All Activity

Guys, if the Euro AI gets the Cane at 354hr wrong, toss it in the dumpster. Twitter guy says so

I’m not an expert but it looks typical poleward EPO ridge Nina pattern imo. There are two typical canonical Nina long wave patterns and neither is “snowy” but the more poleward pacific ridge pattern is preferable and does shift whatever cold there is into the east more. Problem is both them to be dryer and lack the gulf storms we need to have a snowy winter. But a good example of the difference is for Baltimore a poleward ridge Nina has a median snowfall of about 14” and a flat ridge Nina median is 7”. One is bad and the other is awful so we take the bad option. I excluded 1996 from these numbers because it skews everything given the small sample size and extreme results Some extra observations: I keep hearing don’t worry about the warm everywhere look but over the last 10 years we’ve had a lot of warm everywhere results so…. Also yes the LW flow looks decent but recently a decent LW pattern absent a good STJ gets us simply bad snow results vs the god awful snowless results of some winters recently. So purely based on this I’d say it’s not indicating a total non winter like 2020 and 2023 but most definitely not hinting this is the year we break out of our funk either. It implies likely a typical Nina with likely snowfall in the 7-16” range in the 95 corridor.

I think acid rain and ozone were a lot easier to collaborate on and solve. Those also caused direct visible damage as well as a clear threat. They also weren't issues that if solved would severely damage countries' economies and standards of living. There are 300 million people in India that defecate outdoors. Their poor standard of living is one reason their carbon footprint is half the global average. I also don't like excusing or allowing other countries to continue to pollute with impunity as if modern forms of energy production aren't available to them. Why couldn't China just build more solar farms or wind mills instead of installing 100 GW of coal powered energy over the last ten years? That's roughly 250 coal powered power plants. Meanwhile the West has built none in 25 years and more are being decommissioned every year We can't solve this problem when 90% of it has nothing to do with us. I feel like people aren't seriously interested in solving this issue when focusing only on the US and speaking in uniliteral terms as if we are the ones that, if we just went carbon neutral, we'd stop climate change. There's no carrot to get other countries to stop greenhouse gas emissions. We need a stick. And if the stick doesn't work, we need geoengineering. And the easiest and most cost effective way to do it is with aerosols. I fear that we'll all be right here, a bunch of old men saying the exact same thing 30 years from now, with nothing being done because people are holding out hope that by some miracle we will get everyone around the world to become carbon neutral. Meanwhile we lost 30 years of aerosol injections to at least get temps back down to reasonable levels while we try to solve this thing. Even if we did go carbon neutral in 30 years let's say, the greenhouse gases are all still in the air. Aerosols are a way to stop the warming and even reverse it while the world transitions over to clean energy and solves the problem of carbon sequestering at scale.

Dam corn sweat!

Let’s get a cat5 over mara epstein lago.

Lol... Given the time frame, I'd call it a success if even a stray thunderstorm formed 354 hours out... Seeing a constant flow posts like me; and they we wonder why the science gets mocked... If this keeps up, RFK Jr is going to get appointed to head NWS!

It took all day, but just crossed 68 here (68.6) at 3:30 pm, so there will not be a record 'cool max' set for the day, although close. Record is 68.0 from 1993 and 2004. Cloudy all day, but only sprinkles from the sky.

Yeah... if you keep it on your own hole, you can play well. The thing that my group struggled with the 2 days was making putts over say 8'. I don't think I made a single putt of length.

The UN created the Conference of Parties. However, each nation is allowed to include anyone it finds suitable in its delegation. That's where the problem arises. Nations include major polluters (likely because they seek to perpetuate the status quo), even as the polluters are the cause of the problem, have conflicts of interest, and have history of resisting change.

It's hr 354. How is that a colossal failure at that range? Too many Wxidiots on twitter.

it's an OP model in the LR but given the dry conditions I'd go hot

I agree that it has to be a global effort. That's where leadership deficiency comes in. The ozone and acid rain issues were handled globally. That's also where corrupted processes via frameworks that include major polluters as equal stakeholders come in.

All the coal burning in factories in London, in particular steel plants.

Agree. This to me means water vapor in the main driver of these changes. Not CO2. And the glacial topography during the last Glacial Maximum was massive and larger than Antarctica so one could easily surmise a similar temperature profile with ice highly reflective and a sharp low level temperature inversion. The ice sheets were 1-2 miles high similar to Antarctica. So once water vapor increases from warming oceans it then drove the greenhouse effect to positive which then kicked off a chain of positive feedbacks to wipe the ice out quickly in geologic times. Once a glacier melts, its gets dirty and dusty decreasing albedo, plus it melts to a lower elevation which is warmer. So, its water vapor that responds to the changes from the orbital parameters. CO2 is leading to a negative temperature tendency in a lot of the NH when the ice sheets are large and just begin to melt. So increasing CO2 probably doesn't do much since it is a weak GHG relative to H20. Here's another point: nobody has studied this. This NEEDs to be studied.

Thanks for the advice everyone. We'll definitely check out some of these. Probably not the boats though, can say I've spent less than 2 hours on a boat in my life. And no time at the helm.

NW MA hilltowns getting crushed today

7+ day heatwaves have become much more rare so it's likely wrong.

Now that the GFS has finally caved, the JMA is now about the lone holdout of the major globals and is consistent with the last two days of its 12Z (extended) runs. The 12Z has it near 26N, 75W, or ~100 miles NE of the central Bahamas as a 994 mb high end TS . It is just then moving WNW to NW and starting a recurve. Regardless, it doesn’t appear to be a safe recurve for the US E coast. With the JMA now being the lone main operational global outlier and with very few members like this from the major ensemble runs, this is very likely wrong. I remember times when it was a far left outlier and ended up dead wrong.

what caused this toxic chemical smog? factories?

ugh those awful subsidized cornfields

Meh meh.

Rain is insane out here today. In Cary today and roads are flooded...over 6 inches and still pouring! Started pouring before 7 am and has not stopped once!

With meh dews .

It looks like your analysis suffers from some unfounded assumptions. I don't see any evidence that "the land masses in the NH ... likely had a negative greenhouse effect" during the LGM. Looks like this phenomenon is quite rare - limited to the Antarctic Plateau - and seasonal (no negative GHE in austral summer). Much of Antarctica does not have a Negative GHE, as per Figure 1 in the paper cited. And that appears to be the case for Greenland as well. They do surmise that perhaps such conditions occurred in past ice ages, but only specifically identify Greenland as a possibility. I think it's unlikely the continental ice sheets (e.g., Laurentide) would have been sufficiently devoid of water vapor and subject to the same intensity of inversion as the Antarctica Plateau. But even if they did, I don't see how this calls into question the role of CO2? CO2 would only be a negative feedback if a true negative GHE existed; even with a weaker positive GHE, it would still be a positive feedback. Moreover, it would be a positive feedback everywhere not covered by ice even assuming a negative effect over ice. As you, yourself, have previously pointed out, warming in one location does not exist in a vacuum. Ocean and atmospheric currents would eventually move warmer air across the globe. Over time, warming of the unglaciated regions would increase water vapor and erode the surface temperature inversions over the glaciated regions, shifting any negative GHE to a positive one. The cited paper suggests the same could occur over Antarctica: