nzucker

2 hours ago, dendrite said:

That'll be one heck of a freeze in the upper midwest tonight...lots of upper 10s and 20s. Glad we don't live there.

Core of the cold looks to pass over eastern WI and the UP of Michigan.

On 4/28/2017 at 1:56 PM, Whineminster said:

Gotta love those honking horns, sirens, and stinky exhaust fumes wafting in from the street below. 

I live just north of Pelham Parkway in a leafy, suburban neighborhood that is just a few blocks away from the Bronx Zoo/Botanical Gardens. I'm only a little over a mile from the Westchester border. There are no honking horns or exhaust fumes here. 

Pelham Pkwy has an impressive variety of trees, and in the backyard we typically see orioles, red cardinals, and bluejays. Not your typical urban environment.

16 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

Its too bad you can't separate that into the first week or 2, as Mid month approaches we summer more less influence. Looks manky

Looks like a cutoff pattern about to unfold. Last May, we had highs in the low 50s for about a week straight. It definitely can happen.

16 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

Euro forecast for my hood Friday 76/59  Sat 73/57 Sun 61/39 helluva way to run a torch, glad we didn't install

I live in NYC and I haven't even installed yet...it's way too early for AC. Tonight will be the warmest night with a low around 60F...the extended shows plenty of nights getting down to the 40s with an outside shot at 30s. Very comfortable weather.

Some people want to live completely in a bubble, running the heat until early April then turning on AC 2 weeks later. One thing I enjoy about spring and fall is the natural air...the cool breeze floating in the window at night. No need for everything to be artificial.

2 hours ago, codfishsnowman said:

the coast gets warm on nw flow this time of year Kevin

Anything not east will warm the coast.

Kevin is all backwards as usual.

On 4/12/2017 at 5:26 PM, ma blizzard said:

looks like a potent vortmax moving through though despite the QPF output 

I wouldn't be that surprised to see flakes one more time .. of course any accumulation is a whole different animal. There have been some interesting looking Op GFS weenie runs the past couple days in the extended ( day 7+). Just for entertainment sake, there was a region wide snowstorm on the 0z GFS a couple nights back at the end of the run (for like 4/28). 

Who knows .. maybe we are due for a late spring snow? Seems like there is a pattern with years ending in 7 (notwithstanding 2007) .. 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997 .. 

Although its probably all moot and we end up with a cutoff low off shore with days of misery mist and onshore flow .. 

April 2007 had a major snowstorm in NNE on Patriot's Day/Tax Day. Was 970mb over NYC. Had 5" at Middlebury VT.

2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Looks like 850 temps reached -46C up in that region, that is pretty ridiculous even for there.

The GFS stopped showing the -40C contour. They used to show it. You now just see a big area of -30C on the MSLP/QPF/850 map.

The coronal hole thing probably explains the blip, but it's superimposed on a long-term decline in Arctic sea ice that allows for such abnormally poor periods in ice extent.

Re: the temp anomaly map, that's an extreme example of the -AO warm arctic, cold continents pattern. +24C anomalies in the Arctic while Siberia, Southwest Asia, and Western North America see near record cold. It's actually fairly encouraging to see such large areas of cold anomalies, which suggest Winter 16-17 in the Northern Hemisphere will be MUCH COLDER than Winter 15-16 was in the Super El Nino, in which almost nowhere finished below average.

The GFS looks pretty favorable for the Arctic in the medium to long range with the vortex continuing north of AK in the Beaufort. There does seem to be some ridging in the Canadian Archipelago so that area could have some losses, on the other hand.

Planted tomatoes, red onions, tarragon, basil, and thyme here in the northern Poconos at 1560'...I'm not from your region but I usually post about my garden near NYC. This year I'm up north and growing less but still trying...may get some arugula in, too. Already have lots of sage, oregano, and wild mint.

Red onions can take up to 150 days to mature, and I planted them May 24th here in northern PA. How will they handle cold weather in late October and early November? (We are in a sheltered valley at nearly 1600' in northern PA with an average first frost of 9/20...average last around 5/20). Any tips to speed the onions along?

-20C 850s moving in...

What happened to Baro and the guy from the Yukon?

Good map but a little light in western Fairfield County and Westchester county in nyk. Almost every city reported 20 to 25 all the way to the Bronx in NYC.

I remember a storm, can't remember the year but there was a storm that sat and spun over the metro area for at least 24-36 hours and we were getting slammed with mesoscale bands over and over. It was a thing of beauty and I can remember shortly after the storm watching the radar loop for the entire storm and saying to myself that I had never seen anything like it. Do you guys know what storm I am referring to?

Xmas '02 was a great storm. We didn't get the jackpot in ORH like further NW did, but we had 13.5" of snow...started around 6-7am and went all day into the night ending in the overnight hours. There was actually a lot of sleet not too far SE...down in NE CT, N RI, and up near metro-southwest Boston.

As skierinvermont says, it's impossible to debate with someone who claims he didn't say one of his own direct quotes. Or someone who contradicts himself completely as in "RATPAC has no gridding" then "I never said RATPAC wasn't gridded." Just a total deceit in order not to admit being wrong.

Also, individuals who are banned aren't supposed to make new accounts in order to post under a different name. Admins need to track the IP address in this case. Also, SOC should be on a very short leash as a previously banned poster. How he can create another disruption (and the broad consensus was that SOC was the party responsible) and then not be permanently banned is a shock to me.

The irony in this post is off the charts, considering the fact that you're the one deliberately lying and mischaracterizing my posts. The fact that you've resorted to name calling speaks volumes as to the legitimacy behind your accusations.

