ORH_wxman

Yeah he’s trying to move the goalposts based on some moron media members playing up a historic snowstorm angle. He’s totally ignoring the airmass part now. He will likely try and claim that when it hits mid-40s for a high, that the same thing happened last year even though it was onshore flow and sheet drizzle (and will ignore the low temps).

All in the last hour

Measurable on winter hill from the heavy snow last hour

Typical May observation. Not sure what all the fuss is about KORH 091248Z 29022G32KT 1/4SM R11/2400V4000FT +SN FZFG VV009 M01/M03 A2953 RMK AO2 PK WND 29032/1247 P0000

We tried to tell him

Just your normal below freezing snow ob at ORH. Typical Annual May occurrence.

KORH 091238Z 28016G25KT 1/2SM R11/4000V5000FT SN FZFG VV012 M01/M03 A2953 RMK AO2 PK WND 28027/1211 P0000 T10061028

Ripping fatties in this band

Too bad this CCB couldn’t wrap up like we saw on some runs a couple days ago. Legit cold to tap.

Snowing here. Nice. Lol

Too early to get a good handle on the low. We need to wait until mid/late June. Jaxa (and Area) at this point in 2012 was higher than 1996 (the highest min year on record).

One of the all time greats in interior MA. Had around 27” in ORH but officially I think the airport reported 22”...but that was during their ASOS outage snow disaster years...their final report came like 12 hours before the snow ended. Lol. Despite that, it was actually a mild underperformer if that’s possible. Mets were going 3 feet plus here. Still, can’t complain about a storm that breaks 2 feet.

DMI volume is a bit suspect....I'd prob use PIOMAS and then definitely Cryosat2 when that updates more fully later this spring. PIOMAS has volume currently 5th lowest. Still low, but not dead last like DMI. 2017 is pretty far alone in last place at this point.

That makes sense. 22z would be 6pm and it was still light out so that matches my memory. Doesn't get dark until closer to 7 in late September. Looks like it started around 5:40pm.

I wanna say late afternoon?

There's plenty of peer review research to read that will argue humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2, but in reading them, you'll note that they don't hold up under scrutiny as time passes and other papers rebut them and they aren't able to counter those rebuttals. So they are fewer and fewer these days. I would suggest reading literature across all spectrums and not try and muck up the thread by insisting you know more than these papers.

They didn't attempt to quantify the non-climate factors though which was a bit frustrating in reading the study. I just finished reading it and they sort of just decide that VPD fits well enough that it is dominant. That might be true but it would have been nice to try and isolate it from the non-climate factors which they admitted is something they weren't doing in the paper...so we could see numerically how dominant it actually is.

It's actually not clear at all for "the current event" given that the autumn attribution is extremely weak to non-existent. It seems the trends are stronger for summer. From the most recent paper you linked: This is the problem with some of the attribution studies that are in a shorter time span. Esp starting in the middle 20th century.

I actually remember the snow on 9/30/92. I was outside playing and it started as a shower and quickly went to graupel and then some legit flakes mixed in at peak intensity. It was pretty awesome.

That epic band in that storm

That's because there were two snow events...an October rarity. 10/15-16 and 10/18. 2011 also had two events. A little teaser on 10/27/11 two days before the big one.

I'm not going to go down the political rabbit hole of discussing capitalism vs socialism in this forum but the nuclear energy part is spot on. It is hard to take any person or any group seriously that say they believe climate change is a dire emergency and also will not consider nuclear power.

Most politicians aren't really that serious about climate change anyway. Even the ones who claim they are. There are some exceptions of course. But we see something like the Paris accord being touted by politicians as this crucial thing when in reality it is non-binding and even if it wasn't, the commitments through the end of the accord in 2030 would do very little to change the longer term outcome of climate change...especially if one believes that we are closer to the "worst case" scenarios of higher climate sensitivity. The difference is something like a couple tenths of a degree Celsius or even less. If you are generous and make a bunch of assumptions like everyone continues to ramp up their cuts beyond 2030 like I've seen done in some analysis, then you can maybe add several more tenths. But that's a big assumption. It comes across as something for politicians to pat eachother on that back about to make them feel as if they are tackling the problem when they really aren't. This probably isn't the thread for such discussion, but a far more efficient way to attack the issue would be to invest most of the money into R&D for green energy.

I should update this in that the NSIDC minimum extent dropped a bit further to 4.09 million sq km....still outside my range but a bit closer than the 4.23 initial value I posted above. Doesn't change the analysis above in any material way. The area minimum hasn't been matched again and will remain at 2.87....we're now over 300k sq km above the 9/4 area min so that won't be caught again. We'll see if 4.09 million sq km is the final minimum extent....still a chance it could fall back below that from the current 4.17 million sq km value, but it's getting very late now to significant drops.

Time to verify this prediction based on the data at the end of June. Assuming we have reached the minimums for both area and extent on 9/4 (looking more and more likely), then both of these fell outside my range, albeit not by much. The final minimum area was 2.87 million sq km and the final minimum extent was 4.23 million sq km. These are both NSIDC numbers. The predictions were looking excellent through mid-August until we had an unprecedented slowdown in late August that has leaked into early September. So I ended up making predictions that were slightly too low compared to reality. I was correct in identifying the very strong chance of a top 3 finish (and also being skeptical of challenging the top spot), but I really needed to bump my middle numbers in the range up about 100-200k. Overall, I think this was a decent prediction compared to what we see on the Arctic Sea Ice outlook that gets published by NSIDC....but I am still disappointed I could not get it within my range. It might be that 200k error bars are just too small to consistently hit on predictions when it comes to sea ice. Using 400k error bars would have this method hit every year I've done it with the exception of 2016. But I will probably try to continue to use 200k error bars....and maybe see where the method can be improved.