A final forecast for a season effectively ending less than 3 months later, issued two months after the season has begun.  Time for a quote from Neils Bohr (which is as close to chemistry as this post will get) “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

Maybe we’ll have a slambang finish, but this is yet another reason why I don’t trust models in general, climate models in particular.  For details see http://luysii.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/i-dont-trust-models-in-general-climate-models-in-particular/

A final semantic point.  After the really bad year with Katrina, etc. etc.  similar apocalyptic predictions were made, but nothing much happened.  The powers that be then took to calling weather disturbances  tropical cyclones.  Now cyclones in the Bay of Bengal can be  terrible things, and Nargis, killed over 100,000 people over there  in 2008.  But a cyclone over there has to have winds greater than 74 mph (making it a hurricane by our Atlantic standards), while over here anything with a vortex pattern of winds and some rain comes under the rubric of tropical cyclone.  This includes the nonentity known as the tropical depression (winds under 39 mph), and the more severe (but still nothing much) tropical storm — winds between 40 and 73 miles an hour.  

This is all fairly harmless once you know how the terms are defined, but there are a lot of players out there with a good deal of political investment in making things seem dire and terrible.  

Presently (10 PM EDT 20 July) this is all we have on the horizon.  “A tropical wave (Invest 97L) between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic has continued to become more organized today, and is a threat to develop into a tropical depression as early as Wednesday morning.”  Pretty small beer.  

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers