Save the itchy algae!

1 minute ago, John1122 said:

WPC update this afternoon says low input from GFS/UKIE. Blend from 12z Euro/NAM/FV3/CMC.  They are strongly in the camp of a deeper/slower system. 

Deeper meaning stronger/lower pressure, or further south?

Fair enough.  That should be resolving some within the next couple runs, I hope.

1 minute ago, Bango said:

Which would benefit more of tn?

I'd expect so, but if there were indeed only a few slps moving towards TN then you think the ensemble would be more favorable.

Is there precedent for an 850 low splitting into two clear lows that move in different directions like what is depicted on the Euro? It seems to me that one or the other would take over.  

I'm most interested in the 00Z Euro, like everyone else.  I didn't know they had off-hour runs of the Euro...

Is the 00Z at 1 am?

1 minute ago, Carvers Gap said:

If that GFS were to verify, that is going to be one cold, cold rainstorm!

Maybe its the computer trying to temper expectations to keep hype from running wild!

The GFS doesn't make sense to me.  Things seem to be trending in a positive direction overall for East TN but the output doesn't execute.  

UCF!

7 hours ago, bluewave said:

A solar minimum is no match for the CO2 forcing. There was a good paper out on this several years ago. As for the AMO, the sea ice was in decline during the last cold phase during the 80's into the mid-90's. Natural oscillations like the PDO and AMO can impact shorter term  rates of decline.  But the long term decline is a result of rising global and Arctic temperatures.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/feulner/research/how-would-a-new-grand-minimum-of-solar-activity-affect-the-future-climate

The sun has far more power on our planet than CO2, it borders on ridiculous to suggest otherwise.  That study is not powered well, and I'm pretty sure that institution has been known to push agendas for funding purposes in the past.  The only thing that has a remotely higher impact on us than the sun are things like drastic changes in oceanic composition and planetary events like super volcanoes and meteors.  I don't mean to come across too critical, you just seem too set in your ways.

3 hours ago, WidreMann said:

So I guess we're in agreement that climate change is happening and that the sea ice is reflecting a period of ever increasing warming. Right?

If that's what you got from the comment then you have more pressing concerns than climate change.  But to bring it down to  level, yes the climate is always changing.  And yes, the earth has been generally warming for 10-12,000 years so one would expect ice core samples to reflect that trend.  Per the other guy's point, the sea ice is not currently adequately reflecting a period of warming and thus (per the other other guy's point) there is more to the process than what our current understanding is.  A lot of what has been posted recently here in the form of articles is mainly an example of politicking and hubris.  

What you said had no bearing on my comments at all.  Of course the ice is lowest now, its the latest in a long warming period, that's what you would expect.  It's irrelevant to the point I made.

So, wait, warmer air holds more moisture?!? Who would have thought...

It reads like a political shill.  

10 hours ago, WidreMann said:

But what would a similar weather pattern have produced 20 years ago? That's the question you have to ask yourself whenever there's a cold anomaly of some sort. Extent probably would have been a good bit higher, but now we have warmer SSTs and temps, so while its pace is great, it's still way behind the historical norms.

This is true.  That said, it's important to keep what 'historical norms' are in perspective as well.  The time frame we are speaking of is smaller than a blip on the radar in terms of global climate.  I'm not saying that we haven't played a role in warming things a bit (of course we have), but the big picture impact is likely overstated, and it might not even be a bad thing really anyway.  We have no idea what the climate is going to be like in 2040, '50, whenever.  Let's just say that we go through a stretch in a couple years where things freeze up nicely, 'like they used to'.  This is entirely possible based on some projections that are about as meaningful as those saying we'll be ice free.  Come the new decade, the new 30 year averages will be from 1991-2020.  This will include the biggest years of the brief warm up.  The next thing you know the observed trends will be a mirror opposite of what we were seeing earlier this decade, and it will look like an impending relative ice age.  This is what happens when humans over emphasize their lifetime on a global scale.  

Awareness is key of course.  I'm not saying that you are being this way but some here are beating drums so loudly that they are unknowingly contributing to complacency.  

I wish we could keep the discussions of human induced climate change and human induced mass extinction separate.  I am a huge believer in trying to address the latter, while I think the former is mainly political.  Combining them will alienate those that don't like BS, there are a lot of them out there, and we need all the help we can get to slow the extinction event.  

On 11/15/2018 at 2:40 AM, LibertyBell said:

No we are equating them to tobacco causes cancer denalism.  Sadly some 'scientists' are in the pay of corporations and they spread ignorance to fuel the for profit agenda of those who employ them.  Exxon, Merck, Philip-Morris, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and a few others come to mind.  Fortunately all of these have been exposed with Freedom of Information Act requests.

What do you call people that think what you said only works one way? Alarmists? Sycophants? Partoftheproblem?

Can we have a graphical geography lesson on what counts as eastern valley/west valley/south valley/north valley/etc? I am not from the area so it all just seems like the valley to me, but it's clear that there are certain microclimates that exist everywhere.  As an example, it seems where I live (Farragut) is generally drier than other places not far away (like Powell).  Can someone knowledgeable on the matters educate me? This might be a good thread topic as I'm sure there are others interested in the geography and how it plays out in tendencies relative to other places...

Second summer sucks.

I'm pretty sure QOL has improved greatly for mankind as its gotten warmer.  

Has the sea ice started growing again? It looks like its reached its nadir and might be turning up.  Seems a little early for that, but the times are changing!

My limited understanding is that the QBO is not useful for the purposes we are alluding to.