csnavywx

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.

This weekend looks glorious. Dews dropping into the 50s with low 80s highs is my kind of jam.

Yuck. Poor overnight recovery is what makes big heatwaves truly miserable and deadly. No relief.

You're being generous. He didn't even make it 5 years with this one. Him and the rest of the AGW minimizer crowd were alllllll over the place proclaiming GW was dead as the main driver when that Super Nina hit. He's like the best contrarian indicator ever. If the guy was a stock, being short would be making a killing.

The mid-deck from earlier in the day almost crapped out the entire party. We'll have another chance here this week if we can get an MCS to ride the EML instability gradient or this weekend, provided the BL doesn't get mixed out with all the heat.

We're building ourselves a bit of a trap with agricultural climate effects. Summertime temps are kept down by the increase in humidity, offsetting warming. However, this cannot continue indefinitely. Plateauing crop density and water evaporation will lead to eventual temp rises that will begin to put pressure on the crop, eventually causing this effect to fail and warming to snap back pretty quickly in a few decades.

Yep, it's been a thing for several years. You're not the only one: TLDR: A bit of reasoned speculation, but probably due to downstream effects of rapid warming in the North Pacific. Looks like a transient decadal response to me.

I can't comment on that piece specifically, but am familiar with his positions broadly. If I'm going to address something, it'll mostly be on the science side.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.