skierinvermont

NAM looks tasty at 6hr

Euro at 48 is closing off over NC..

euro is west of GFS.. I can't compare to 6z or 00z with 24hr maps

I don't think the GFS can end up being correct at this point.. it shifted 100 miles from 00z to 12z.. Taunton went from 2" to 12"

PV lifts out farther north each run from 00z to 06z to 12z gfs.. coming west as we knew already

960mb right on the BM

crushes

Just for fun and because I'm still up for some reason here in CO... the 6z NAM looks better through 33hrs!!! PV heights much farther north!!! weenies for everyone

The 18z gefs were west in the upper levels its just a sharper precip cutoff. I doubt the cutoff is that tight. This is big ORH and east imo.

The sun's color has not changed. We have instruments that measure this fact. If you Google it you will see this is a popular conspiracy theory without evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/28/us/biden-bill-plan#spending-plan-bill-biden The key provisions of the proposal include: $555 billion to fight climate change, largely through tax incentives for low-emission sources of energy. $400 billion to provide universal prekindergarten to 3- and 4-year-olds, and to significantly reduce child care costs for working families earning up to $300,000 a year. $200 billion to extend an expanded tax credit for parents through 2022, and to permanently allow parents to benefit from the child tax credit even if they do not earn enough money to have income tax liability. $165 billion to reduce health care premiums for people who are covered through the Affordable Care Act, to provide insurance for an additional four million people through Medicaid and to offer hearing coverage through Medicare. $150 billion to reduce a waiting list for in-home care for seniors and disabled Americans, and to improve wages for home health care workers. $150 billion to build one million affordable housing units. $100 billion for immigration streamlining, in part to reduce a backlog of nine million visas. House Democrats proposed provisions last month to address the legal immigration system, including a plan to recapture hundreds of thousands of unused visas various administrations failed to use over several decades and allow green card applicants to pay higher fees to expedite their processing. The investment outlined on Thursday would also expand legal representation for migrants and streamline processing at the southwest border, officials said. Mr. Biden has faced criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for his handling of migration to the border. $40 billion for worker training and higher education, including increasing annual Pell grants by $550. Offsetting that spending is an estimated $2 trillion in revenue increases, including: A 15 percent minimum tax on the reported profits of large corporations. Efforts to reduce profit-shifting by multinational companies, including a separate 15 percent minimum tax on profits earned by U.S. companies abroad — and tax penalties for companies that have their headquarters in global tax havens. A 1 percent tax on corporate stock buybacks. Increased enforcement for large corporations and the wealthy at the Internal Revenue Service. An additional 5 percent tax on incomes exceeding $10 million a year and another 3 percent tax on incomes above $25 million. Efforts to limit business losses for the very wealthy and to impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on certain people earning more than $400,000 a year who did not previously pay that tax.

Yes these considerations are all factored into the levelized cost of electricity. It's why power companies, in the free market, choose wind and solar more than any other type of new generation source today. If you're a power company trying to make money, wind and solar are already your top choice. We should be nudging them in the right direction to speed up the process and the reconciliation bill does exactly that.

I've read good chunks of the bill. I'd suggest reading it before throwing around such baseless accusations.

I don't know where you people even find this nonsense. Solar and wind are less than half the price of nuclear to produce the same amount of power. This is one guy on the internet that hasn't even appropriately sourced anything he's said.

Yes unfortunately.

Odds of the reconciliation bill dropped significantly in betting markets after they passed the infrastructure bill.

The compromise Biden has announced, which he claims he has support for although Manchin and Sinema have not committed publicly, invests $550 Billion in EVs and renewable electricity. This would be monumental if it passed. Contact your representatives. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10/28/us/biden-spending-bill-deal

This is a tragedy and discraceful, and could be the most significant policy failure of the Biden administration if a compromise is not reached, or significant executive action is not taken to make up for the lack of legislation. The optics of this are terrible and could signal to the coal and gas industries and their investors that it is game on, their interests in Washington are secure, and any major transition (beyond what has already occurred) could be decades away.

BOO!

From my googling, this levee is not in New Orleans, hopefully separated by other levees/land

My understanding is that though much longer, the deviations were not as great in terms of standard deviations. Being a continental climate the variability is greater. but, yes people have been making the argument for a qualitative shift in climate for some time now. The increase in extremes has been slightly larger than one might expect from a simple shift in the means. There’s the whole wavy jet hypothesis which has some empirical and theoretical evidence.

I mean I agree it's silly to care about these attribution studies simply because it's so obvious that global warming has contributed to every recent heat event. You're telling me that when the planet gets hotter it causes more heat waves? Obviously. But you are way off base if you think knowing this very obvious fact is only useful if you can predict when and wear 10 years in the future an extreme heat wave will occur. That's kind of a silly and impossible standard, and even if you could predict weather 10 years from now down to the date, I'm not sure it would change much today at all. On the other hand knowing that the frequency of 95F days in Portland nearly doubled from 1950 to 2021 and will likely nearly double again by 2050 is useful information. It's useful for agriculture investors, energy investors, water planners, city planners, people considering where to move based on climate. But it's probably most important to voters who might care about the overall environmental impact that will likely have on the pacific northwest rainforests, or how climate change will affect the economy and environment globally, and who might want to vote for representatives who will try to curb the ongoing and accelerating environmental catastrophe and accelerating human impacts via green energy subsidies and/or CO2 regulation. If you were deciding where to move and wanted a nice climate, or were buying or investing in a farm (I know lots of small startup farmers), or were deciding where to invest in the electricity sector, would you care about knowing that Portland next hits 110F On July 9th 2032, or would you care that the frequency/probability of 95F and 100F days will increase 40% by 2035?

