etudiant

No precip in Manhattan UES and Central Park thus far, but feels like it is imminent.

Regardless of the eventual totals, I'm impressed that the system was identified and called out at least a week ago, when all seemed serene.

The meteorologists on this panel deserve to take a bow, imho.

4 minutes ago, lee59 said:

I've got 2 anemometers above the roof. I never really admit to this.

Do they agree?

5 hours ago, forkyfork said:

also italy hasn't produced a good composer since vivaldi

You grade tough!

Not Verdi or Rossini? Respighi maybe?

1 hour ago, WxWatcher007 said:

 

Is that perhaps a record for rapid intensification?

It does underscore how primed the area is for a storm, just waiting for a trigger event.

It seems some essential piece of understanding is missing.

Based on the results thus far this year and the ongoing discussions, no one has a solid handle on hurricane formation. 

Are there any research papers that might help improve our understanding and skill?

The radar picture of this system was for pockets of much heavier precipitation in a broader area of light rain.

The widely different rainfall totals reported verify this was not an artifact.   

Can anyone explain what causes this kind of scattered areas of heavier precipitation, sort of like raisins in apudding?

Nothing as yet here in Manhattan UES as of 10 PM. The radar suggests the precipitation belt is north of the city.

Is not the issue mostly that the professional consensus forecast for a well above normal season appears to be mistaken?

All the various indicators such as SST are positive, yet the result is not. It would be helpful to learn what is being missed.

11 hours ago, Hitman said:

my paltry harvest of almost ripe tomatoes were decimated by a local woodchuck this past weekend.  I saw the critter this morning about to munch on another tomato on the deck, but he caught me spying him and turned away, smirking, undoubtedly knowing I would soon be gone to the office, leaving him free to enjoy lunch.

They are smart animals, they wait till you're about to harvest the crop. Did that to my corn too, when I lived in CT.

Two brief thundershower interludes here om the Manhattan UES.

Would guess maybe 0.1" of rain, just a brief burst, but surely welcome.

5 hours ago, Ed, snow and hurricane fan said:

I don't subscribe to WxBell anymore, my intro rate was tripled, but even JB's PPV comments were as likely to be political rants as a forecast discussion, using analogues.  Which he used to do at AccuWx.  Used analogues extensively, usually well, occasional busts like 'Houston, We Have a Problem' for Rita.  What I see on Twitter now is a pet model, the Japanese or Korean, or maybe the Australian, to highlight/hype a threat.   Or politics.

 

SE Texas bias along with MA and NEUSA, he lived in College Station as a boy when his dad was going to A&M.

 

But, when I was an subscriber, maybe 5 or 10 years ago, he did predict a below average hurricane season.  And I did my version of a JB homebrew hype threat for the front into the Gulf under reasonable shear.  I don't see model support, but first day of work for 22-23 and my lunch is brief.

Same here, although in fairness I found the discussions much more worthwhile than the specific forecasts.

If they offered a discounted 'discussions only' rate, I'd be tempted to resubscribe.

That said, I've nothing but respect for JB, he called Sandy correctly in the face of much disparagement. I know forecasts are really hard, we can't even get the five day call reasonably correct, so I admire anyone who sometimes is blessed with understanding.

54 minutes ago, qg_omega said:

That looks properly set

Sure looks that way to me as well.

3 minutes ago, bluewave said:

These charts do a good job showing how the tree growth began to cause a decline in NYC 90° days since the ASOS was established in 1995. The 1961-1990  and 1991-2020 climate normal periods are included. From 1961 to 1995 the Central Park ASOS wasn’t in the deep shade under the trees during peak heating  hours. So the 90° day counts were more in line with Newark and LGA. The tree growth caused a decline in 90° days from near 20 in 1961 to around 16-17 in the early 2020s. If the site was properly maintained like other weather stations are, then NYC would have close to double the 90° day count at closer to 30 like EWR and LGA. So the major media outlets forecasting high temperatures  for NYC are all using flawed data. 

https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?_wait=no&q=74&network=NYCLIMATE&station=NY5801&season=all&dir=above&var=high&threshold=90&year=1961&_r=t&dpi=100&_fmt=png

 

Your charts do indeed tell a clear story.

Would it help to widen the comparisons to include a couple of other Manhattan stations, the AMNH perhaps or the Greenwich Village station. That would neutralize the claim that EWR and LGA are reflecting increased heat island effects from airport expansion.

Idk whether any other station has a comparably long history, but the results since 1980 should provide pretty clear indications of Up or Down.

10 hours ago, rclab said:

Good morning Bx. Thank heavens their vegans. As always …..

Like hell they are, blood thirsty little nest raiding varmints. They just look cute.

It may be just me, but I find that stunning.

