csnavywx

Eeehhhh. Don't be so quick to dismiss this, imo. There was an immediate upswing in EEI and SST in 2020 over both the NPac and NATL. The EEI signal is still very much there. Some of this warming is probably due to Nina influence on the mid-latitudes, but once you account for that there's still a (large) residual there that I don't think can be easily accounted for. Plus, why Jan and not Sept when the impact of aerosols and time lagged (inertia induced) solar heating is maximized?

There was a *very rare* strong EPac WWB in the first half of March that did a lot of work on the thermocline and boosted the odds of a strong event. There's a smaller one ongoing right now. Not all Nino events build the same way and the sort of evolution we're seeing now strongly suggests we're tilting towards an east-based event. If we continue to get some cooperation from the WPac and get an extension towards the dateline while all of this work is being done on the thermocline in the east -- better start shifting those targets higher. This equatorial rossby wave event might help do the job:

The backside of those storms have been some of the best lightning displays I've seen around here. TONS of sky spanning anvil crawlers. Have only seen a few better than this -- all of them in the Midwest on big supercell and MCS nights.

Helluva day down here in southern St. Mary's: 1.28" (so far -- much needed) 61 mph wind gusts 1" hail Got to witness a microburst hit the ground 3-4 miles southwest of my observation post. Classic white rain/hailshaft complete with curl and roll/rotor cloud. We caught the perhipery of that. I imagine my house got it much worse. Will find out here in a few hours when I go home.

These arguments about geothermal heat and volcanic CO2 aren't just wrong, they're wrong by orders of magnitude. 2 orders of magnitude on volcanic CO2 and 4 or 5 on geothermal heat. Not even in the same solar system. This is the sort of thing that a basic back-of-the-napkin order of magnitude estimate from a basic statistics or physics class could rule out in about 10 minutes. Really! First week of class, first year stuff.

Yep. Running at just 1.02" for March and got 0.90" for Feb. Jan was 60% of normal and Dec was half of normal. I think we're at 4.5" for the last 4 months. Climo-wise, it's the driest time of year anyways, but even with that fact, still unusual to see. Temps also 5-9F above normal. Doesn't necessarily bode that well for summer. At least an oncoming Nino should end it in fall/winter if summer ends up being bad.

Speaking of momentum: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237672 Probably one of the most interesting papers I've read in some time. Presents the issue as one of a giant momentum trap that's not easy to maneuver out of. Adding RE (renewable energy) simply grows the entire system of civilizational networks, growing the entire pie (including the fossil part) as you would a snowflake if you added water vapor to the environment around the branches (the facet competes with them but nevertheless still benefits from an expansion of the branches). Efficiency gains do nothing to decarbonize on a global scale because they are used for growth. Direct replacement possible but not easy because of offsetting network effects. Slowing its growth via constriction of energy consumption (like '09 GFC or '20 Covid) possible temporarily but causes big disruption and RE replacement efforts are often sidelined in favor of quick recovery. This growing "superorganism" does not like to be starved and will hurt everybody until it is properly fed again, so to speak. As for global temperature, that kind of inertia argues for a continued expansion of EEI (earth energy imbalance) as we warm -- and that's exactly what we've seen. EEI continues to rip higher even after the last big ENSO cycle.

you wanna see a scary good prediction -- try hansen '81 scen B compared to actual surface Ts

How do you believe all of those peat and fossil fuel deposits got there in the first place -- or fossilized tropical and sub-tropical forests?

Feb. 17th and still snowless here in SoMD. Realistic window for snow only open for about 3 more weeks here.

Dodging it still. Not gonna work. State your entire climate position clearly and the conditions under which your position will be falsified.

Crickets... Like usual.

What would you have to see to change your mind? Because I know what I would have to see for my position to be falsified. You need to state that here or expect to be challenged until you do.

What happened to all of the Antarctic sea ice pumpers from a few years ago? Two year spike and all we heard was how this disproves global warming. Crickets now.....

Doesn't matter what ya throw at him. It won't work. The only thing that matters is this when engaging in this sort of discussion: What would it take to invalidate your position? If he can't state it clearly at this point -- block and move on. Tired of the years of coddling this shit on this board. It's tiring.

Q-plasma only. Nowhere near break-even on Q-total. Entire fusion research community needs to come to grips with this and tell it like it is or we're gonna get another 30 years of articles like this.

10000% this. Wind will be bad enough but this kind of rainfall is devastating. Overnight/diurnal enhancement of training feeder bands and downshear enhancement north/northwest of a slow moving eyewall could produce some hellacious rainfall amounts.

fyp

Ian going for the Harvey Jr. award, I see.

Looks either elongated or like there may be another center south of the initial wind shift area. Mid-level center is more apparent on satellite as being SW. Still displaced. Convection is a lot better but until we get some clarity on which area becomes dominant, track is going to be up in the air. The far left and right side of the envelope most likely result in a strong hurricane landfall. Fast and up the center result in a shredded system under 40-60kt of vertical shear. Cross sections clearly showing those solutions to result in a classic, textbook case of rapid eyewall collapse. It speeds up and makes landfall to the right before shear can tear it apart or slows down to the left before it reaches the hostile area and decelerates as the trough pulls away.

Shear peaked this afternoon and should be starting to relax (though still around 30kt). Should be around 20-25 by morning. Shear and movement vectors starting to align better. Not surprising we're seeing starting to see some development. Faster development here would result in a left-of-track bias due to vortex tilt "dragging" the low level circulation with it.

This is going pretty much how I expected. Careful with that ASCAT data though, the mid-level circulation is likely displaced south of the actual max low level curvature. When the steering vector gets more aligned with the shear vector in about 48-60 hr, it might be able to sneak some development in as shear drops below 20kt. Has to get through some rather brutal 35kt shear tomorrow though.

Yep, max layer shear stays 25-30kt for a good 48-72 hr before relaxing. Development will be slow and convection likely to be mostly relegated to the southwestern part of the circulation. Could easily see a south-of-forecast-track bias due to that shear.

A solid year, right up there, if not quite as good as '09 and '13. Looking at EOSDIS and AMSR, this year is definitely being held up by that now-typical ESAS arm and a remnant Beaufort arm. I was kinda hoping we'd see more of the Beaufort survive since that's where the real MYI nursery was in the past. But alas, looks like most of that got melted anyways. I think that July dipole kinda took it from a '13 kind of year and knocked it down a peg in that sector. Seems to be the key difference between the pre-and-post-2007 era. Well that and the surface warming and shoaling of Atlantic water in the Barents area.