Taylorsweather

So it looks like extent in the Arctic reached 15.1M on 3/11.  Probably does not get higher than that but there is a small chance it could.  That said, that is the highest extent in winter since 2014.  Surprised no one mentioned it.

Picked up 2.31" of mainly steady rain mixed with a couple downpours yesterday.  A very nice dump with another on the way Thursday.  

The 00z GFS says the cold shot is brief and not nearly as deep as previous runs.  Temps next Saturday (3/12) at GSP are 59/28.  Chilly but nothing Earth shattering for mid March.  That does not mean NC or VA won't see true cold, but the extended and deep cold into SC has evaporated.

Unless a Superstorm 93 materializes again (1 in a 100 year chance), I don't see snow outside Central and Western NC and VA.  People laugh at climo but we have climo for a reason.  It's the different between snow and 30 degrees in mid January and rain and 35 in mid February.  Yes, you can get a snowstorm down in SC in March but the setup has less and less margin for error the further we go from here.  That's climo in a nutshell.  I'm a snow lover but a realist as well.  The next two weeks do not show any snow here and then you're into March.  It is what it is.

At GSP, the average high is 52 in mid January.  By February 1st, it's 54.  By March 1st it's 60.  A six degree change over February is a strong signal that our time for snow is running out, especially during the daytime.  Obviously we can all recount exceptions to this rule, but the further we go, the more perfect you need the setup to cash in.  I know this is a Debbie Downer post, but given that the pattern in the East starting in mid February is not ideal, I just don't see any meaningful snows (>1"), especially in Upstate SC along I-85 where I am located.  I have seen many winters and at some point the cold exhausts itself and you're left with "manufacturing" the cold to get snow.  It does happen, but rarely.  This post does not apply to CNC, WNC, and VA where they are closer to the cold source.

Climatology is a b!tch.

2 minutes ago, burrel2 said:

I guess i'm more of an optimist but we have a legit threat inside of 6 days right now.  If you're going to discount and look past marginal threats then you're going to miss out on tracking  8 out of 10 snow falls in the southeast.  This threat may not work out, but it's 100% better than having no threat to follow... and every so often these threats do work out and we get a season saving 3 incher out of it.

It's certainly better than knowing winter is over in mid January.  This weekend is a legit threat but marginal.  We are only at Feb 1st, but my feeling is that by mid-Feb, climo tends to tip marginal threats into no-go threats.  You need a strong setup to create a winter event by then except in VA and NC.  Upstate SC where you and I are tends to get shafted by then.

6 minutes ago, eyewall said:

No I am saying it isn't looking great for this weekend's system to work out so that would take us to mid Feb in terms of chances after that. The parent high retreats quickly and the wedge won't hold nearly as long with that setup. ZR is self limiting as it is without a strong cold air feed maintaining itself.

... and if the long range models are correct, we begin a warmup after the 15th that lasts into March.

35 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yes Hudson Bay is lagging badly....the arctic ocean though and adjacent seas are way ahead of recent years.

Hudson Bay had no ice at this point in 2016, 2012, 2010, 2006, and 2003 too, so while rare, it isn't unheard of.

Yes, Hudson Bay is noticeably lagging but it's northern reaches are beginning to freeze over as permanent night begins.   It won't take long to catch up.  

On 9/15/2021 at 6:57 AM, Taylorsweather said:

It may take several days longer to be sure, but Jaxa extent minimum may have been reached two days ago at 4.612 million km2.  We currently stand 54,000 km2 above that number after two straight days of increase.

Extent is now 92,000 km2 above its low three days ago.  So minimum may have occurred on 9/13.

It may take several days longer to be sure, but Jaxa extent minimum may have been reached two days ago at 4.612 million km2.  We currently stand 54,000 km2 above that number after two straight days of increase.

Will the shape of the coastline as Ida approaches cause any wobbles left or right, and any contraction in the eye  due to frictional effects?

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

I love Nuclear Thorium power, its the cleanest and most efficient.

The specific things I do blame the fossil fuel cartels on is 1) covering up research from the 70s (same things you can blame big tobacco and the sugar industry on, they're all guilty of covering up research) and 2) dumping pollutants mostly into underprivileged communities and third world countries and 3) paying off judges to get the results they want when people, states, nations sue them and of course 4) bribing politicians.  But in that last case they are just gaming a political system that's already pretty dirty and full of dark money.  The US isn't the only one this happens in either, it also happens in China and India and many European countries and even Canada with their dirty tar sand pipelines being sent through Native American communities.  Some of these countries are actually going back to coal, which dumps far more radioactivity into the environment than Nuclear does!

I don't disagree with anything you wrote in this post.  Everyone is to blame here and not just a few.  The vitriol serves no purpose other than dilute energy and thought toward a better tomorrow.  When you look to the past that means your back is to the future.

20 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yeah but this doesn't mean we shouldn't get off of fossil fuels.  There are MANY reasons to get off of them (especially for health and pollution reasons) and I would go further and hold the people in charge of these companies in a Nuremberg style International Court for crimes against humanity for what they've been doing for decades.  An example must be made out of them to make sure no one ever tries this ever again.  Make them suffer.