Calibrating a thermometer is not rocket science.  For an official instrument to be several degrees in error is just gross.

The response, that the NWS is investigating the situation is not helpful.  The errors simply perpetuate unless real action is taken. In a busy organization with lots of immediate responsibilities, it is understandable that no line person has time to troubleshoot the issue and fix it.

So the buck stops with the NWS branch which has responsibility for the selection, placement and maintenance of the instrumentation. Is there such a branch or is this a local responsibility? 

10 hours ago, bluewave said:

 

Liberty Bell
Is there any way to project where Central Park would rank on these lists if their equipment was sited better?
 

The Central Park equipment was out in the sun and away from the deep shade during the 1951-1980 climate era. So we can compare how the high temperatures during the summer have changed between EWR, NYC, and LGA since then. The tree growth over the equipment has trimmed 2° off the NYC summer high temperatures relative to EWR and LGA. This has resulted in many lost recent heat records for NYC as the record warmth dramatically increased since 2010. Central Park should be averaging 10 more annual 90° days instead of just 1 if it was out in a grassy clearing away from the deep shade and cooling foliage. 
 

2010-2021 summer high temperature warming over 1951-1980

NYC 1951-1980……83.0……2010-2021….83.5…..+0.5….should be closer to 85.5 or +2.5 away from the shade 

EWR…83.4…..85.7…+2.3

LGA….82.0…..84.6...+2.6

 

90° days change 

NYC….18……19……+1…should be +10 and 28 days a year of 90°

EWR….23....33…….+10

LGA…..15…..26…….+11

 

Have to agree wholeheartedly, it is a significant difference, very probably caused by the unchecked tree and shrubbery growth around the CP site.

I'd thought that site alterations would be addressed by the NWS quality control, but clearly that is not the case.

Yet this seems to show a rather larger  impact than the widely discussed Time of Observation bias. Does it just get treated as a local issue without broader significance?

On 3/27/2022 at 2:38 AM, LibertyBell said:

there is a real necessity to get nations like China and India onboard, China going back to coal is a real detriment not only because of the vast number of people that live there, but also because it also affects that entire region.  They have a goal of net zero by 2060 I believe, but in the mean time they have been opening up more coal plants.  Nuclear would be a really good option here, but in the current political climate, people seem to be even more wary of nuclear.

 

Problem with nuclear is that only the Chinese seem to be able to build these plants reliably on schedule, no one has done so in Europe or the US.

That makes nuclear impossible to plan around.

7 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

It is interesting of course because living in the area that has experienced warming I can say easily night time lows are the biggest change we have seen around here. Makes sense with it correlating to ocean heat flux increasing. Basically we are getting more low level moisture to stick around longer/ be replaced more frequently thus locking in higher temps especially at night versus daytime which don't get me wrong has increased but not on the level of nighttime temps in all seasons. I would love to see a study showing the differences to confirm that most of the warming has occurred via nighttime vs daytime or whether it truly is a balance of both and at what times of the year it is most likely to occur (my guess would be fall showing higher daytime peaks and warmer nights in all seasons but winter being the largest change).

So for those that didn't watch:

Increase in atmospheric CO2 --> higher SST (globally and locally) --> slowing of AMOC/ building up of NW Atlantic warmer waters --> changing jet pattern enhances this mode change and compounds the situation more for warming

We have seen the change of more interspersed snowfalls across the Mid Atlantic, higher snowfall totals when we do get those big systems to occur, and overall snow-water equivalent levels well above average over the region as well as the NHEM as a whole.

 

Having more ridging potential further in the NW Atlantic is a blessing sometimes and can be a big curse. In winter it is beautiful as it would allow for a further west trough allowing us to be near that baroclinic zone for these monster storms to occur. Of course the caveat is the issues that come in the summer time with tropical activity. This further NW Atlantic ridging promotes steering currents into the eastern US more so than the Gulf States, not to say these regions won't get hit, but the frequency of east coast hits may very well go up in the future do to this.

I distinctly remember growing up in the 90's (in SEPA) we had some pretty decent drought years and during the summer we would be rather warm during the day and had many years with some really dead grass in the yards because of the lack of rain and heat that occurred. It seems around 2000-2005 area things flipped a bit we started to introduce more wet summers with less intense heat. Pretty difficult for us to push 100 outside of what the heat island metro areas produce. Flora has been going crazy in the region over the last 10 years it seems, we seem to have ripe conditions for a subtropical feel come late spring early summer, my backyard specifically is constantly on jungle watch with how quickly everything grows. Interesting stuff!

It might be worth checking what the pattern is for the west coast to tease out the differential impact.

California is in a prolonged drought, despite the increase in SST. Are they also getting mostly increases in their night time lows?

