etudiant

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the rising atmospheric concentration of such gases. They made the marginal difference. That concentration is driving the ongoing warming.

As for the world ending in 12 years, that’s nonsense that has almost nothing to do with climate change. It is exaggeration that exploits it for political ends that are largely disconnected from it e.g., an economic reordering that deals with non-climate goals. Such tactics fall on the opposite side of the spectrum as denial, with both undercutting the science. Denial ignores the science. The economic reordering gives life to conspiracy theories wielded to discredit the science.

+10!!  The voice of reason, based on the evidence we have.

Would that the science organizations such as the AAAS were not so oblivious of the political uses to which the science is being put. Their silence in the face of the nonsense exaggerations feeds the conspiracy theories imho.

Thank you for this more detailed and thoughtful reply.

I'd really appreciate links to the underlying papers. I have no issues with CO2 as a feedback component.

My concern is that CO2 was at a nadir in the ice cores when temperatures began to climb, so a catalytic role seems pretty much excluded, as there is no reason for catalysis at 280 ppm when there was none at 330 ppm.

Separately, H2O vapor has the virtue of acting as a much wider spectrum GHG, than CO2, so it is hard to dismiss it as unable to catalyze long term changes in temperature, but I've no insight into that.

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

I believe you are referring to the mid troposphere tropical hotspot problem. I agree. This is one deficiency in climate models though it is my understand that this discrepancy is improving. There are other discrepancies in modeling as well. Clearly there is more to learn.

But that does not mean that our understanding of the climate is incapable of assigning radiative forcing estimates with reasonable margins of error to the various agents that modulate the climate. We do, in fact, have enough understanding of the major players in the climate system to draw conclusions with confidence. 

CO2 (and other polyatomic gas species) are an essential piece of the puzzle in explaining and predicting the climate system. Alternative theories that ignore it do a poor job at matching up with all available observations. The Vostok ice cores (and other proxies) are consistent with the theory that CO2 puts a positive/negative radiative forcing on the climate when it increases/decreases. What are you thinking is the problem? In the absence of CO2 how do you explain the magnitude of the glacial/interglacial cycles? How do you solve the faint young paradox?

Afaik, the Vostok core show that CO2 lags the temperature changes by several hundred years. Obviously there are lots of issues, whether CO2 chemistry/diffusion in the ice biases the results, but it does raise a flag. My understanding is that water vapor is by far the dominant green house gas here on earth and that we live thanks to the peculiarities of the H2O molecule.

That leaves me reluctant to endorse CO2 as the primary driver for earth temperature.

The Central Park site is sheltered to the north by the Belvedere Castle and surrounded by deciduous trees and shrubs.  I'd think both temperature and wind measurements there would be impacted.

There is additional instrumentation mounted on the Castle, but for what purpose is not known.

I personally think the site is foolishly hostile to visitors, hiding in the shrubbery, unmarked and behind a chain link fence, with various instruments resting on a crushed stone base. It almost invites vandalism. The siting seems especially poor considering that this is a also place where literally millions of kids and other visitors pass by annually. A little bit of signage to document what the instrumentation is used for and perhaps some training of the volunteer guides that work at the Castle would be much more protective of the instrumentation and help spark interest and understanding among the public.

1 hour ago, Isotherm said:

The etiological factors surrounding last winter's macroscale forecasting bust debacle were meteorologically instructive and enlightening from a scientific "edification" standpoint. I have delineated those meteorological factors into a cohesive hypothesis on my website under the verification of last winter's forecast. Forecast model reliability is low at advanced lead times - correct - but this is why long range forecasters are tasked with the ineluctable duty of detaching ourselves from the capricious model data, and predicating thoughts on more authentic/reliable indicators.

Of course, I understand the overall trust in long range forecasters unfortunately took a hit following last winter, but one should not utilize that fail as justification to further doubt prospective prognostication. Forecasting is a probabilistic endeavor; the probability of failing next winter, after a fail the previous winter does not increase/become cumulative - they are mutually exclusive events. In a vacuum, the probability remains the same, but I'd argue that those long range forecasters who take the time to delve into the literature and sharpen methodologies following catastrophic busts will progressively decrease their probability of failing in the future. I look forward to another winter long range forecast as I have further refined my NAO formula which has already demonstrated excellent success. 

What 'more authentic/reliable indicators' do you have in mind??

If there were any, I suspect that they would be greatly studied and analyzed. Sadly, we have not found any thus far, afaik.

