Inverted_Trough

Don't think it's possible to talk COVID without delving into politics.  As long as it doesn't get too personal we should let it go.

On 4/1/2020 at 6:41 PM, showmethesnow said:

Italy and the US banned flights virtually at the same time. Italy on Jan 31 and the US on Feb 2nd. (Mis-posted with the Jan time frame when I actually meant Feb for the US ban.) But I think we might be comparing apples to oranges when comparing the two countries when it comes to the bans. First off, from what I understand we saw a large influx of Chinese nationals from the Wuhan region into Italy just prior to Wuhan being shut down on Jan 23. An influx that we never saw within the US. Now as to why, if we in fact saw this, I have my theories considering Wuhan was deep into the crap at that point. Second, how these bans were implemented probably played into things as well. The US keyed not only on flights out of China but also as well on international travelers themselves and their prior destinations on their trips. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case with Italy where there are indications that there were quite a few bypassing the restrictions by taking connecting flights from other countries. Now the above doesn't even take into account the multitude of differences with both countries in other areas. Genetic makeup, implementation of mediation internally, healthcare, populations density, age, etc..., etc..., etc... 

So I am not so sure I would look at Italy's ban and their results then maybe try to argue that the ban in the US had no impact.Think that is flawed logic. There are just far too many unknown factors to consider to make that leap at this time. Now we might find after the fact when the numbers are crunched that the ban did have little effect in the US. But I am not expecting that. When all is said and told I think we are going to find it made a significant difference to the outcome as it helped to significantly flatten the curve.

As far as the rest of your comment? I really have made a point of trying to avoid any discussion involving the US. Some of my points of view would not be popular on these boards and would more then likely be met with derision if not open hostility. I prefer not to start a flame war so... I will say though, I thought mentioning the travel ban was a safe enough topic considering there is a growing consensus among the professional field that it has made a significant impact. Guess I was wrong.

It's a hypothesis which has been posited by some in the professional field.  And it's been part of the political narrative to absolve blame or to show that we took it seriously.  But so far I haven't seen any data that supports this hypothesis.  Our infection counts are nearly an order of magnitude greater than everywhere else (and yes, I know we know we have a larger population, we've tested more, etc.)  I think there may be some evidence that it delayed the onset of the contagion, since things got worse in Europe before here.  But what good  does additional time do for you....if you don't do anything with that time?  What exactly were we doing with that additional time we bought?  We did nothing.  That's our fault.  

Maybe if we purchased a few less F-35 aircraft, or didn't have to maintain thousands of nuclear warheads that we'll never use, or wasting money on a border wall, we could have spent money on a bigger ventilator and PPE stockpile.  The DoD gets a trillion dollars per year and yet we don't have an adequate ventilator stockpile.

Pandemics happen and will continue to happen.  It's just nature.  It's up to us to be prepared and we clearly weren't ready.  The fact that Hollywood has churned out several pandemic movies over the past twenty years shows you they were more clairvoyant than our leaders are

1 hour ago, showmethesnow said:

Wish I had your optimism but I think the odds have actually increased if anything. If we were talking in past times when the spread was limited to the speed of foot or horse (barring animal transmission such as birds, bats, etc...) then I would definitely agree given our current technology and resources and the amount of time we would have because of the slow spread. But I fear we are now looking at globalization where travel between countries is very prevalent. Where many travel from one side of the globe to the other in mere hours. So we could have a contagion in it's infancy just breaking out being spread world wide before we are even aware of it. In fact that is what we are pretty much seeing now.

We were very lucky with the Corona virus, if you want to call it lucky. We had almost the perfect storm as far as world wide spread of this disease as the Chinese sat on the outbreak for a month plus before they were forced to acknowledge that there was a problem. Then they waited a month plus to quarantine and shut down all travel in and out of Wuhan. Through this window of opportunity we were seeing millions in the way of international travelers moving from in and out of China to all parts of the world. In fact I think the saving grace for our country was the limited ban put in place to restrict travel from China Jan 1'st. Didn't go far enough as far as I am concerned as it did still allow a small flow of of travelers into the States through various loop holes but it did mitigate a great deal the influx of the virus being carried in. If it were me I probably would have also instituted a limited ban on all international travel in particularly from Europe at the same time. Without that initial ban that bought us much needed time to start preparing I feel quite strongly that we would be looking at a scenario in the States more closely matching that of Italy at this time instead of what we are now seeing.