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/03/russia-economic-sanctions-wheat-oil/627004/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

1) The Green-Energy Revolution Goes Into Warp Speed Tech revolutions in the 21st century tend to be very fast. It took about a decade for the share of Americans with a smartphone to go from zero to 80 percent. But energy revolutions are lazier affairs, and the green-energy transition in particular has been torpid in the U.S. and Europe, which is perhaps surprising given the declining price of solar energy. The West has simply refused to build green-energy projects fast enough to decarbonize the grid.

Russia’s war could accelerate the green revolution in two big ways. First, it will increase political pressure on the U.S. and European governments to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas. (The U.S. has already said it will stop importing Russian energy, and Europe is considering a similar ban.) In the short term, countries will lean harder on spare oil and gas sources to keep prices down. But over time, the boycott of Russian energy could raise the price of thermal energy enough that it compels countries to deploy significantly more wind and solar projects. For years, anti-growth fears, antinuclear sentiment, and vague NIMBYism have stood in the way of green-energy construction. The urgency of an external threat could melt away some of those anxieties. “We can not talk about renewables revolution if getting a permit to build a wind park takes seven years,” said Kadri Simson, the European commissioner for energy. “It is time to treat these projects as being in the overriding public interest, because they are.”

Second, rising energy prices will change consumer preferences, nudging more consumers away from gas-powered cars. Today less than 5 percent of the U.S. car market is fully electric. But the industry is pushing electric vehicles hard; nearly every automotive ad in the Super Bowl was for an EV. This marketing shift could combine with a painful spike in gas prices in a way that gets more Americans to buy EVs, which will encourage more automotive companies to invest in EV production, which could bring down the cost of EVs, which will increase demand. This possible shift from energy pain to energy progress has a historical precedent. In 1973, OPEC cut off the U.S. and other countries from access to its oil, raising gas prices. Although most Americans associate that period with economic stagnation, the crisis also led American car manufacturers to become more energy efficient. Actual fuel economy as measured in miles per gallon took off in 1973. Fifty years later, we could see the same dynamic play out: the shock of energy pain leading to decades of progress.

I hope your happy vision comes about, but don't see how it can without much pain.

Wind and solar are intermittent, they need backup, which implies massive capacity(expensive) on standby, in addition to the green energy conversion costs.

Simultaneously, cutting Russian oil really squeezes global fuel production, implying shortages, which generate higher prices.

So the consumer gets hit with higher priced gas and more costly electricity during the transition, which can't be quick.

If nuclear were not such a swamp of massive delays and cost overruns, this could be its moment to shine, but the still available workforce that is qualified for these projects is small and mostly old, so not a plausible option.

On 3/2/2022 at 6:06 PM, Dark Star said:

Where do we store the spent nuclear waste, and how do we get it there?  Seems Right To Know would allow transportation of nuclear waste cross country an easy terrorist target?

The volume of nuclear waste is tiny and easily managed, unlike the cubic miles of coal ash and scrubber residues, which are themselves quite unpleasant wit heavy metals that have infinite half life, they stay toxic forever.

 That said, the inability of the nuclear industry to build on a reliable schedule and at a reasonable price is far more damaging to its prospects than the objections of anti nuclear activists.

Maybe Snowman19 is just trying to keep things honest.

Lord knows that there have been plenty of surprises already this winter, temps bouncing up and down, so recognize that longer range forecasts are pretty iffy at best. Even the groundhogs don't seem to agree on the six week outlook.

That said, Red wing Blackbirds are back in Central Park, so spring is definitely imminent here in NYC.

Sadly still short of the mark, energy output half of input.

That said, there is steady progress and we are getting closer.

The emergence of a number of well funded private efforts is perhaps another indicator that we are getting closer.

The main problem though is that the device has to be cheap enough to build, else the interest expenses will swamp the low power production costs.

Most of the designs to date ignore that problem.

Help me understand.

I've seen zero evidence that any kind of climate change has impacted the formation of contrails. 

We do have a lot more jets flying around, dumping lots of CO2 and water vapor from their engines.

So there are many more contrails, but does climate change affects that?

Afaik, the polar ice, including the multi year ice, gradually rotates around the pole following the ocean currents.

There are exit paths from the Arctic Ocean, such as the Fram Straits, through which masses of even multi year ice can be lost.

The Titanic was a casualty of one such large outflow event.

It suggests that changes in ocean flows are a substantial factor in determining the durability and extent of Arctic multi year ice, possibly amplifying the effects of temperature.

3 minutes ago, Euripides said:

I use this one. You can switch radars sites if needed.

https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/nexrad/index.php?type=DIX-N0Q-0-48

Thank you !  Very nice.