Welcome to American Weather


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About so_whats_happening

  • Birthday 03/21/1991

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    [email protected]

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Lancaster, PA

Recent Profile Visitors

718 profile views
  1. Yea long range understanding is not a bad field to get into but there are way too many things that can alter that outcome that we have yet to fully understand and get under our belts. When we can start doing solid week timeframe forecasts without going from 95 and hot and humid to 81 and torrential downpours then we can start to progress further along. Until then lets start to focus more on short term changes/ fluctuations and how they affect us and then apply it to future understandings. Looking 30 years into the future is certainly not helping the cause.
  2. The hardest part of this is not here or in many 1st world countries that can have the opportunity to change their energy systems, its a matter of if they want to or not and then that just brings in political ideals and whether they will be able to make money off it or not. It is countries like India in particular as they are trying to become a foot hold in the world economy but do not quite have the means to sit there and give many of their citizens the basics of electricity and heating/cooling as needed. So many go to cheaper forms of energy such as oil and coal to help their needs and places like India easily rank 3rd in emissions in the global sense with China being number 2 and they have the worse emission laws out there they just do not seem to care at all. They even went as far as to say issues such as smog, which is known to be a human caused weather phenomena that happens from stagnation in the pattern, as a natural disaster. How can one sit there and say this occurs naturally when we know what its being caused by. So in esssence yes in thought it seems fairly simplified to change over to something clean but the reality is if regions are not willing to change many will also follow suit and hold the ideas of using fossil fuels. We would need to be one of the leaders in this change but we are too far gone in politics for this to occur right now. I believe India is trying to take great leaps in fixing this and honestly if a developing country is able to accomplish such a feat there is no reason the developed countries can not produce. If you go around and ask many citizens of the developed countries a good majority would say a change needs to happen but yet we continuously put ourselves back in the hole in which we are trying to dig out of. It will happen it is just a matter of when. I think if we talk anymore about stuff like this we should open a thread or DM as we are straying away from arctic sea ice talk.
  3. There seem to be a lot of overspending and it seems like there is a way to make things more concise and cost effective which being in a science field it boggles my mind it hasnt already evolved to that. I get it will lose jobs seems to be a running theme anymore but instead of defunding the organizations like NWS/NOAA and NASA why not consolidate and have better usage of funds. I feel we at one point were doing fairly well in the weather field and somewhere within the last 20 years things seemed to get lost. We struggle with having a computer model that can handle computations and give ideas more than a few days in advance, not that the Euro can be much better but it tends to be a little more consistent with its ideas. If we can start to improve on a lot of these and really give a boost to these organizations we can surely see less defunding and less cuts but it is going to be a long road.
  4. Regionally yes there have been quite the dramatic temp rises, as we all know the arctic for one has been the leader in the largest anomalies. One thing though that can really shake up the warming idea is a simple volcanic eruption in mid to high latitudes, though only temporary and very variable in when it will happen, but it just goes to show how sensitive the atmospheric changes can occur and how quickly they can take place. While the release of GHG pollutants and the up tick over the past 30-40 years can certainly make the argument with a nice increase in temps I feel there is something that is taking place that we are not quite catching onto. We may be in the midst of an amplification pattern that we have not experienced before. Anomalous PDO pattern another record setting ENSO, but the el nino pattern lasting for almost 3 years with not much return to a cooler la nina pattern after the el nino. We have seen quite the heat pump to the arctic since, as someone had pointed out, 2005 time frame when things really took a hit in the Arctic. Larger meridonial flow moisture increasing temps wont decrease if we have a higher moisture content. Im still unsure about the whole idea AGW I feel it has impacted somewhat but was just a trigger to cause other things happen in as we see it a shorter time span there are just too many variables and too many uncertainties that have yet to be figured to know for certain how things will play out in the near future. We should take actions to reverse our pollution for sure but we are too uncertain of the future and predictions are just predictions to give us a better idea. Just thoughts from what I have gathered thus far.
  5. Im not exactly sure how to answer the first a little too broken for me but the second is fairly simple its because of the cells in those regions 0 to ~30 is the hadley cell, ~30 to ~60 is the ferrel cell, and ~60 to the pole is the polar cell with their associated atmospheric wind patterns. It wont be an abrupt change across these regions for things west to east or east to west. Circulation around a high is clockwise in the northern hemisphere and low pressure counter clockwise and flow gets diverted to the right due to Coriolis effect. This does not mean localized will get diverted to the right but overall there is a general right turn to flow. As for the first question may just to reword it unless someone else has an idea.
  6. What are the months in red for western mean? Not doing April I feel hurt but whatever for some reason the west I get a better handle on then the east go figure.
