skierinvermont

people DC to Philly must be pissed.. quite the significant NE shift. Didn't matter that much as SNE was probably going to get snow either way... but some went from MECS to nada.

also #48

So the Euro Ensemble #23 has the 2nd low become totally dominant... and the brunt of the storm is Tuesday and Tuesday night ... not Monday... lol

Mine was the 18z GFS for 1am WEDNESDAY.. trying to figure out if the 2nd surface low could redevelop the precip Tuesday night like the GFS tries to. Right now the precip ends Tuesday morning while the strongest surface low is still just off Delaware. Weird stuff.

this is for 1am WEDNESDAY ... trying to get going again

Are any of the models other than the GFS close to redeveloping the precip Tuesday night? This storm is so unusual. The stronger surface low is still off of Delaware Tuesday 8am and doesn't reach 40/70 until Wednesday 1am. The GFS was damn close to making this into two storms. I doubt that happens as I've never seen it.. but super cool. The weaker low goes off to the NE monday night but if the Delaware low could be even more dominant it could redevelop the precip..

I'll take 27. 30 would mix some people but be quite historic.

dumb question since I don't follow NE snowstorms very much anymore and model output snow totals on noreasters are new to me.. the modeled snow depth looks low to me relative to QPF esp on some of the models like Euro. I know I'm looking at depth vs accums so that would add a couple inches probably but still seems low.

Haha I knew it, the posting style was so similar! What an interesting market that was. Great job with your model. I think I was the one who suggested removing UAH and RSS from the model. Might be remembering that wrong and I don't remember if that actually worked out for you. If I remember you had one model using early temp data like CFS/NCAR (and UAH/RSS) to predict the monthly result, but were you also running the GISS code on the GHCN files like 'takeyourmoney' was?

Hey, I was on there too! Are you casimireffect? I was posting under MarkL mostly. I was kind of posting fake stuff about La Nina back in early Nov but then was posting for real just out of curiosity once I sold everything at .81c in Dec and folks like you started posting their models and the daily global temp sources. After that I never felt confident enough to take a position either way because I couldn't figure out the probability of 2016 rounding up and the market seemed close to fair price. It probably was a little slow to come down once Dec turned cold. I made a modest chunk on that market and some of the Trump markets using a couple accounts. I don't really believe in gambling but some of the markets were so obviously mis-priced (PA @ 55c before the election, Biden @ 15c around 10pm MT on election night, 2020 warmest year @ 45c in mid-Nov, MN and MI @ 65-70c before the election, CA, NY, MA @ 93c before the election, and Trump and the contested states @ 85c after Biden had won). I figured the moral thing to do would be to take money from the Trumpers and donate some of it. I should have checked in here to discuss!

Total wind and solar subsidies in the u.s. are pennies. Show my a pie chart of the federal budget and you won’t see solar and wind on it at all

You are wrong. Half of NEW power in the U.S. is already coming from wind and solar with little to no subsidies because the free market chooses wind and solar because it's cheap. The U.S. Energy Information Administration under Trump shows that solar and wind are as cheap as natural gas which is the cheapest fossil fuel source. The market is basically 10% solar 40% wind and 50% nat gas at this point. They continue to build nat gas because it's roughly the same price and it makes sense to diversify. Modest subsidies would decisively shift the market to solar and wind so instead of 50/50 we'd see 80/20 or 90/10. Power companies would still build some nat gas in order to diversify and reduce risk. Get your head out of the 2005.. this is 2020. Wind and solar are cheap.

One other point, if I am remembering correctly, is that SH sea ice is mostly controlled by winds. Temperature of course plays some role but the most important factor is wind and thus changes in winds can easily mask changes in temperature. The SH has warmed - regardless of whether there is more or less ice. But the warming has been less and is more easily masked by the important role winds play in the SH. In the NH, sea ice is less impacted by winds probably partially related to the surrounded by land vs surrounded by ocean point you made. And the warming is obviously much more extreme.

You forgot about the improvement in testing rates and how this obviously affects reported death rates? Going around saying that treatment has dramatically improved seems irresponsible and unethical to me.

Global warming can be drastically reduced with just modest investment in wind, solar, and EVs. Wind and solar are already tied with natural gas as the cheapest new source of electricity, which is why power companies and the free market choose wind and solar 50% of the time for new electricity sources (or replacing old ones like coal) with the other 50% being nat gas. And EVs are also already cost competitive when you consider the gas savings over the life of the vehicle. Amazon just ordered 100,000 EVs for its delivery fleet. All we need is modest government pressure to accelerate the adoption of these new technologies. A 5% tax on nat gas (and any coal power that's still left) and 5% subsidy of wind/solar would decisively shift the market with no effect on power prices. That's a lot cheaper than dealing with global warming of 2C+. And reduces other kinds of pollution as well such as ozone and particulates which kill millions globally and 10s of thousands in the U.S, and exacerbates asthma in 10s of millions more. 20 years ago the argument that preventing/reducing global warming would cost a lot of money had some validity. Today, it's clearly the economic choice. The technologies needed are already developed and economically competitive and in some cases economically superior. Although this would have happened a lot faster with even just modest government support for the last 20 years.

