csnavywx

30 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Anyone else here read this?

False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg 

 

Let's hear what your doubts are and what you would have to see to change your mind. If you want engagement here, you need a falsifiable position to begin with.

On 4/6/2022 at 2:30 PM, bluewave said:

It could be a great technology if done cost effectively enough for widespread use. 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-light-achieves-world-first-fusion-result-proving-unique-new-target-technology-301517509.html

• Fusion shown with projectile approach for first time, validated by UKAEA
• Breakthrough achieved faster and cheaper than traditional fusion approaches
• Unique target approach offers simpler pathway to low-cost fusion energy using existing plant technology
• Projectile approach enables a high-margin consumables business model with an addressable market in the hundreds of billions

 

On 4/3/2022 at 10:48 AM, skierinvermont said:

it doesn't, for two reasons. We've talked about this before. It's just not going to happen. One it costs twice as much as solar, wind, and natural gas. But second, and even more importantly, natural gas plants are very cheap to build but expensive to operate, which makes them ideal backup generators. They allow you to get the grid to 70 or 80% wind/solar without even needing storage capacity, which would be a monumental accomplishment. Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build and cannot be used as backup generators. The next step to get to 100% renewables, probably involves storage and smart grids. Not nuclear.

 

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change#:~:text=Barriers to and risks associated,concerns%2C and adverse public opinion.

We're not going to make 2C without it -- though I have my doubts we can even hit that target if EEI merely stays where it's at and aerosols are reduced. Decarbonization isn't fast enough and hasn't been for a while. Energy efficiency doesn't work very well due to demand equilibrium changes. If we need to subsidize and standardize the reactor design, then so be it. It's still way cheaper than CCS/BECCS and seasonal storage -- both of which are necessary en masse to hit 2 or 1.5C. The damage function is non-linear and gets pretty scary after we hit those limits. So will the costs, and those costs are likely to make this little cost-benefit analysis look quaint in comparison.

A good article and published paper linked in that thread as well.

Long story short -- rate of decarbonization is all that matters and that rate must exceed growth. We will either do this voluntarily or it will happen via painful forced deleveraging and a decline in growth rates as the cost of damage piles up and more energy is thus used for maintenance of the existing capital stock. That's to say absolutely nothing of the geopolitical ramifications of all of this. And that geopol risk is probably not going to be constructive for decarbonization efforts, if recent history is any guide.

Yikes at the new CERES data. +1.5W/m2 imbalance last year. +1.2 W/m2 trend gives about +0.9C of equilibrium warming, if my back of the envelope calculation is correct. We've already probably blown +2C and at this rate of emissions, I wouldn't be shocked to see a sizeable uptick in the rate of warming this decade.

Presence of a deepening MAUL (moist absolutely unstable layer) on these forecast soundings makes me think the wind gust potential will overperform here. Cold advection powerful enough to produce that usually has no issues in transporting momentum to the surface. Also, the frontal slope gradient is so sharp, it's very possible that ptype flips earlier and stays sleet longer than forecast.

9 hours ago, chubbs said:

There is a double whammy as aerosol emissions decrease in China and other developing countries, which also increases forcing.  The good news:  methane emission reductions would have a rapid impact due short lifetime.  We should be using methane reductions to offset the forcing boost from reduced aerosols.

It would -- though it's not clear that we're going to get any help from nature now if microbial sources are indeed increasing, especially if it's a result of warming temperatures over tropical wetlands. That could be a tipping point mechanism.

On 2/10/2022 at 11:04 PM, Vice-Regent said:

If the problem regarding absent negative feedbacks is really that severe not only do the ocean's have more room to heat (forcing in the pipeline) but also do it more rapidly.

Ocean heat uptake is poorly misunderstood especially by the public. 98% of the additional radiative forcing goes into the ocean and the remainder land regions and ice caps. This may be a rare instance where I suggest geoengineering as the problem appears to be very severe and an extinction event in it's own right (first in the seas and spreading onto land).

Yep, most of that additional heat will go into the oceanic flywheel for later. Just didn't expect that level of additional forcing so quickly. I expect we'll feel some of that on the next Nino, for instance.

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

Here are the updated radiative forcing equations from Etminan et al. 2016. Note that Myhre (of 5.35 * ln(C/C0) fame) is an author on this publication. The formula with minor coefficients removed for CH4 is 0.043 * (√M - √M0). For example an increase from 1900 ppb to 2500 ppb is expected to produce 0.043 * (√2500 - √1900) = +0.27 W/m2 of RF.

Thanks for that -- that comes out to an additional 0.15-0.25C of warming at equilibrium, if I did my math right. Not insignificant.

Doing some additional reading. Other potential causes so far:

Reduction in ocean shipping SO2 by 80% due to progressive sulfur fuel content regulations (including new 2020 IMO regulations) regarding bunker fuel. This would reduce cloud cover and dimethylsulfide (DMS) removal by cloud processes, reducing available OH to sink methane emissions. This is a potential issue in its own right even without considering methane effects, with some considerable uncertainty as of now -- ranging from a fairly small effect (0.05W/m2) to a relatively huge one (up to 0.5W/m2), large enough to produce a termination shock on its own, or a coupled one when combined with methane effects. More data and study needed on that one for sure. However, I would note that CERES has detected a large energy imbalance of absorbed solar radiation over the NPAC and NATL over the last few years.

CO2 fertilization causing an increase in net primary productivity (NPP), which would also increase microbial methane emissions.

5 hours ago, A-L-E-K said:

how is it not over if we are already at the point where we can't control runaway microbial driven ch4 emissions 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00312-2

Still more research to be done here, but the proportion of light (carbon 13 depleted), biogenic methane seems to be increasing. 