Yes, I was banned several years ago (as a teenager) for profanity and name calling, which is exactly what you're doing now. It's immature and reflects low self esteem on your part.

If you're banned, you're not allowed to come back under a different username. This is a violation of the terms of service.

Mods, I suggest StudentofClimatology's account be suspended or deleted as he has admitted activity in violation of forum rules.

Some very cold 850s in northern Greenland:

Looks as if a warm-up is coming with an east-based -NAO, however.

Wrong about what? All I've seen is one of my posts repeatedly taken out of context. Here's the gist of the issue:

- Skier was suggesting that extrapolation is a form of homogenization. That is factually incorrect.

- RATPAC lacks sufficient coverage in many regions around the globe. Hence, the corresponding grids are large and may not capture regionally divergent climate change. That's just reality.

Piling on is a clever tactic, though. It's an efficient way to discredit an argument without addressing it, even if the aforementioned argument is in fact legitimate.

You were wrong when you said that RATPAC doesn't use gridding. Later, you claimed, "I never claimed that data in RATPAC wasn't gridded," even though you clearly had, and we copied the post for you a thousand times, which said, "RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding." So, you changed your story. The reason that people are piling on is that they all agree you are wrong (skier, mallow, msgaldo, navy, me)...Don't you see that no one agrees for you? Not even educated meteorologists.

Who cares if I'm a French and Spanish teacher (I've been full time for a few years now) and you're a paleoclimate student? The fact is you completely contradicted yourself, and it is evident from comparing the two posts. And guess what, you're a paleoclimate student while Mallow is a degreed meteorologist, and Mallow thinks you're wrong. So if it goes by title, you're still wrong.

You need to learn how to read.

I said gridding/spatial homogenization. The debate was whether or not the aforementioned extrapolative procedures are considered homogenization, which they're not. I never claimed there was no gridding done.

Basic English. Adjective preceding a noun in a fragment. Adjectives preceding and/or following nouns in a complete sentence. This is now the seventh time that post of mine has been regurgitated and mischaracterized.

You first said, "RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding..."

Then later said, "I never claimed that the data in RATPAC wasn't gridded."

You did claim it wasn't gridded, right in your first quote. So stop trying to complicate things and admit the obvious, glaring fact that you did believe, incorrectly, that RATPAC had no gridding system. When skier called you out on this, you had to backpedal into semantics. ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG: You said there wasn't gridding, and there clearly is. OK you made a mistake.

Actually, I made a mistake. RATPAC does nothing in the way of gridding or spatial homogenization at all. They merely take the data from the 85 stations and average it out. Wow..that's just an awful way to go about this.

(Keep in mind, this a bit old/when UAH and RSS were lacking homogeneity, unlike now).

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swsshine/sparc4/Lanzante_SPARCTabard.ppt

Here's the station map. Look how much of the Pacific and Southern Oceans are just left blank. Hilarious.

 

What a load of crap. Your interpretation of my argument is pure horses**t and (obviously) it is your intent to take my words out of context.

I never claimed that the data in the RAPTAC sonde aggregation wasn't gridded or extrapolated. I explained that the procedures in reference can only be considered simple extrapolations, and are not homogenization or interpolation. There are not enough datapoints for a comprehensive interpolation procedure, which is detrimental to the dataset.

 

I guess you did claim that it wasn't gridded or extrapolated. Just look at your above post.

You lose, Skier wins. Game over, buddy. Thanks for playing.

 

If you follow the progression of the conversation, I think it's unfair to consider SOC as being problematic here, or the primary instigator of this discussion. As a reader, it's become apparent that skierinvermont continues to broach the same topic over and over again, seemingly in attempt to discredit SOC's credibility (as he directly states above - "you have no credibility"). I have seen it on previous occasions (attacking SOC's credibility). In the solar thread, his most recent post is now attacking the credibility of SOC, LEK, and myself. The behavior is both unprofessional and inappropriate. It's a major deterrent to new contributors to the forum as well. In all bluntness, the attacks on other posters' credibility decreases the credibility of the accusing party. The reasons for which he does this are beyond the scope of this discussion, and irrelevant to entertain at this point. However, the bottom line is that the accusatory posting consistently occurs, and is unproductive to civil, intellectual discourse.

 

The bottom line is that skierinvermont is basically correct. He may be aggressive, but he's clearly won the argument against SOC. 

SOC claimed there was no homogenization/interpolation of data in RATPAC. Skierinvermont produced contrary evidence that the data was gridded, and then the average of the grids was taken. While Skier should have acknowledged that this does not completely eliminate the problem of poor aerial coverage in the Southern Hemisphere, where the warming has been least, his basic argument was correct: RATPAC uses a similar method to GISS to calculate anomaly, though not quite as accurate. SOC tried to backpedal and use semantics to cover up the fact he was wrong. He should have admitted such, and simply insisted that some data was still lacking. 

SOC also jumped on the solar study just because he perceived it might negate arguments that higher solar activity is responsible for global warming instead of human activity. Even though the study doesn't really change much, he worried it might weaken the skeptic position that solar activity is as important as anthropogenic inputs, so he immediately attacked the study. This without even reading the original paper. Skierinvermont was, once again, correct. 

Skierinvermont may be annoying sometimes, but the most annoying part to you guys is that he's right.

Will both of you guys just shut the F up? No one wants to see the thread clogged with this nonsense anymore.

Greenland looks to get real cold in the next week...18z GFS shows -20C 850s atop the ice sheet at 180 hours. First sighting of the -20C isotherm in a few months:

Barring a tremendous -NAO block, looks as if it's almost time to stick a fork in the 2015 Greenland melt season. Melt area has been significantly below average for the last few weeks.