I was stunned by the number of homes on Nantucket that are destined to fall into the ocean. Although I think it has less to do with sea level rise than the natural erosion of the south and east sides of Nantucket from ocean currents. A lot of houses used to be 100+ yards from the coast now have 30 foot cliffs into the ocean 20 yards from the back of the house. What amazed me is that any house that wasn't teetering on the edge of a cliff already would still fetch a price of 3M+ even though it has less than 30-50 years of utility remaining. People have really short time horizons and it seemed like people were ignoring any risk that was more than 20 years away even though you can literally see what happened to homeowners that bought beachfront 20 years ago and are now falling into the ocean.

I'm all for minimizing bird deaths by placing them out of migratory areas and pristine habitat. The data shows wind mills kill many many raptors but the numbers are simply not material on a national scale. People have a hard time with statistics. It's hard to understand that wind mills kill so many birds and yet statistically these numbers are trivial, at least for wind developments that are properly situated outside pristine habitat and migratory routes. Even for raptors specifically. Communication towers also preferentially kill large soaring boards, but 100x more than windmills because of their extreme height and thin wires, should we get rid of them too? This is raptor specific mortality. Vehicle collisions 194. Buildings 98. Fences 7. Wind turbines 3. https://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/full/10.7589/2017-07-157

The studies I posted were independent scientific assessments of bird deaths. Your claims of underreporting are without evidence or merit. Given that cats, windows, and Comm towers kill 1000x more I think those are the bigger issue to focus on not a few birds killed by wind mills. The benefit is an end to strip mining, oil spills, oil holding ponds, air pollution which kills tens of thousands of adults just in the United States every year, climate change, acid rain, and much more. The oil and gas industry has wreaked havoc on the environment and human health for far too long. Oil holding ponds alone, which is like the smallest aspect of the oil industries affects, kill more birds than windmills such as the picture above from an oil holding pond. That’s just the tip of the iceberg with oil.

Literally every single human activity affects the environment. A few birds and tortoises bumping into the physical infrastructure is literally nothing compared to the effects of air pollution, oil spills, oil holding ponds, acid rain, ozone, strip mining, and climate change on humans and the environment from coal and natural gas which collectively cause millions of premature human deaths and a mass-extinction event for animals. I have already provided literature to show that bird collisions with turbines are less than .1% of bird deaths from domestic house cats, glass windows, and communication towers. And the areal extent of solar power would be far less than 2-3% of the current area of industrial agriculture.

Correction Don, it (birds hitting wind turbines) pales in comparison to house cats and glass windows. It's not even in the same universe as climate change or air pollution

It's not me saying it. The information I have provided comes from the EIA and from power companies. Also just look around - power companies are installing wind and solar everywhere because it's cheap. This will make the 13th time I have posted this. I am sorry you find fact-based corrections of your lies to be 'bullying'. If you don't like being 'bullied' stop posting lies.

As I've said 12 times now, fossil fuels are not the cheapest source of fuel anymore. Wind and solar are and the free-market is rapidly adopting them. 12 times, and yet you repeat the lie.

Absolutely I have seen this many times. I led a Sierra club trip once and many felt that natural gas was the only choice because they thought it was cheaper than wind and less damaging than coal. However when presented with hard numbers they gradually changed their minds. I’ve had coworkers skeptical of renewables but when presented with data they acknowledge they are cheaper and cleaner. But then six months later they forget and have to be explained again, but always come around to the basic facts when presented with hard evidence. The cost of wind isn’t particularly complicated, it’s just a basic fact. I’d attribute their mistakes on this to the status quo bias you mention. The difference here is even when blizzard is given hard evidence that wind and solar are cost competitive, use much less space than he claimed, can be placed on already disrupted landscapes like farms(wind) and cities(solar), and don’t kill a significant number of birds, he doesn’t even acknowledge these facts and just repeats the same falsehoods. That’s what makes him a liar. He’s not here in good faith and doesn’t care what the truth is. This is a political and cultural issue for him and has nothing to do with truth. He intentionally avoids and subverts rational discourse. Some people are just bad people with bad motives.

As someone who has lived around oil fields and wind farms I can say with absolute certainty you have not. Oil fields sprawl across Utah and Colorado and the trucks and gas leaks give us some horrendous air quality, noise pollution, and dirt roads, wells, and trucks crawling all over our natural land scapes. I also been around wind farms and most everyone finds them quite peaceful and unobtrusive. Farmers in the center of the country beg for these to be put on their land for the royalties. It’s free money with almost no effect on the farm.