That's a big regime change from the pre-2005 era, going back to the Industrial Revolution-- where carbon-13 enriched CH4 was on a steady increase. While the research linked in the article wasn't conclusive, it does suggest that most of that increase in the last several years is microbial, and the NH/SH gradient in obs is best replicated when you assume it's coming from equatorial tropical and SH wetlands. That ~85% of this increase is likely microbial since 2005/06 is worrying. It doesn't debunk that it could have come mainly from an increase in FF extraction, but that theory is taking on water now, imo. It's much harder to do anything about wetland emissions -- and if this represents a significant feedback from increasing temp and rainfall, then that represents a world of hurt. Not sure how much higher those emissions can go, since a move of this magnitude wasn't really expected -- even the higher end scenarios I don't think had this kind of response until much later in the century.

Gonna be doing a lot more digging on this in the next few days.

On 1/1/2022 at 6:14 AM, chubbs said:

Doesn't look great to me. Very unscientific analysis - the trend since 2004 is much more uncertain than the trend since 1979; and doesn't look negligble either. Note that volume anomaly is higher in winter.

If he's tweeting it, it's a sure sign that we're near the top. These folks usually come out of the woodwork right before it tanks. Great contrarian signal if nothing else.

Congrats to everyone on the eastern shore! Big winners on that one -- even higher totals than I thought!

The coastal deformation zone merged nicely with the pre-event frontogen band and really delivered. Overperformed expectations here too, ended up slightly above 5", more than expected.

Band here in St. Mary's has slowed down to a crawl and the edge has pretty much stalled just a few miles to my northwest. Riding the edge here tonight. Still ripping here for now. Clearing past 2" atm.

Heavy snow now, ripping big dendritic aggregates.

Looking for 6-10" over for Lowershoresadness in the 'bury and eastern shore. 2-6" for the western coast of the Bay (slanted higher southwest). 1-3" west of there. The western side will pick up half or more of their snow from the pre-storm frontogenesis-driven event. I expect that to overperform a bit due to the fact that the lift is co-located across the DGZ and persists for hours before the coastal blows up. Those kinds of events are often a bit sneaky: they start early and can produce healthy dendrites and aggregates. Surface temps will start a smidgen warm, but ground temps are cold. It won't take long to get the boundary layer to cool off, unlike last week.

Subject to some revision due to where the coastal actually ends up setting up. If the 850/700mb lows end up a bit further NW and we stay SSE/SE at 500mb, totals will get bumped.

2 minutes ago, Solution Man said:

+150 qpf goes up

I'd take those odds.

It's not going to do a whole lot for DC on west perhaps, but on the western side of the Bay, yep.

13 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

This aged well lol

Voting against that sub-72 hour NW/W walk on the GFS is a dangerous bet.

Edited: It's usually 72, but strongest under 48.

6 hours ago, Lowershoresadness said:

just got outta work, someone fill me in

Still working out some issues with storm genesis location and time to "ramp up", which will make all the difference in the world. Still, a nice floor for S MD and Ern Shore of 2-4" so far. Considerably higher (6-8") with even a partial phase for the Eastern Shore and gangbusters if we can get the genesis location and speed right (8-12"). Blizz conditions not off the table either (for the coastline), but somewhat lower probability.

Will know more by 12z. Will issue a forecast here tomorrow afternoon after I get done doing stuff at work.

28 minutes ago, WinterFire said:

I don’t know if we like him anymore or not, and this might be wishcasting, but it is an interesting explanation of the 0z suite so far:

 

He's on the level. Was (correctly) poo-pooing the events last week because of the missed phase (among other issues). Personally, I want to see a continuation through 12z and no more "diurnal rocking" before committing.

9 hours ago, yoda said:

Anyone know the last time PRE and winter weather were discussed in the same sentence?  Interesting mention by LWX in their AFD about it

@csnavywx @WxUSAF

Ha, that's the first thing I thought when I saw those progs a few days ago. Looks just like a PRE setup, but in January. They can persist for some time and it's that kind of setup (mid-level f-gen max across the DGZ) that can overperform pretty nicely. Might end up being the thing that "saves" the event for most of the subforum.

Lotta despair in here for well -- not much of a good reason yet, from what I can see. Maybe the west side folks, but even that is going to cash in on high-ratio fluff from the long duration f-gen event ahead of the low. GFS is doing its typical gradual, but noisy walk NW in the short range. Does nobody remember last week?

I spy a deathband at 81/84 on the frontogen maps. Going to break out some bufkit and cross sections some time tonight and have some fun with that. The 700mb low closes off between 78-81, so I would expect there to be an especially intense band setting up N and W of that.

Surface cyclogenesis starts considerably earlier on this run, too. By tau 60-66.

2 minutes ago, Lowershoresadness said:

no you are correct. I remember we got whacked from back to back storms but the big daddy from one storm was 87. I remember the scrolling at the bottom of the TV saying expect 12 to 18 inches.

Ah, good stuff. Hopefully you cash in on this one too. Fingers crossed that you don't get into the mix zone.

7 minutes ago, bsperlin said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Classification

Miller A - from the Gulf or Florida - Sandy 1993

Miller B - from the Ohio Valley, jumping the mountains to the Gulf Stream off NC - Snowmageddon 2010

If you have better references, please list them.

Right, genesis is off central FL coast and no discernable inland low. Not a Miller B.

2 minutes ago, Lowershoresadness said:

expectations can't get any lower at my location lol.  I laugh at snow maps but who knows. Last big snow I remember was superbowl sunday 1987. I think the bury got over 14 inches

You got 11" and a blizzard warning a few years ago, right? '17/early '18 was it? Or am I misremembering that one.