27 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Harder??? I mean my goodness...last winter, I don't think anybody got it right (at least not for the northeastern part of the country). I mean it didn't do what anybody thought it would...So if this winter is gonna be even harder to predict, then just throw predicitons out the window, lol

Sadly there is no reliable skill demonstrated by any of the longer term forecasting models, at least afaik.

The ludicrous month to month temperature switch for the DJF period recently shown by the JAMSTEC underscores the total lack of any such credible forecasts. JAMSTEC is a decent model and the people driving it are not beholden to the prevailing fads, but the reality remains that their long term forecasts are subject to massive change from month to month. That makes them useless operationally imho.

1 hour ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said:

Ok. I thought it would be a more serious situation then it turned out to become, but it has developed into an official depression.

I thought it was a useful call. Storms can and do pop up almost out of nowhere and we dismiss potential seeds at our peril.

Meanwhile, am glad the NHC has now taken note.

A momentary splash in Central Park, perhaps the usual 1/100th", in about 1 minute. 

It did not break the heat at all.

Simultaneously, this indication of thick ice north of Svalbard.

http://maritimebulletin.net/2019/07/19/icebreaker-turned-back-encountering-heavy-ice-in-ice-free-arctic/

So the ice conditions are quite variable. That however does not preclude a record low this season.

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

what kind of "pests" are they trying to kill?  If we kill off the pollinators, the pest that will eventually go extinct is humanity ;-) and the rest of the planet will celebrate our demise!

 

The Conservancy runs the Park, because they provide over 75% of the money. So they set the priorities, which are to make the Park as attractive to everyone as possible.

That means mosquitoes and biting flies are unwanted, as are caterpillars dangling from the trees. Unfortunately, the cheapest way to fight such 'pests' are broad spectrum insecticides, so there is a lot of collateral damage.

Not sure how to fix this.

Ideally, the Conservancy would add a priority for natural habitat preservation, with success measured by the number of breeding species rather than only the number of human visitors.

22 hours ago, forkyfork said:

today i saw a buckeye 

 

Lucky you!

Here in NYC Central Park, we rejoice when we see a few Monarchs and Red Admirals.  Diligent pest control spraying pretty much kills everything, although I'm delighted to note the fireflies this year are numerous.  Long may they all flourish! 

6 hours ago, mjr said:

Unfortunately, even top level meteorologists on the Accuweather Professional website, when doing comparisons of 90+ days in the east, BOS, NYC, PHL, DCA among others, use Central Park as the benchmark for New York City. They then attempt to do analyses based on this flawed data. For example, trying to explain why as of June 28 NY City still had not reached 90 (it had, just not in Central Park) or why New York had fewer 90+ days in 2018 than Boston did (in reality LGA had substantially more).

There is logic in the decision to retain the Central Park benchmark. The aim is to report the weather rather than to measure urban heat island effects.

I have no doubt that the concrete jungles we live in are hotter than the relatively green acres of Central Park, but that does not make the Central park data 'flawed'.

9 hours ago, uofmiami said:

You need to move it to the roof and have it on tripod post. I should give you crap for your anemometer not being sited correctly

Then you remember to add the lightning protection and pretty soon you need an electrician. Roof tripods are not that simple.

Perhaps the difference reflects definitional parameters?   One is Arctic Basin only, the other possibly the AMSR2 total area?  Hard to discuss when the data is inconsistent.

Just seems that Arctic ice is a topic where every detail has to be agreed, is it area, is it extent, is it volume, what coverage percent is included, are the land masks constant etc etc.

1 minute ago, forkyfork said:

i just saw a coyote in springfield

They hatch when it rains a lot.

13 hours ago, IrishRob17 said:

The outdoor humidity sensor on my Davis Vue is on the fritz...this is the excuse I’ve been looking for for years now. My kids are off on there own now....Pro 2 here I come sometime before winter certainly. 

Prepare to be disappointed. Very few really dedicated suppliers have survived the wave of cheaper imports.

I don't know whom I would trust to deliver a reliable system today.  

Have to say that the data strongly suggests a declining trend for arctic ice.

Possibly this is a cyclical phenomenon, which will reverse at some future date. Historical records from the 1920s suggest a similar warm cycle has been seen before.

Nevertheless, absent any identifiable mechanism to reverse the current warming, it seems reasonable to expect the 2012 lows will be broken, possibly this year.

Forkyfork makes a very strong argument that the recent increase in extent reflects fragmentation of previously solid ice pack, which sets the stage for enhanced melting of the shattered ice.