I didn't know you could live off the grid and still be connected to the internet. Not only because being connected uses carbon but someone off the grid is spending most of their time foraging for food.  A few people do it of course but not many do or can.  For the other 99.9999% of the population, it is difficult to blame the manufacturers of carbon for supplying something that we demand to use.  So before one can blame the suppliers, we should be sure to shut off our use of such products, which is essentially EVERY product.  Only then can we rail against carbon use.

Personally I am all for nuclear energy.  It is clean and efficient.

18 hours ago, roardog said:

There’s no reason to think this is the start of any kind of long term recovery but if somehow we ever did get into a long term recovery, a gradual increase is how it would begin. You aren’t going to get back to the 1980s or even 1990s average minimum anytime soon with the loss of so much MYI. It would probably take a decade or more of consistent ice increases to build up enough MYI to get us back to those kind of minimums. I think it’s kind of interesting though if we end up higher than the 2010s average. 

I agree.  It would take 10-15 years for a full recovery if it occurs.  Even in the 70's, MYI never got much older than 7 years old anywhere except right along the Canadian coast.  Most of the remainder of MYI was 2-5 years old before being flushed out.  The real difference is that there was a lot more MYI over the entire basin rather than be limited to the Canadian side.  Of particular interest to me is what happens on the Siberian side of the ocean.  If sea ice can maintain itself over multi years near that coast, I think that tips us toward an ice recovery and colder weather overall for 2-3 decades afterwards.  I just don't see a mechanism for how that happens yet.  Cycles of sea ice reduction and recovery has happened in the past but we didn't have satellite data to observe it and understand it.  Not saying that you're doing this, but I don't get the hand waving on either side.  Ice has declined since my youth in the 70's but I feel it is too early to make judgements as to whether it is permanent or temporary.  Earth's counterbalance measures are extraordinary and she hasn't entered the fray yet.  It's too soon to tell either way.  Give it 20 years and we'll know by then.

On 8/19/2021 at 6:39 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Meanwhile ....

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/weather/greenland-summit-rain-climate-change/index.html

 

You will agree of course that climate goes through cycles, with some on the order of multidecadal up through millennial timescales.  So with that said, is it any wonder that during one of these 60-70 year or greater cycles we come across an "unprecedented" situation after only 32 years of recordkeeping.  Fact is, every single record for the first couple years at that station was unprecedented.    Now if the Arctic keeps this up for another 20 years, I could become more alarmed, but until we go through a full climate cycle, color me not impressed with a 32 year snapshot of a multi-million year record.  

Jaxa extent has slowed down quite a bit recently, and with yesterday 13,000km2 loss, extent now stands at 5.234M km2.  My guess is that we end near 4.9M km2 as we only have about two weeks more of the potential for significant ice loss melting days before the melt season ends.  

7 minutes ago, ryan1234 said:

Can we stop it with this tomfoolery already? You're from NC, obviously. And they aren't wishcasting. The GFS has sorta been an outliner this whole time. It's hard to go against the Euro and most the hurricane modeling guidance. Not the mention the NHC. 

Not only that, but the 12z GFS now takes Florence SW along the coast and into the Georgetown, SC area.  After that it takes it across central SC to Clemson in the far southwestern part of the upstate.  That's a significant movement toward the Euro idea of a strong southern component before the drift west.  We'll see what the Euro has to say in an hour, but at this time, the two models are only 75 miles apart in the path to the west, with the GFS being further north.  If the GFS is correct, NC gets most of the rain.  If the Euro is correct, SC and parts of NC get most of the rain.  My feeling as someone 200 miles from the ocean is that the Euro has performed extremely well on Florence and has smelled out the wrinkles better, so I'm riding that model til the end.

2 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

Shift SW

Wrong map.  That was from yesterday

Can we stop with the Hugo redux commentary.  Florence isn't anything like Hugo in intensity history, past and future track, expected landfall, or expected speed following landfall.  Literally nothing about Florence is like Hugo except a big high to the north blocking passage.  As has been mentioned, Florence is more similar to other tracks and could be used as plausible analogs to her.

4 minutes ago, downeastnc said:

Look at the NHC discussion to see why there is little chance this is going south of Charleston....the only way that happens is if Flo goes against all intensity forecasting and remains weak....all the ENS members that hit FL/GA keep her a weak Cat 1 for the next 2-4 days.....all the ens that have her undergoing RI and becoming a Cat 3/4 are north SC or NC....

I don't necessarily disagree with your point about the eventual landfall location based on intensity, but will caution that there is more to landfall than intensity.  The strength/weakness and shape of the ridging to the north, not to mention speed of the cyclone, will play a larger role in where this ends imo.

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Sea ice extent on Jaxa is currently 4.48 million sq km. That ranks 6th lowest...you can find the data here and click on "extent graph" at the top:

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/monitor

 

NSIDC area is currently at 4.63 million sq km. That currently ranks 7th lowest. You can find the data here (need excel)

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/

or you can use their interactive graph:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

much appreciated

what is the current sea ice extent, and where is that number in relationship to the past two weeks.  I can't find where the daily data is located, so any assistance would be appreciated.