  7. DCA: +2.1 NYC: +1.6 BOS: +1.1 ORD: +2.3 ATL: +1.8 IAH: +2.2 DEN: +2.7 PHX: +1.9 SEA:+1.1
  8. DCA 102 NYC 99 BOS 96 ORD 98 ATL 101 IAH 100 DEN 97 PHX 120 SEA 94
  9. DCA +2.8 NYC +2.1 BOS +1.3 ORD +2.1 ATL +2.5 IAH +1.9 DEN +1.6 PHX -0.3 SEA +1.4
  10. So they work in conjunction not far fetched at all but from what I have been hearing we seem to have this "blanket", if you will, setting up in the upper atmosphere, troposphere I would assume, wouldn't necessarily the whole column of air increase in temp or is it one of those functions where we see drastic increases in surface in conjunction with water vapor that help warm but the upper layers may tend to cool? I know as you go up in the atmosphere it's not necessarily feel temperature as you would experience at the surface it's more of energy based heat that jostle the molecules,so as if you were up in the Stratosphere it would fridged to our real feel skin but warm us on the inside, right? I'm just really curious about this topic and with only my knowledge of undergrad meteorology I'm trying to grasp these ideas and understand them without trying to be persuaded to one side or the other as it seems to be in many cases, rather try and figure this out and then down the road we can play the blame game.
  11. Also one more thing to add but when I was taking this class the water cycle and it's association in the atmosphere was not detailed very much as we have seen with co2 in class. Is this because water vapor has a really short tau in the atmosphere or is it because it's just not well understood as its longer lasting friend co2? I know we as humans have thrown a huge monkey wrench into the water cycle that surely needs to be corrected unless the atmosphere decides it wants to correct itself, which may just be happening as we speak about this topic.
  12. I mean I get the whole idea that co2 traps heat but how come nobody mentions the idea of water vapor trapping much of this at the surface and water vapor is in fact a much stronger ghg then co2 but since co2 lasts longer in the atmosphere we relate it to havingredients a much stronger forcing,if you will? I know water vapor in the atmosphere tends to have a lower time it resides in the atmosphere but can also be replenished just as quickly by similar processes. The thing that gets me is that with constant low level moisture stream you tend to have warmer muddled temperatures,coastal communities for example, but when we do not have moisture content as large say at night we have our diurnal swing when we have a true diurnal swing around here its not quite as noticeable of a temp change as one may think over time. Could our exuberant temperatures be due increases in low level water vapor in the atmosphere which willing turn have a feed back on melting and warming locations which will then set off a feedback process from that disturbance. I know it may another oversimplification but from my climate change class I took as a BS undergrad they pointed this process out that a slight change in one feedback can alter another feedback and alter another to create a positive feedback loop that can eventually turn maybe into a run away train type of ordeal until one day it hits a tipping point. Personally I just have a hard time conceptualizing the idea of how a doubling of co2, which has not occurred just yet currently at 400ppm average, in the atmosphere will increase temperatures such in a drastic pace as we have seen over the past 50to 75 years before this it seemed fairly consistent with time and with variations on either side and know we are really taking off. This is maybe more of a local idea but I know one thing for sure that temps alone can't really do too much to melt snow but add moisture into the mix even at a temp of say 34 and you have a totally different scenario sometimes down this way we have seen rapid melt occur from a temp such as that with a strong moisture Flux into the region. So something is telling me it is not all co2 but that co2 may be adding into the equation of our changing climate.
  13. The thing that bugs me on this is not everyone is gullible in the younger generation, it's whether people are willing to put the effort into understanding something and actually discerning truth from prophetic talk. So in a sense you can apply this same talk to every generation as to whether they want to believe this is in fact truth or something to question or something they are misguided with. I do not like how many teachers and professors feel as though it is their duty to incorporate their personal beliefs into discussion and teachings. Also one thing I would like to add for sure that I do not think anyone can deny while we have been seeing records for warmth I feel the majority of the records have been for overnight temps in many many locations we have been well above average I'm not sure exactly if this is the case for other locations but around here it has been due to overnight cloudiness and low level moisture increase. It may just be due to change in weather patterns allowing such to occur but when we have dayseen like today where we reached about 62 but our low stays at about 58 the high is about 8 degrees below average while the lows are about 10 to 12 above average in the region. That's huge because if you can not release the heat from the daytime due to low level residual moisture holding temps up then the next day we already make a run to higher temps and thus the process continues until the pattern breaks. This might be over simplifying something but many of our records occur during fall and winter versus spring and summer around here.
  14. I have been looking to get myself a decent camera but dont feel like spending an arm and a leg to get one. I have heard SLR and 10 megapixel is what to go for but havent really gotten much further from that info. I would like to be able to take a picture and have it come out crisp with clouds being able to see the intricate details without losing much of the surrounding. Any help would be great and if for some reason there are no responses Ill ask in a different thread. Thanks
  15. Hahaha this is too funny