Jump to content

skierinvermont

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,057

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by skierinvermont

  1. skierinvermont
    Yeah just skimming Portland annual max temperatures the mean seems to be around 99-100 until recently it's more like 101-102. And the standard deviation a bit under 4. All guessing of course.
  2. skierinvermont
    I mean I think the short version of what you are saying is that both the mean and standard deviation are expected to increase more in the PAC NW than other areas. I think even if you factor that in, a 1 in 200,000 year event isn't becoming 1 in 10 anytime soon. Portland was 4.37 sigma... just skimming previous Portland annual max temperatures the mean seems to be around 100 and the SD would be around 3.7F. That region is expected to warm something like 6F by 2080 (vs 20th century) so the new mean is 106F and then say the SD grows from 3.7F to 4.5F... then a temperature of 116F would be a 2.22 sigma event ((116-106)/4.5). That would still make it a 1 in 80 year event.
  3. skierinvermont
    see my edit (4F not 7F) and note
  4. skierinvermont
    Under a BAU scenario And they would see ~112 every few years It's not hard stuff... you just shift the distribution upwards by the expected daytime summer warming in that region. Maybe broaden the distribution slightly if the wavy jet hypothesis is correct. If you shift the distribution by 1 standard deviation* (~4F I'm guessing), then a 4.37 sigma event becomes a 3.37 sigma event. If you broaden the distribution slightly then it becomes a ~3.0 sigma event. *NOTE this is the standard deviation of annual maximum temperature, not daily high temperature
  5. skierinvermont
    I think I guessed 1 in 50 years by 2080.
  6. skierinvermont
    No.. see above... Mann must be talking about beating 20th century records anywhere by 8F... not specifically Portland OR.
  7. skierinvermont
    I'm guessing Mann is speaking of something different than you. My guess is he's saying breaking 20th century records by 8+ degrees anywhere on earth may become a 1 in 10 year event. But we were discussing the probability of specifically Portland OR hitting 116 again. Two very different things. On a global scale, for any location to beat their previous record by 8+ degrees, this was a 1 in 1000 year event and now I could see it being a 1 in 100 at present and soon to be 1 in 10. But for Portland specifically to break their 20th century recrod by 8 degrees was a 1 in 200,000 year event that may be a 1 in 15,000 at present and 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 by the time I die (~2080). That's why Mann said 1 in 1000 soon to be 1 in 10 because he's talking about anywhere having these kinds of anomalies. For Portland specifically to have an anomaly like this was 1 in 200,000, now 1 in 15,000. If that's not what Mann was saying then he's just wrong. This was way less likely than 1 in a millenium. And it's also not going to become 1 in 10 any time soon.
  8. skierinvermont
    Your numbers are fairly consistent with my suggestion it's a 1 in 15,000 year event on a current baseline. I think it was more like a 1 in 200,000 year event on mid 20th century baseline. So it's even more of a loading (10x+).
  9. skierinvermont
    As bad as the air gets with the CA OR ID fires... my fear is it will only get worse when WA and BC really start burning 20 or 30 years from now. At a certain point the trees up there which are adapted for cooler weather are just going to die enmasse.
  10. skierinvermont
    This was a 1 in a 200,000 year event at Portland on a 1950-1981 century baseline if Don's numbers are right (z=4.37). On a 1991-2000 baseline it was a 1 in 50,000 year event. It's likely a 1 in 15,000 year event on a current baseline. By the time I die (~2080 life exp) I'd expect it to be roughly a 1 in 50 year event, with temperatures slightly below these values occurring every few years. I'd agree it's very unlikely to recur in the next 10 years. I'd say 50/50 Portland exceeds in my lifetime. Don correct me if I have misunderstood your sigma values.
  11. skierinvermont
    Lost you at “people have no use for knowing oceans will rise.” I’d say that’s pretty critical information for city planners, zoning commissions, levee projects, insurance companies, potential homeowners, and any coastal infrastructure. Real decisions have been based on this information and many more decisions will and should be made. “each time we need more water another source is found” ... tell that to the farmers and industries closing due to water restrictions. Future water scarcity has informed water planning decisions. Water boards, farmers, businesses and the Colorado river pact would likely have made very different decisions about how to share water, build infrastructure, etc if they thought the current dry spell was just temporary and brief. your attitude seems to be “well people aren’t dying in the streets and even if they were there’s nothing we could do about it so it’s not worth knowing about even if it were true” also I’d like a reference on the claim of 100s of billions on research. I could believe 10s but pretty skeptical of 100s. finally, the research money is on the finer details of future effects, figuring out exactly how much change has happened and will happen. What’s settled is the core theory that they earth has warmed around 1c in the last century mostly due to co2.
  12. skierinvermont
    Climbed a 300’ hill in the neighborhood and there were still ten foot drift on top
  13. skierinvermont
    Yeah I remember you posting that and seeing it too. Could be the wind was a little too northerly for Boulder. The foothills north and south of Boulder bend east so they are a little surrounded and maybe need a little more east component to the wind in order to not downslope. Also when you bike 93 you can really feel the high terrain between golden and Boulder. Gets up over 6200 on the road. That’s probably the terrain the hrrr was catching onto with a north or nne surface wind.
  14. skierinvermont
    Saw this posted in Seth's weather group. Arvada 29" Golden 28" Aurora 27" Lakewood 27" Louisville 26" Westminster 26" Arvada 25" Centennial 24". I got 27" clearing once at 3pm Sunday, probably would have had close to 30" if I cleared Saturday night. Seemed to justify a little more >24" in the western and eastern suburbs. The low spots being SW Denver, downtown, and Boulder. S
  15. skierinvermont
    Looks low around the denver area? DIA reported 27" but map shows <24". Lots of reports around the metro of >24". When these maps are created are they using spotters doing 6 hour clearing of a board? Or is it based on people sticking a yardstick in the ground after the storm? Seems more consistent with the latter.
  16. skierinvermont
    24" on the ground final measurement. I also cleared my patio table and got 19.5" before and 8.5" after which would suggest 27". Quite a bit of compaction and melting near the ground so no doubt that clearing a board would give at least 27" probably more.
  17. skierinvermont
    Winter Park and Steamboat too. I've always been suspicious of Loveland's claim to 400". Winter Park often seems to get more.
  18. skierinvermont
    WOW so ~46" total (I can add)
  19. skierinvermont
    5" in the last 2 hours bring the total to 24.5".. insane rates right now could be the best sustained rates I've ever seen thinking 30 might be within reach
  20. skierinvermont
    2.5" in the last 70min brings the total to 22"
  21. skierinvermont
    yeah I saw that too
  22. skierinvermont
    19.5" OTG, just cleared part of the patio table so I can avoid compaction on future measurements although I'm sure a lot has already occurred, it is dense. will be going for a walk with some pics hopefully at 10pm after a deadline I'm working on absolutely dumping right now
  23. skierinvermont
    the surface low looks incredible on radar right over La Junta CO
  24. skierinvermont
    16" OTG
  25. skierinvermont
    saw a report a few hours ago that FOCO had 24" also
×
×
  • Create New...