With the maximum melt still more than 2 months away, the odds are shifting towards a new record low imho.

32 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks!  I also read that you should use them as soon as you buy them because they lose capacity if you dont!

They do gradually lose charge over time, but they should recharge properly once plugged in.

The recharge process is not 100% efficient, so the issue is more the number of recharges than the time since manufactured.

17 hours ago, rclab said:

How sad, the thought of a diminished star field, an unintended victim of us. I remember a May spring night. I and couple of school chums were sitting on boulders in a Johnson County field just south of the Ozark National Forest. It was 1968 and a warm tranquil clear night. No beer. Johnson County was a Dry County. No girls because, even though it was Friday the girls dorm curfew still kicked in at 8:30pm. I beLieve Saturday went to 9:30 and Sunday was rolled back to 7:30 with chaperoned parlor visiting privileges for a little longer .You don’t want to ask about Mon to Thur. We just watched the star show Having grown up in the Dyer Heights, Bay Ridge/Fort Hamilton neighborhoods of Brooklyn stargazing was not a memorable experience, except on July 4th, depending on which of us was able to get the best stuff. To this day I’m still surprised I can count to ten using both hands. The star gazing in that Ark field will never be forgotten, I even viewed my first shooting stars. They were frequent, it seemed to me. I recall seeing two cross. Sad to lose that to progress but it won’t be denied. Rather than squawking about it I should try to transport these old bones to place where I might see it again. At least I can still sit in the dark, close my eyes and remember. As always ....

South East Arizona would bring it all back for you.  In fact, there is a whole astronomy community near the Chiricahuas, along the road to Portal, with many homes built around observatories.

No lights, no clouds, just you and the stars in the desert.

19 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

what a trash prediction 

Au contraire! 

A consensus prediction is pretty worthless, we make progress when things go different from what everyone expects and we reappraise.

Of course it is always easier to burn the deniers at a stake....

1 hour ago, Holston_River_Rambler said:

 

Already over the humidity too!

Learned a little about Grand Canyon North Rim's micro climates too. The whole Kaibab Plateau runs NW to SE and makes for some lovely orographic lift if there is a SW flow. I had some access to Tropical Tidbits and weathermodels and was watching the RGEM and Euro. Both suggested that a front would swing through and give a good burst of snow between 1 and 4 PM on May 19. So I told my hikers to try to be back by around 2 PM (some had started at 5 AM) and that we'd get maybe a heavy dusting and it would look scary for a bit and then it would be more convection/ hit and miss type stuff as the upper low/ cold pool swung through. 

I was 100% wrong, lol!

Upper low spun to the north and kept that SW flow aimed perpendicular at the 8500 foot plateau. Ended up with 4 - 6 inches by the next AM.  Amazing how little snow it takes to crush a tent (2 wet inches by 3 PM)! There were some people doing rim-to-rim-to-rim since it was opening weekend (not in my group) and maaannnnn, some of them were not prepared. Me and a friend went down into the canyon to make sure all the students made it back and saw some people (not ours) doing the hike in shorts and cotton t-shirts. They were soaked and cold. Some of them were somewhat delirious, but search and rescue was waiting at the top of the trail. Luckily everyone in my group was safe. Aramark did a good thing that evening too and had a free Prime Rib/ soup/ sandwich/ salad buffet for everyone at North Rim! 

My friend met a Canadian couple at the top of the trail who she let warm up in our van and they were so thankful that they gave two, $300.00 cabins to our students for the night.  

Image is me trying to salvage a tent.

Nature still does not care. A real life experience.

Glad no one got hurt!

4 hours ago, forkyfork said:

it's a matter of when, not if. btw what's a good annual that resists root rot? the soil here is heavy clay and it's a pain in the ass

Not a gardener, but the Goog suggests verbena, marigold and geraniums.  

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

until a cat 3 cleans the slate

That's why we have federally subsidized flood insurance, can't have dumb nature interfere with our right to build anywhere we want to...

14 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I bought the battery but dont know how to install it lol.

It's not going to be a problem for awhile though I got this new one the same time I bought my new computer, which was last fall.

It's the Cyberpower PFC1000VA AVR model.

 

Battery replacement is straightforward and explained in the user manual, with illustrations, so you will have no trouble.

Do note that this unit takes 2 batteries, model RB1290A.  It is good practice to replace them both together, that way there is not one stronger than the other.

The user manual, actually more like the user sheet, is here:  https://dl4jz3rbrsfum.cloudfront.net/documents/CyberPower_UM_CP1000AVRLCD.pdf