Now I mentioned that we were lucky as far as this pandemic. Let me explain why. Now this is a nasty bug, no denying that. But it could have been so much worse. The mortality rate is very low compared to some bugs we have seen recently. Though it does spread fairly easily it is looking as if it isn't a true airborne which is the last thing we want to see. Also it is a form of virus (corona) we are familiar with so we don't have to start totally from scratch into deciphering it as we already have a foundation to build off of. Think that is one reason why we have seen the move to try the various malaria drugs to mitigate the impacts of the virus as they are working off of previous experiences/knowledge. Time will tell if this is a fruitful endeavor on their part but right now it does look somewhat promising in my eyes.

Now back to your bolded statement above. Now picture the rapid world wide spread of a virus that we are now seeing as mentioned above. A virus that shares many of the characteristics now displayed by the corona virus. But lets add the mortality rate of Ebola (90+%). Now with Ebola we had factors in play that very much limited its scope. Both its somewhat remote location limiting spread and the rapid onset of symptoms and death (a matter of days) which basically kills off the victims before they are able to widely spread the disease.  But take those two factors out as we see with the Corona virus. Where travel in and out of the region is extensive and world wide. Where victims don't become symptomatic until roughly day 5 on average and then take many days if not a week+ to pass away after initial onset. Where the symptoms start off slowly where most are not even aware they are sick and slowly worsen over days. Where there are some indications that people are infectious even before the onset of symptoms. To add a further twist make this virus a true airborne. Throw in a virus that isn't of a seasonal variety where it waxes and wanes. And also add in that it is of an unknown pathogen where we had no foundation to work off of as seen with Ebola in the early days. Essentially we are talking a perfect storm in the way of viruses. Throw all this together and we are probably looking at 50+ % of the population gone within a couple of months even before herd immunity can start playing a part. Hell, even taking out some of the ingredients above still probably results in 25+% gone in a short period of time. And hoping for a rescue from mass immunizations is a fantasy as we are not afforded near enough time.

Italy 'banned' flights from China before we did.  Obviously that didn't work.  The virus was already here by that point.  In any case, let's say restricting flights from China buys you more time.  You have to actually do something with that additional time in order to get any benefits.  We did nothing with the additional time.  Didn't ramp up any tests, and we spent most of the time believing "it's just the flu"

Most of the Asian countries (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.) have done a phenomenal job with containing this virus.  Western Europe and the US have done a terrible job.  There's no way to sugarcoat it.  What do those Asian countries have in common?  They went through the SARS epidemic.  In other words:  They were prepared from the get-go and took it seriously.  We didn't.  In fact, South Korea and the US had their first COVID case at about the same time.  But South Korea has done a much better job at containment.

38 minutes ago, PDIII said:

The fact that China reported no new cases today is extremely interesting.  It really shows how that country is in firm control of what information flows out.... zero new cases is clearly a figure produced with an agenda

That's certainly possible.  But some of the other Asian countries like South Korea and Singapore have got a better handle on this virus than we do.  I think their recent experience with SARS and MERS made them a helluva lot more prepared - and less complacent -- than Europe and the US were.

5 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

There are narratives on both sides. Some have nuggets of truth then spin off the deep end. I’m not getting into a tit for tat. Wrt media both sides have decided hurting the other is more important than unbiased accurate reporting. It’s a problem. 

Yes there are narratives on both sides, but I don't think it's a 50/50 equal split.  The conservative side does peddle into the fear, conspiracy and propaganda more than the other.  I know that'll offend political sensibilities but it's true.  It normally is an effective political strategy -- and it's great for TV ratings -- but, as you can see, it not effective when there is an actual crisis.

