skierinvermont

well the canadian is looking better through 42..

euro wins

Estes I kind of like seeing what happens to the urban corridor but if Estes actually got 50” I’d be tempted. Not sure what wind direction favors them other than straight due east. If there is northerly component it could cut down maybe I don’t know. But these are somewhat remote roads to get to Estes so be careful and anticipate being stuck for a bit.

The gfs ensembles didn’t tick north the way the op did totally juiced for the whole metro but the southern side surely gets less from some members

Re-reading my original post I see where the misunderstanding came from. Originally I had said 'cost' when I meant 'CO2 cost'. I edited it insert the word CO2. Is it possible to burn biomass without other kinds of pollution (particulate, etc.)?

I still see 2.2" QPF in Parker down from about 3.1" on the 12z.

18z GFS went north about 50 miles. The overall 500mb map didn't change a ton, but the way the vorticity seemed to wrap around at the end dragged the 500mb low north. Hoping it is just a blip because the overall 500mb map is pretty different from the Euro still even by hour 12.

Boulder should be good. There will be more in the hills west but it is fun seeing urban environments get this much snow. The Euro did have a random spike in QPF on the south side of Denver, but that has not been consistent across model runs. Generally most runs/ensembles have the higher amounts farther north somewhere from Boulder to Cheyenne but hard to know yet. I'm hoping for the southern GFS solution but think the more likely jackpot is near higher elevations near Fort Collins or Cheyenne... Boulder if we are lucky.

This assumes that the cost of production is directly proportional to CO2. A lot of the cost of construction is labor and leasing land and other misc costs. Whereas at a coal fired power plant the majority of the cost is the raw material being burnt. Point being, cost is not necessarily the same as CO2 although they correlate well, some activities are more carbon intensive per $ than others. Operating a coal power plant is extremely carbon intensive. Constructing a wind turbine is moderate carbon intensive from all the steel and transportation. Operating and maintaining a wind turbine is extremely low carbon intensity per $ (near zero). So one can't assume $ is equal to carbon. Just based on the link below the carbon of production is offset in 3-6 months. Using 4.5 months as a midpoint over a 240+ month life would give less than 2%. https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wind-climate-fact-sheet-low-res.pdf

I haven't noticed any patterns. I have noticed the resolution seems to help with some of the terrain. First we have to resolve the 500mb placement. The the two models still totally disagree on the CA trough, as well as the ridging and kicker behind the storm. Ultimately the placement of the 500mb low is over 100 miles different with a tighter more compact low on the GFS down in Oklahoma panhandle really keeping the flow aloft out of the east in Denver. Same timestamp gfs vs euro:

Depletion of rare earth metals by wind turbines is not a concern. Germany already generates most of its power from wind and solar and has dramatically reduced their emissions and environmental impact. The fact that Americans are still debating this shows the extent of misinformation here.

You should tell him the interstate will be closed all weekend if the GFS happens. The snow doesn't stop until somewhere around 10pm Sunday night. My guess is the interstate won't open until sometime Monday morning. If the Euro happens there may be some periodic openings if he is lucky. Also Breck is only going to get 6-12"!

No idea where you get your figures from, but this is a lie and defies both common sense, economics, and reported figures. A single wind turbine produces enough power to power 1500 households. And it will do that every year over the course of its lifespan. The idea that the [CO2] cost of producing it is even 1% of the ultimate power generated is laughable.

Eyeballing it looks like the Euro ups the metro from around 1.5" to 1.9". Decent ~50 mile southward shift in the overall QPF field. And the 500mb looked closer to the GFS than it did before. Still need another 50-75 miles south shift to really focus the upslope over the NW metro area.

Thinking Euro will step south with this run looking at 500 thru 48

Yeah I mean until 18z it was shifting towards the Euro. Hoping 00z provides some answer now that the trough is really starting to set up over CA. Big difference between 2" and 4.5"

Wow unbelievably the GFS ensembles bumped another full 1" of QPF from Boulder to FOCO.. 5"+ now on the mean. The mean also shifted maybe 25 miles south, so the north trend is over for the moment.

The gfs ensembles didn’t budge with the 4” from Boulder to cheyenne.

There are models that do this, but it’s a layer on top of the underlying physical modeling

0z GFS ups total... over 6" QPF from Golden north to Fort Collins. But the southern edge of the storm has been creeping north on nearly every model run. Any farther north and total will start to decrease south of Boulder. Thinking there is a decent chance this ends up being a FOCO to Cheyenne jackpot. GFS ensemble mean is 4"+ from Boulder to Cheyenne. Which is a 1" bump from the 12z mean over the same area.

And some of them show 50% more on the west side of the metro than at DIA.. not even in the foothills. As is common DIA will probably get the least in the whole metro

The GFS digs the 500mb low more into AZ and NM. The Euro ensemble members are all over with the position of the 500 low. About half of them dig it enough to smash Denver.

IF you could somehow keep the aerosols in the stratosphere it would eliminate the human health problem but not the global dimming problem.

As bdwx said, not really. The decrease in aerosols this year was very small. I know where I live, traffic has been normal all year except for a couple months around April. Global oil and coal consumption barely decreased (-5% for coal). If aerosols decreased 5%, as coal did, then the .03C would be 1/20th the total aerosol cooling (assuming the response is linear) and eliminating human aerosols would cause .6C of warming. But as bdwx also said, using aerosols to geoengineer is also potentially dangerous. For starters, aerosols have caused global dimming and a reduction in plant growth. And most aerosols are associated with severe human health effects currently estimated to be in the millions of premature deaths per year.

Just curious, do you have an idea how much Dobbs Ferry has (just west of HPN)?