Is it possible there was much less forestation back then? I know in CT basically 100% of the forest is new growth and you stumble along farming walls in the woods.

I don't believe any of this is about "proving" climate change at all. The studies are specifically called attribution studies. They begin with the assumption that the earth has warmed x degrees, the Pacific NW has warmed y degrees, and that this warming is due to "climate change." You can never "prove" climate change because some rare event happened... yeah it would have been even less likely 50 years ago but it still *could* have happened. We don't need to prove "climate change." The climate *has* changed. The mean has shifted and the associated distribution of anomalies has shifted. Any graph of mean global temperatures, or record highs vs record lows will tell you this. It's interesting to know that temperature distributions in the Pac NW are non-normal. However, even if the distribution is non-normal, it doesn't really matter in terms of attribution. Whatever the distribution is, when you shift it warmer by ~2F, any given extreme high temperature becomes ~10x more likely. You can't really say climate change "caused" this event, but you can say it made it roughly 10x more likely. I think you should read some of the attribution studies and get back to us with specific objections, I'd be happy to discuss them. I'm sure there are occasional statistical misinterpretations. And as I said, if you assume normality this was a 1 in 200,000 summers event, not a 1 in 200,000 Portland June 28th event. I acknowledge the assumption of normality may be slightly incorrect. Maybe if you knew the true distribution it would be a 1 in 100,000 Portland summers event. Or 1 in 50,000 Portland summers. But it's not a 1 in 50,000 Portland June 28ths. It's much less common than that. Your point that there are lots of recording stations in the world besides Portland increases the global probability is completely valid. But your point that there are lots of days in the summer, or in the year, is not valid because the statistic already accounts for that. The probability that Portland would see a temperature on June 28th of 116 is likely less than 1 in a million (assuming the distribution is well-sampled after 100 years of data and is normal - assumptions which I agree may be somewhat erroneous). Be careful not to confuse calcuations of attribution with calculations of recurrence. The assumption of normality matters a lot to calculating the recurrence probability (if the right tail is fat then it's going to be less than 1 in 200,000 recurrence). The assumption of normality matters a lot less to calculating the climate change attribution. No matter what the distribution is, shifting the distribution to the right by 2F will make any given point on the far right tail ~10x more likely. That's true regardless of whether the distribution is skewed or normal.

One correction, it's not 1/10,000 to hit 116 on any given summer day, it's 1 in 200,000 to hit it for the entire summer. That's on a 1951-1980 baseline. Or 1 in 15,000 summers on a current baseline. But the statistic being floated around isn't just for a particular day. That's assuming a normal distribution of maximum annual temperatures. I think you were saying that maybe the odds of this are a little higher than we might think because extreme events might be more common in a place like Seattle than in Tucson, because in Seattle, the "perfect" pattern could blow Tucson air onto Seattle and somehow in 100 years of data the "perfect" pattern just never happend (and nothing close to it either). I think I agree with this but I hadn't mentioned it yet. I think the more technical way of saying it is that we only have ~100 years of maximum annual temperature observations. That's only ~100 datapoints. To assume the distribution is normal, or that the distribution is well-sampled with a sample size of 100 is a significant assumption. Usually, a random sample is still enough to estimate the standard deviation accurately because even if in 100 years of data we never saw "the perfect pattern" we would have seen a near perfect pattern a few times. But maybe this is just an especially unique pattern and "near perfect" behaves very different from "perfect." Again, in other words maybe the distribution is not "normal." Another thing is this datapoint alone will dramatically shift the distribution. If you use a 1951-1980 baseline, the sample size is only 30 datapoints, which is probably a lot more accurate than most people think mathematically, but it is on the small size to form a representative sample. The other way of doing it that would get us more data is to use daily temperatures. From that distribution using random sampling you could generate a distribution of annual maximum temperatures. Or you could calculate the probability of seeing 116 on any given day. I'm pretty confident though that you'd still find it to be roughly a 4 sigma event (1 in 30,000 summers) if not the 4.37 sigma Don provided (1 in 200,000 summers). For a daily temperature anomaly it's likely 5 or 6 sigma (1 in 50 million). You still are assuming normality which is usually a pretty safe assumption, but maybe this is the rare exception. This is all speculation though. In general, assumptions of normality and small sample sizes work a lot better than most people think. It's not perfect, but usually it's very very close. But maybe this kind of error is the difference between 1 in 200,000 and 1 in 100,000. Either way, I think it's important to recognize that this was not a 1 in 10,000 event for any given day in Portland. This was a 1 in 200,000 year event for any given summer in Portland. Major major difference. On a 21st century baseline it was more like a 1 in 15,000 summers event. In other words, the shifting of the distribution (due to climate change) made it ~10-15x more likely. One last way of putting this, I believe it was calculated that this event was a 1 in 1,000 year event for the entire planet. In other words, the probability of seeing anomalies like this anywhere on earth in a given year is 1 in 1,000. In 100+ years of data that would mean there's some small but not tiny chance of this happening.