skierinvermont

well the canadian is looking better through 42..

euro wins

16 minutes ago, Wentzadelphia said:

Thank you. Now when it comes to elevation vs not being in the complete sticks is there any specific town near there that I should look fo? For example looking at that WRF image above I’m guessing those 40” plus amounts are up in the mountains? 

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

1 hour ago, tamarack said:

Being from Maine I wouldn't try to compare wind energy to fossil fuels - the numbers there are solid.  I'd examine biomass, of which we have plenty and if harvested with proper silviculture can actually improve the state of the forest.   I'd guess wind is still a better CO2 strategy than biomass, though maybe not with co-gen, where the low-pressure steam can be used to heat the plant and drive dry-kilns at sawmills and digesters at pulp mills.  I've read the Manomet analysis on biomass, years ago so I may be fuzzy on the details.  IIRC, the report said it would take something like 81 years for an acre cleared for biomass to sequester the amount of carbon that was removed.  Of course, if one had 81 acres and harvested one per year, the equation would change.  (Or if one conducted a light partial harvest and chipped only the tops and limbs that made to to the logyard.)

This is in no wise a knock on wind power.  I especially hope that turbines off the coast of Maine, where the wind is steadier, can be a big part of the energy future.

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.)?

4 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

GFS just dropped me from 20" down to 10" from 12z.

For a model that was steadfast for a long time, it's all over the place now.

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.

1 hour ago, Winteraddict said:

What’s the best location to get hotel at from Denver for this event? Boulder or do I have to travel more west or north?

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.

1 hour ago, tamarack said:

I'd put the figure at 4-5% (*) but that's still great efficiency. 

(*)  "Please show your figures."   
A guess at electricity costs per household:  $2,000 per year.  (Ours is closer to one third that number but we're empty nesters.)  That guess would put the annual production of one turbine at $3 million worth of power.  I've read that the expected useful life of a commercial-size turbine is about 25 years (please correct as appropriate), thus about $75 million from that lone machine.  A quick web search came up with $3-4 million per large turbine for construction and installation, thus around 4-5% of its lifetime production.  
(Note:  I rarely make small errors in math.  Ones of 10x or 100x are more common.  )

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

10 minutes ago, MidlothianWX said:

It appears the 12z Euro increased QPF in the Denver/Boulder metro to 2-2.5".

Can any local experts tell me how the Euro typically verifies in heavy upslope scenarios vs. the other globals?

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:

7 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Civilization is high maintenance. We need more sophisticated recycling of Rare Earth Materials. There are too many ways to go under and the timescales are too large.

Again even if it's possible in the short-term doesn't mean we should go for it because the benefits do not outweigh the risks on the supply/demand side and the ethical side.

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.

1 hour ago, tarheelwx said:

Dropping in from the Southeast forum as my son moved from NC to Broomfield in December. He's headed to Breckinridge Friday evening and then back to Broomfield Sunday evening.  

Here's a great free site for the Euro.  Not sure if you guys have been using it or now.  I use it instead of weather.us site.  It gives nice total snowfall maps rather than just snow depth.

https://www.pivotalweather.com/model.php?m=ecmwf_full&p=sn10_acc&rh=2021031100&fh=120&r=us_c&dpdt=&mc=

TW

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"!

On 2/28/2021 at 11:47 AM, Ground Scouring said:

The problem with renewables is that they are highly inefficient in terms of energy output and actually add to the carbon footprint via expensive, environmentally destructive practices, e.g., mining for rare-earth metals. The more one invests in, say, solar panels and wind turbines, the more multinational corporations take over vast swaths of the Third World, while still adding vastly more to the carbon footprint than renewables eliminate, owing to the productive processes involved in manufacturing renewables. Unfortunately, Western discourse on this topic is dominated by a false dichotomy between conventional fossil fuels and a limited, pre-selected array of renewables. Intelligent countries such as China, South Korea, and Pakistan are heavily investing in building new nuclear plants and upgrading their old ones. Nuclear power is both clean and energy efficient. We as a species already have the tools in place to store nuclear waste far more effectively than we did in the recent past. Japan’s disaster in 2011 was due to neglect and negligence, not nuclear power itself. Plus, many governments and semi-private organisations likely have far more efficient, black-budget energy sources than are currently marketable in public. Free energy is not sci-fi, but very viable. This does not even cover the potential for abiotic sources to emerge. Unfortunately, the fossil-fuel monopolies have effectively suppressed information about this and other threats to their power, including nuclear. Pressure from the fossil-fuel lobbies has generated hysteria about the supposed dangers of nuclear energy while performing “bait-and-switch” for the polluters via their pseudo-“‘Green’ New Deal” based on fossil-fuel-consuming renewables.

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

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

NWS doesn't seem to buy into the GFS hot air

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, ValpoVike said:

The Euro just crapped on the QPFs, and the GFS came down a bit too but not as much.

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

At this rate you'll have to go to Wyoming to see the good stuff.

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

4 hours ago, mayjawintastawm said:

Yeah, a difference between 2" and 4"+ in perhaps 20 miles doesn't make a ton of sense. Would not take this verbatim.

You know, I was thinking about what might make models better that would incorporate probabilities and "time to event" that would inject some climatology into the craziness of predicting weather 168+ hours out. The NWS does this in their forecasting, ramping up POPs etc as events get closer. I do some stats in my job but have no idea about complex modeling. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

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.

41 minutes ago, Chinook said:

These are the ensemble plumes for Denver (DIA). Even if we are at the ensemble average of 2.78", that's 27.8" with 10:1 ratios, or 25.0" with 9:1 ratios, as the value of the snow-liquid ratio  would get lower as the snow packs down under its own weight. And, of course, there 100% chance that the total QPF will be higher as you go to 6000-7000 ft.

 

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.

On 2/10/2021 at 9:08 PM, Vice-Regent said:

The idea in stratospheric radiation management is just that. To keep the damage and effects in the stratosphere but there is no clear incentive as we show no signs of abandoning technology and civilization.

Without such a stance there is only one path forward which is accelerationism which tends to favor more conservative minds. The current modus operandi is liberalism and technology and as a result you are right to be critical of the current world order and especially the massive censorship and battering of humanity now occurring.

Without a holistic perspective there is no hope of ever rallying the right people or "solving" the problems. IE weaponizing populism in order to destroy technological slavery and end overpopulation and resource exploitation. Technology may be able to stop a good chunk of us before it goes under but all of the batter. You tackle two problems simultaneously.

Nobody or any specific organization or corporation or government has any authority over the trajectory of this planet and we will make that known with time. This isn't 1930 or something where fascism and communism runs wild across the world and people are off doing their own thing. Young people are about to shake things up but all of the things were going to be destroyed anyways.

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

On 2/6/2021 at 12:52 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Disappointing news if you thought aerosols could cool the Earth significantly via geoengineering.

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.

1 hour ago, Islandersguy said:

Just saw HPN (white plains) come in at 22.5. Wow!

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