bobjohnsonforthehall

3 minutes ago, nycsnow said:

 

That's one of the greatest things I've ever seen

20 minutes ago, Franklin0529 said:

 

Is that the pause that has been shown in some of the more aggressive modeling in terms of qpf? That group of about 30-40% that seems to remain in place south of Long Island while the rest depart for the coast of Maine?

Six hours ago this model had our storm taking a selfie at the Eiffel Tower. 

5 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Can't trust either the RGEM or NAM yet. Looking forward to hopefully an improvement on the GFS. Doesn't have to show a bomb quite yet but definitely want an improvement. 

Perhaps. But the NAM is in a good range for what happens 12 hours+ before the storm reaches our area. Those Dynamics are crucial to what happens in our area and the NAM showed them to be very favorable.

With the way that the trough goes negative there is zero chance of the low taking that track. It's just the GFS chasing convection at the surface. It will come around. 

Redeveloping off the coast?

Just now, Rjay said:

 I disagree.  I think although there were some positives, the trough goes negative quicker than the 18z run which negates those positives. 

ULL gets that far into Georgia...I don't see how it can run that track.

1 minute ago, HeadInTheClouds said:

I think the silence says it all. Another crappy run. 

Upper levels on GFS do not agree with this assessment.

First flakes falling in Flemington

That weak low down near the Bahamas will have some effect on our Thursday/Friday AM system, no?

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc.

That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. 

Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs.

As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

Definitely agree with your last paragraph whole heartedly and am glad to hear it. I appreciate your candor.

What is ageism is defining a group of people in a certain way based on a view, perceived or real, within that group. Some of your recent posts were clearly in that category, even while you attributed misogynistic meanings to others. Self awareness would like to have a little chat.

Warming of 2 degrees may take 100-150 years, even if the ever-incorrect climate models are to be believed. In that time, human adaptability will be well beyond anything that you or I can currently begin to comprehend. This is true looking back even 50 years. 

I have zero problem with finding alternative technologies for the replacement of fossil fuels. That is what progress is all about. I am just not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and junk everything in order to try to frantically come up with something that we just might not be ready to produce yet. 

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Access options

Subscribe to Journal

Get full journal access for 1 year

$199.00

only $3.83 per issue

 

We're just talking about super el ninos here, starting with 1982-83.... what occurred during the 1700s wasn't subject to any kind of scientific measurement.

Gah! That sucks. Basically says that climate reconstructions based on coral cores from Palmyra show that the most intense ENSO activity seems to have taken place in the mid-seventeenth century. Hardly driven by the greed of the fossil fuel industry at that point in time, no? Also points to the likely cyclical nature that has absolutely zero to do with co2.

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it has to do with the unprecedented type of weather that has been occurring on a large scale.  Looks like Russia loves it because they're about to open Siberia for farming and will be feeding the world since America's bread basket will become unviable for farming.

 

Holy crap really? First you see something out your window and automatically "climate change", then you throw around Russia as a bugaboo and assume that America's farms will soon not be viable? Based on what? They are more viable now than at any point in history for cripes sake.

This is exactly what i am talking about. Say what you will about "climate deniers" who don't want to listen to science, but my goodness. Look in a mirror.

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

that makes no sense when renewable fuels represent the fastest growing economies and sectors of the job market.  At some point you have to move on from the old.

 

What makes no sense? Not sure that I follow.

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

but high end ninos do seem to be occurring more often since the 80s.

Incorrect

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01779

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I was driving on I-80 near the Delaware Water Gap on Monday and I saw a forest fire just ahead of me and above me, first time I've ever seen that- let alone in February!  It was named the Rock Face Fire and it was burning 70 acres last I heard, and it was on Mt Tammany on the Jersey side.

This has to do with what exactly?

Just now, LibertyBell said:

there is no safe side- I guess people dont care that it's ruining their health too.  Darwinism always wins....

Perhaps because those who want to "be on the safe side" want to bring the economies of the western world to a screeching halt? They want to put an end to the single economic system that has done more to bring the world out of poverty than any other? In doing so, they seem to want to lower the population of the earth and recreate it into a utopia that never has existed, and never will exist to their satisfaction?

I mean...that could be it. You know?

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

You said that the "rate of warming is virtually without precedent". This is inaccurate and misleading. The rate of warming is not linear. 

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/

"Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

You're citing it in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be a dinosaur who knows nothing about the subject. That's pretty much the very definition of ageism, but again, you do you. 

And the only way that these future "costs" ever come to bare is if all of the doomsday projections come to pass. Even the IPCC does not believe that. 

What's your view on nuclear power?

China?

India?

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

No it's not. That's an inaccurate interpretation of ENSO climate pattern. The rate of warming is not linear. But you do you.

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance.

Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth.

It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review.

Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. it is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt.

 Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with).

This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

 

That is certainly very ageist of you. Where does that rank on the victimhood hierarchy? I'm guessing it's below misogyny so thus is ok for you to say without fear of retribution. "Denialists" as you call them, seem to be uninterested in engaging in scientific curiosity. I could say the same for many millions on your side of the debate. They hear what they want to hear. Are told over and over by the media what the media wants them to hear. And they spew things that are scientifically garbage but remain popular tropes that are spilled over and over which I suppose somehow makes them true in their minds. Polar bear population being one of the biggies. Go to an event and uninformed people believe the polar bear population is plunging due to global warming. It's not. But what can you do? Can I say that the young and uninformed are too impressionable by people who purport themselves to be experts in a field but are actually activists uninterested in scientific rigor? Or would that be ageist as well? I'm confused.

"Imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo". That's an interesting take. I would love to hear you expound on that one. What exactly is "unsustainable" and exactly which "backward policy goals" need to be "suffered through"? I'm quite curious to learn.

25 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

 

You got another explanation for the sudden warming? I’m all ears bro. If not I’d let the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS do their work and STFU.


.

 

It's not that sudden. Relax. Parts of the world have warmed and cooled throughout human history. That shouldn't surprise you. The attempts that we are currently making to rewrite climatic history nothwithstanding of course. The idea of one global temperature is laughable. The idea that we are even now measuring the temperature of the entire earth in an accurate way is, again, laughable. The idea that a trace gas, that has shown to be a lagging indicator and not a leading one, can cause global temperatures to react in the way that you seem to believe, is what it is I suppose. CO2 has been higher during our planet's history, and at times when temperatures were lower. The climate is more complex than today's scientists can possibly understand. Good for them for trying. It is what they should do. But they should not pretend that they know the answer with certainty. They do not.

Oh, and the vitriol and attempt to squash debate is unnecessary and pretty much aligns with my previous thoughts regarding something else besides science looking to silence critique.

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Two quick things:

1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question.

2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 

2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine. 

On 2/25/2020 at 9:15 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg.

Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20

Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics.

Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Misogynistic. Lol. That's rich. It's as if you have never seen a political opponent shown in an unflattering picture before. When it happens to be a female that makes it misogynistic? Just stop.

By the way. Deniers = unbelievers correct? Let me know when the stonings begin so that i can prepare. many thanks!

Quite prescient given our recent pattern.

The main pieces of energy have yet to be well sampled. The models are just guessing at this point. I will start noticing trends from 00z overnight to 12z tomorrow and not before. And I'm not rooting for snow. Hoping that it doesn't snow actually. But realistically Miler A setups shouldn't be taken seriously or have white flags waived until you start seeing definitive trends within 72 hours of the storm. Just my opinion anyway.