Cable news is pretty terrible in general.  I think the fairness doctrine was a good idea.

Does Ryan Maue trust the climate change science?  I thought everyone on WeatherBell were politicized deniers.  

39 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I found it: Global Wind Oscillation.

I thought it was the Global Warming Oscillation?

I've got the +AO, +NAO, -PNA, +EPO, MJO Phase 6 blues.  

Last winter was decent especially compared to this winter.  But for some reason everyone predicted an epic winter last year, and when that didn't happen, people were much more disappointed than they otherwise would have been.  In retrospect it wasn't a bad winter, but everyone here seemed to have high expectations for some reason.  I hadn't heard much about the MJO until last season, when that term was thrown around every day it seems.

I'm already looking beyond this summer:  Summer of 2021 is going to be a scorcher!

Summer of 1944, 1955, 1966, 1977, 1988, 1999, and 2010 were blazing.  There appears to be some correlation to the solar cycle I guess.

11 hours ago, cbmclean said:

I was under the impression that the late December fail was a different beast: the AK vortex Pac Puke.  AO was actually negative from roughly Dec 15th - 25th or so, but was trumped by the mild Pacific air.

We've basically had three patterns so far this winter:

1) AK vortex Pac Puke

2) Monstrous Cenral PAC ridge

3) Hudson Bay ridge (which flooded Canada with anomalous warmth)

Now we have an AK vortex again

I guess you can say the thematic features have been the raging positive AO and the MJO being in bad phases

The only consistent feature this winter has been the ++AO/+NAO.  When psu made his dire predictions, there was a monster central PAC ridge.  That ridge actually faded two weeks later and didn't last as long as feared.  We've actually had several different 'patterns' this winter, but none of them were good aside from November...which was too early in the season.

3 hours ago, Bob Chill said:

That doesn't mean anything to me. Neither does ATL getting snow. Who cares? My yard on the other hand... my muddy soggy yard with flower bulbs coming up.... that matters a lot and it sucks

I see your point, but I also found some of those past winters where NYC/NE get hammered - while we always get fringed - actually way more painful than this type of winter.  At least when virtually everyone gets shutout, it doesn't feel that bad.  12/30/00 and 12/26/10 were gut punches that took a while to get over.  

38 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

Something is puzzling me about how extreme +AO evens.  Earlier today frd shared a post from Don S. about 500 HP/temp anomalies of extreme +AO events.  The pic below is taken from Don S.'s post.

 

 

So as they teach us in beginner weenie school +AO means PV/polar jet is stronger than normal so tends to keep low heights bottled and cold air bottled up in the high latitudes, with warm air in the middle latitutes.  And you can see that to be the case in Don S.' plots, a ring of ridging/warmth in the midlatitudes: the eastern CONUS, Europe, China.  BUT there for some reason there is a big trough/cold anomaly in teh western CONUS.  Anyone have any idea what that is all about?

 

From this I infer that a +AO must have some correlation with a -PNA

2 hours ago, WEATHER53 said:

Yes we know you have appointed yourself the Big Dog here with every 8 paragraph post. Over the last almost 20 years we’ve had a number claim stake for a few years 

Models are a fraud. They waste taxpayers money trying to solve a riddle they cant

No money should be spend on anything past 3 days maybe 5. The reason-models can’t do it. Maybe 10% of the time they stick with a hit and it happens. Otherwise it’s show all sorts of outcomes  in the 5-15 day and at 4 per days that’s 20-60 outcomes. Guess what, one will be right so present that to Feds as your success come Federsl funding renewal time.

My enjoyment comes from making observations doing the event and following things from 3 days in. I derive no satisfaction from endlessly changing example of possible weather, I want to forecast as to most probable outcome. Models can’t do that and have not tightened things up in last 20 years do let’s tryanother route.

Model verification scores have demonstrably gotten better over the last several decades.  Can you show me some data that shows those verification scores have flat-lined over the last 20 years?  The data I've seen shows those scores steadily getting better as time goes on.  What would the other route be?  The Farmers Almanac?

