Jump to content

SeanInWayland

Members
  • Content count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SeanInWayland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. SeanInWayland

    March 12/13/14 Blizzard/Winter Storm/WWA etc

    Yeah, I'm on top of a hill here in Wayland and we're getting pounded. 12" new now.
  2. SeanInWayland

    January 4-6 Coastal Bomb Observations/Nowcast

    Based on the pictures, I'm really worried about all the underground infrastructure in or around the Seaport. There are numerous underground parking garages there, for example, not to mention the T stops. The one under the Seaport hotel has me particularly worried (but there's no shortage of others). Also, just wondering what it would take to get water into the harbor tunnels--I'm guessing that's better protected than those parking garages, but I don't really know.
  3. SeanInWayland

    Major Hurricane Irma

    Yeah, that string of small resorts on Meads Bay between Malliouhana and the Viceroy looks to be especially vulnerable. Low-lying, and on a beach facing the open Atlantic.
  4. SeanInWayland

    Model Mayhem VI

    My joke meter must be off, sorry about that. Honestly, religion was not on my mind when I penned that. I was thinking more of Hawking's famous essay on quantum mechanics and black holes http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html
  5. SeanInWayland

    Model Mayhem VI

    You're conflating two very distinct things. The "butterfly effect" relates to the sensitivities of certain nonlinear dynamical systems to very small perturbations in their subsequent evolution. The degree to which the solutions of any given dynamical system are sensitive to small perturbations, is largely what chaos theory is about. I'm thinking your comment about there being chaos in the atmosphere most likely fits with the idea that the current solutions are really sensitive to small perturbations. It's purely a deterministic thing, though. "Future outcomes [not] determined yet" goes back to the basic question of whether God does indeed play dice with the universe, and would seem to be independent of the amount of "chaos" present. Either he does or he doesn't. Current answer unknown, at least by me.
  6. SeanInWayland

    Sunday SWFE..Monday Coastal?

    OK, understood. If you absolutely have to come into BOS, based on what people (who know far more about meteorology than I) are saying here, I would come in tomorrow. The weather conditions will likely be better on late Monday afternoon but I would be afraid of getting caught up in flight delay madness as the airlines scramble to make up for the hundreds of delayed and cancelled flights from late Sunday night and earlier Monday. Do you have the option of switching to a NYC airport, say JFK? If so, I would come in tomorrow, head to Grand Central, and Amtrak it. PS After looking at some of the guidance, definitely come in tomorrow rather than Monday if you have the choice.
  7. SeanInWayland

    Sunday SWFE..Monday Coastal?

    That's an option--I've only done that once, it worked fine as my wife picked me up at the University Ave station on 128. That would also work well if you need to pick up your car at Logan or close by given where South Station is. To be honest, most times I've rented a car. And were I doing it today, I'd be really tempted to Uber/Lyft it, though their dynamic pricing might bite one in the ass during a snowstorm.
  8. SeanInWayland

    Sunday SWFE..Monday Coastal?

    I'll echo my earlier advice, Prof. C. Change your flight to get into T F Green instead, and you should be OK. I've utilized this trick numerous times and always been glad I did.
  9. SeanInWayland

    Sunday SWFE..Monday Coastal?

    Both are risky. Flying into PVD and getting home or getting to Logan (depending on your situation) seems like a much safer way to go on either day.
  10. SeanInWayland

    January 7th/8th Storm Discussion

    My guess is that storm patterns just go through a multi-year cycle of their own for reasons not completely understood. I remember one of the Albany mets talking about Miller A storms, and saying they used to be commonplace but then they kind of went away, and he hadn't seen a true one since the early '60s.
  11. SeanInWayland

    January 7th/8th Storm Discussion

    The weird thing is that when I was growing up just west of Albany (late 60s-early 80s), there seemed to be no shortage of snowstorms. About the only really snow-diminished winter I can remember was 79-80. Moved to Boston full-time in 85 and all the storms seemed to shift with me. Can't remember the last time my parents said they got walloped by a big storm.
  12. SeanInWayland

    2016 Global Temperatures

    You keep going back to the conservation of energy, but that's not being violated as far as I can see. Let's use a really simple example that is similar enough to the problem at hand to be illustrative. Imagine I go outside in the winter with just a thin jacket on, vs. I go outside with a down parka on. My "atmosphere" (the layer of air closest to my body) is warmer in the second example, but no conservation principle is being violated to achieve that. The same amount of energy is being injected into the system (heat generated by my body) and is also exiting the system--it's just that that "atmosphere" when I am wearing the down parka has to get hotter so that the amount of energy exiting the system through the parka balances out the input energy. In other words, it has to get hotter to reach equilibrium. Why is this so contentious?
  13. I'm merely an engineer without training in meteorology, so I'll let others with more knowledge in this field comment on the merits of climate change research vs. shorter-term meteorology. However, here's what I foiund with 30 seconds of googling--the following GAO report from 2014, Climate Change Funding and Management. The very first figure is below, which seems to show ~$9B in Federal Climate Change Funding in 2013. Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014 What I find interesting is that Technology, which the introduction more or less states is technology aimed at reducing emissions, garners the lion's share of current climate change funding. In the meantime, Science has stayed flat at $2B/yr since 1993. Since you refer to "climate change studies", I presume Science is what you're referring to, since it's kind of hard to peg emissions reduction technology as falling into this category. It looks like shutting down the Science gravy train (and who wouldn't want to jump aboard a train like that, with its mighty 0% growth over 20 years?) will only net 1/10 of what was advertised.
×