Welcome to American Weather


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chubbs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    New London, PA
  1. This is about the time we saw a pattern flip to lower arctic heights last year. Maybe we will see the reverse this year...or maybe not.
  2. Forecasts are not that reliable currently so we will have to see how it plays out over the next couple of weeks. Currently I'm leaning for somewhere between 2007 and 2012. Volume is low but melting progress has been slow for both sea ice and snow. That would keep my 2018-19 guess for the next min alive.
  3. Here is the past 30 days. Overall an intermediate regime, but with persistent flow from the Pacific to the Atlantic side.
  4. The spike in warming in the past few years is probably a recovery from the relatively cool hiatus period. The long-term warming trend hasn't changed much.
  5. Relaxed trade winds are probably contributing. Trade winds were unusually strong during the hiatus.
  6. The French nuclear industry is in decline. Maintaining aging reactors is increasingly costly and building new one is un-economic. A gradual increase in the French renewable share is likely. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21711087-electricit-de-france-has-had-shut-down-18-its-58-nuclear-reactors-frances-nuclear-energy http://www.cornellbusinessreview.com/cbr/2016/11/13/frances-nuclear-energy-future http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-nuclearpower-e-idUSKBN17Z21B
  7. Below are Pacific SST between 30S and 30N since 1987. The warming in the subtropical Pacific over the past 5 years is notable, particularly over the east. The recent brief nina had limited cooling impact off the equator.
  8. GISS was 0.88 in April, the second warmest April but down 0.23 vs March. Chart below from Zeke Hausfather twitter, shows annual average GISS plus 2017 average to-date and a prediction for 2017 based on 2017 to-date and ENSO. Per Hausfather odds of a new record in 2017 dropped to 33% with the addition of the April data. My prediction of a value near 2015 is in the bottom portion of his uncertainty band.
  9. In March I posted a CFSv2 forecast for April-June that called for above normal heights over the arctic. Too early for verification but that forecast doesn't look bad currently.
  10. Its uncompetitive economics that has been holding back nuclear power. If we had adopted a carbon tax when Hanson first advocated for it then nuclear would have been more competitive. As it stands today, given the long-lead time for deploying and improving nuclear power, we will have to rely on other energy sources for the heavy lifting. Note that the company building 4 delayed and over-budget nuclear plants in the US went bankrupt recently and it is unclear if the plants will ever be completed. There are other countries with no "green lobbyists", standardized designs and streamlined permitting that have lower nuclear costs than the US and nuclear is helping at the margin in those countries, but not enough to have a major impact on global CO2 emissions.
  11. going, going ...... http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/05/05/the-glaciers-are-going/
  12. Well yes by definition elites have always been in charge. I am not quite sure what your point is though. There are many different groups of elites with different interests and policies. We have had both good and bad government policy in the past. It is certainly possible to have sound climate policy which be much better than the current policy in the long run.
  13. I don't buy the conspiracy talk. Plenty of powerful interests oppose action hence the lack of progress. There are conservative and liberal ways to address climate change. Big government or small government. Same as any issue.
  14. Agree that use of 4 blocks is oversimplified but disagree on relative odds of the four blocks: 1) There is only 1 row. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming. 2) Addressing climate change will not cause economic catastrophe. The alternatives are not that costly and will improve energy economics in the long-term. A slowly increasing carbon price will quickly lower coal use as low-cost alternatives including gas are readily available. Oil and gas would decrease slowly over 30-50 years. By that time our energy system will be sustainable and low cost. Look at the stock market: coal companies are down sharply over the past 5 years, oil and gas stagnant while the market has gone up sharply. The writing is on the wall. 3) A climate catastrophe hinges on coal use. There isn't enough oil and gas for a complete disaster. If we burned enough coal we could melt all the ice sheets and send the earth to a hothouse eocene climate, but per 2 this is increasingly unlikely as the the need to use coal decreases and the true cost of coal use is becoming more obvious. While a catastrophe is unlikely, future costs of today's fossil fuel use will be significant. We are racking up roughly a trillion dollars per each year of fossil fuel use in future damages ($30 per ton times 35 billion tons of CO2 per year).
  15. New study explains the hiatus (paywall - see blog article for summary). No major discrepancy between models and observations using updated data. https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v545/n7652/full/nature22315.html https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/global-warming-hiatus?utm_term=.jda3MNOna#.dc5GOWPLz