If you're looking at 384 hr verification scores, then yes, I'm sure those haven't gotten better.  Frankly I don't know why the discrete models go beyond 240.  The ensembles are useful beyond 240 but the discrete models are useless at that range.  But inside of 144 hrs, they're pretty good.  Inside of 72 hrs, they're remarkably accurate - which wasn't the case 20 years ago.

2 hours ago, Sevenstripebass said:

Whoa whoa whoa whoa..... @87stormsdude, look at what you’re saying. You are taking 2 years of little snow and saying it’s global warming. And you say that’s why you don’t argue with people who think differently... after saying the pst 2 years seals a climate shift to less snow.... I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous. 
 

What do you think 2 years of human time is in earth time? I’d say it is 1/1,000,000th of a blink of an eye, maybe less. I lost my old username but had to make another because of how depressing this is to read this year. I’ve been following along every thread since 2012. The references to climate change, global warming, the works all over not much snow is enough to make me sick to my stomach. This area is so prone to feast or famine and has been for forever. A user earlier today was upset over a run and is blaming climate change for his lost snow. Wouldn’t all this climate change crap go to banter? Bob chill has it right. Reporting stations are in UHIs all over the country and population expansion accounts for a large chunk of temp rises. 

news flash: since the last ice age, climate has def been changing, sea levels have been rising. Climate change did not take away your digital snow. Grab your nearest Kleenex box instead of whining about climate change for your no snow. 

Oceanic heat content, 850 mb temperatures and 500 mb temperatures aren't affected by UHI.  They've been rising in tandem with surface observations.  The Arctic is unaffected by UHI and their temps have been skyrocketing.  

Although, since UHI and population expansion are also 'man-made', even your Heartland Institute talking points acknowledge anthropogenic climate change.

Game over.  Again.

Well we've heard that some folks would rather have a parade of storms and take their chances that it'll work out with the cold air timing.  Looks like Feb 2020 will give you that opportunity.  

If it rains under that setup on the GFS, that's exhibit #1 that climate change -- err, I mean our new ambient "base state", to avoid political sensibilities of some -  is having an impact on marginal events.

The halftime show was entertaining.  If you don't like it, watch the puppy bowl or kitten bowl or something.

I like the mix of African, Arabic and Latin American influences into the performance.  Seems like that was overshadowed - or people were oblivious to it - because of the faux outrage over some gyrating hips.

5 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

There aren’t many examples.

The best examples of a March save in Baltimore are 1896 when only 4” fell before March then 13.8” in March. 

1931 only 3.4 then 10” in March. 

1942 only 4” then a 22” snow on March 30th

There are more examples of years where there was little snow before mid Feb then a lot after. And since mid Feb is still far enough out it’s plausible we get a snow that week these are still mathematical possible comps 

1914 nothing before Feb 13 then 23” after 

1924 2” before Feb 2/19 then 10.2/11.6/9.4 in Feb/mar/apr

1937 2.8 before 2/16 then 22.8 after

1960 1.8 until Feb 13 then 32” after 

1993 also had very little until mid feb then several small events and then March 93

 

 

Winter of 59-60 was a complete shutout at DCA through Feb 13th.  But what's also interesting is that there was a significantly negative AO/NAO throughout that winter, including the snowless December and January.  Eventually that negative AO paid off after mid-February.  But goes to show you that simply having a negative AO/NAO doesn't guarantee snow.

Besides Feb 93, when was the last time we had a good old fashioned gradient pattern with waves coming at us every 2 days?  Seems like every winter we look for overrunning gradient patterns - and sometimes the models tease us with them - but they rarely materialize.  The early 90s seemed to have a lot of gradient patterns though.

5 minutes ago, MN Transplant said:

woof

Yep, absolutely.  I remember that month well.  It was putrid.  Even worse than this month.  At least there were a couple of semi-cold shots in the upper midwest this month.  But January 2006 was a furnace across virtually the entire CONUS.

We should set up a Flat Earth Society sub-forum, so folks like Plow'n can rant about how Copernicus was wrong, and the world is only 6000 years old