ORH_wxman

Ukie was fine for most...a little worrisome for western folks, but you know the deal with the western fringe of the heavy QPF in these types of systems

Yeah I like something in the 16-24/18-24 range with jackpots higher in the localized banding. I think this one actually has just a bit less juice to it than Feb 2013 so I would expect the coverage of 24"+ to be less than that storm. But it's still going to be pretty high end. Feb 2013 had a greater gulf connection with the southern stream vortmax

Ahh, I guess they didn't put the new vid up yet

Here's Harveys map

Even out towards messenger and south shore spots PYM to GHG could get a pine punisher for the first 10-14" of this storm until things crash SE on Tuesday morning.

There could be a sneaky paste disaster on the Cape in this one.

Seeing Harvey on a Sunday is awesome

Yes it stalls SE of ACK...it's what makes E MA catch up to perhaps an early lead for central or western areas that get deformation snows.

Yeah central CT will get smoked...I'd mostly be a little nervous about going too high in far NW CT to Berkshires...esp west side of Berks...east slope prob still in monster territory

It depends what the adjustment 5 years from now was based on...the data didn't change for the 2000-2010 period, it was the dataset that was archiac. It hadn't been properly adjusted. There's always going to be adjustments as coops either move or change equipement or their observation time. The adjustments should be getting smaller since a lot of that is accounted for now, but they will never fully go away. If you really are nervous about adjustments, just use the USCRN dataset from here on out. It is a netowk of 114 stations across the U.S. that was specifically introduced to avoid adjustments. They are placed in pristine siting locations in areas that are unlikely to be affected by developement/urbinzation in the coming decades. They have redundant temperature sensors (3 of them) to make sure that malfunctioning data is unlikely to affect any trends. The only problem is that they have only been recording data since 2004, so it's usefulness will only really be in the decades to come, not the past.

I feel like we've been over this about a hundred times in this forum...we explain the TOBS adjustments, the station movement bias, MMT temp sensor bias, and any other residual issues the raw temperature data has...and then months later, it comes up again as if it was never explained previously. NCDC upgraded their dataset from an outdated version called "Drd964x" to "nClimDiv" on the "Climate at a Glance" portion of their webstie, which many hardcore skeptics all b**ched about. But what they failed to understand was the old Drd964x dataset was not adjusted with all the necessary adjustments because it was daily data...they only adjusted monthly data previously. The new nClimDiv dataset has been adjusted to the daily level. I've never heard any of these complainers give a good reason on why the newer dataset was more inaccurate. There's parts of the temp record that can be nitpicked...but this isn't one of them.

Looks like a new record low will occur.

What are they manipulating? Other than using extremely light blue (which makes it difficult to distinguish between normal and below normal), the rankings aren't made up. These are prelim numbers anyway...I've noticed the final numbers are usually a bit lower because a lot of the more rural areas don't report right away. I'd prefer to see just the raw temp anomalies, but the rankings are correct. That's how they choose to graph it.

Hansen can be completely full of crap and CA could still have horrible droughts...global warming at a steep rate and CA drought are not connected at the hip. This is the problem with climate change debate in general. Everyone has to debate who is "right" and who is "wrong"...rather than, say, the science itself. Climate science isn't black and white. The southwest U.S. is very vulnerable to longer term drought...with or without rapid AGW. It is definitely ignorant to assume good decades of rainfall like the late 20th century would continue...and continue reliably. Heck, short memory for planning bureaucrats to forget the terrible southwest drought at the turn of 19/20th century. Being conservative on land use and water allocation is a very important part of sustaining a growing population...especially in the arid regions.

It certainly seems reasonable...though I do wonder what else is going on. Probably more study on aerosols and solar feedbacks is needed. But I agree the PDO is definitely a player. It will be interesting to see if we have any effect when the AMO goes into its cold phase in another decade or so...giving us a period where both are in the cold phase. Conversely, we'll also have to see how fast it warms when the PDO reverses back to warm in about 20 years. Obviously some local regions have seen surface warming without the global temps rising such as the arctic in the past decade. Maybe 2013 was a correction and start of a cooler period? Or maybe it was just a blip and we will be back to 2007-2012 warmth the rest of this decade.

When discussing temperature changes...we are talking about global temperatures. You can cherry pick any localized region you want to find a big positive trend. I can find an equally negative one in the past decade...that's why the average is close to zero. Posting alarmist graphs of PIOMAS exponential extrapolated trends doesn't change that.

None of the major temperature datasets have increased significantly in the last decade-plus. In fact, the only one even with a slightly positive trend is UAH. All others are either slightly negative or in the case of RSS, sharply negative.

We are now using arctic sea ice as the main metric to decide if we are "warming faster than anybody anticipated 5-10 years ago" ?? That is laughable. Using the IPCC's temperature projections from AR4 and TAR is perfectly valid in deciding what scientists thought 5-10 years ago.

Don't disagree with you there...but that article was focused on mostly shallow water. North Atlantic OHC has been in decline since 2005...at least 0-700m OHC. Who knows what is going on deeper down with such poor (to non-existent deep enough) measuring.

Most climate models are likely too sensitive in at least their TCR. This is the most plausible explanation for most of them being far too warm. Though there are other explanations such as temporarily decreased forcing due to aerosols and a solar minimum...and that we will make up the "lost" temperature rise since 2000. As for the gulf of Maine, local effects can be extreme when we have an extreme year such as 2012 (when that article was printed)...that was coming pretty recently after another warm year for Maine in 2010. The current SST analysis shows that we're currently 1-2C colder now in the gulf of Maine relative to average than at the end of 2012. That doesn't mean there hasn't been warming in that area overall...just that its easy to get caught up in short term local warmth when much of it is due to weather.

If the much deeper vertical mixing in the ocean actually exists (compared to what is currently thought), then even if the ECS is high, its almost a moot point since it will take so long for it to be realized. The TCR (Transient Climate Response) is what we really care about. That is where we'd see "rapid changes" that are the most damaging. The IPCC projections (and others) that policy proposals are based off of assume that most of the ECS is realized in the TCR...which is why they forecast temperature rises in the 21st century of near 3C in a business as usual scenario. If we have a 3C equilibrium sensitivity but only half of it is realized in the TCR and the rest takes hundreds of years to achieve, then its much more easily adaptable. Its definitely a question that needs to be answered, because its far different than if most of a 3C ECS is realized in the TCR.

I noticed NARR updated from this past winter....this is probably the best visual of the firehose from March 7-8 That's like 800 miles long.

Stumbled upon this last night...what a great 1-2 punch that was: http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?/topic/182826-sne-discussion-thread-for-122108-winter-storm/page__st__1480

Its almost impossible to reconcile hail with the thermal profiles the way they were. Especially since we had seeder-feeder from above...but the OKX sounding from 00z Feb 9th does temps approaching near 0C at around 900mb (the sounding craps out above that)...the lift must have been so powerful (like straight strong convection) to lift the supercooled droplets in the low levels to form low-level RA/ZR that then got lifted into colder sounding above.

That sounds like a real doozy.