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.

5 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

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

also #48

19 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

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..

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

2 minutes ago, weathafella said:

You sure that’s this run?   Here’s the composite..

 

 

 

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.

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

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..

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..

1 minute ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

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.

5 hours ago, bdgwx said:

That was me!

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?

On 1/14/2021 at 1:18 PM, bdgwx said:

Yes I did. It was pretty nuanced though. The rules said 2020 had to exceed 2016 by 0.01 after rounding to 2 decimal places. The quirk was that 2016 had been getting reported as 1.01. But I (along with several other people) had figured out that the recent addition of observations into the GHCN repository was going to likely flip 2016 back to 1.02. And my model had predicted that GISS would revise Nov down to 1.11 and report 0.83 for Dec. GISS officially reported 1.11 and 0.81 respectively so I had already seen the 2020 round down to 1.02 coming as well. I exploited that situation as well. In the end I learned a lot from this exercise. First...I learned that prediction markets aren't that good. Second...I learned a lot of details about GHCN, ERSST, how the GISTEMP code works, and how to create a model for predicting GISS updates with publicly available information with up to 4 weeks lead time. It was really fun.

BTW...your comment above about 2010 being a good analog to 2020 kept me on my guard

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!

On 12/7/2020 at 6:55 PM, Luke_Mages said:

Wrong. Name one solar or wind power manufacturer who is t heavily leveraging tax credits. Locally solar city is getting over $750M. FCE, who I did engineering work on, wouldn’t even exist without heavy govt subsidies. They also only exist because of carbon credits as they are now being used to eat carbon emissions from coal and gas power plants. 
I’m not saying keep burning fossil fuels. I think solar and nuclear should be the future with nat gas being used to compensate for load demands. (Solar and nuclear can’t adjust fast enough.)

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

On 10/2/2020 at 9:41 AM, skierinvermont said:

This is a lie and you know it is. As I have explained 7 times to you over the last month, wind and solar energy cost approximately the same as natural gas, and much less than coal. This is why wind and solar are already being chosen by the free-market and comprise nearly 50% of new electric generation capacity over the last 5 years. In other words, when a power company has to decide what new power to build, they choose either wind or natural gas, and occasionally solar, because these are the cheapest sources. With a modest investment at the federal level, this process could be sped up dramatically without any increase in electric costs (with a small cost to the taxpayer). It would dramatically improve our ozone and PM2.5 pollution in addition to reducing future climate change. Countries like Germany have already succeeded in this with only 39% of energy coming from fossil fuels, while maintaining a very high standard of living.

Your Haiti and economic destruction scare tactics are despicable, fly in the face of the most basic facts (that have been shared with you 8 times now), and reveal your complete lack of objectivity. Your lies do not fool or convince anybody.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

 

On 11/19/2020 at 3:28 AM, Luke_Mages said:

You’re wrong on this point. Without heavy subsidies it’s not cheaper yet. (Won’t be for some time) And countries like the US and can afford that, but what happens in India? Or how about when Africa starts industrializing? What we do here in the US and Europe (China is a joke) won’t do anything to slow the warming that will be caused by that. I’m not saying to be irresponsible with the environment, I’m saying the money being subsidized would be best spent relocating people, infrastructure improvements like flood control for NYC harbor, and investments in fission and fusion power. 

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.

On 11/1/2020 at 11:56 AM, bdgwx said:

It's complicated. First understand that this is not entirely unexpected. In fact, the IPCC AR5 WG1 prediction for SH sea ice, although significantly more uncertain than predictions for the NH, shows a slight preference for increases through about 2030 with the possibility of record highs persisting even through 2060 before things turn south (pun intended) down there too. I must caveat that by saying the uncertainty envelope does include the possibility of the secular decline starting around 2020 as well. The unfortunate state of affairs with SH sea ice is that our understanding of its behavior in a warming world is still quite nebulous compared to our understanding of NH sea ice behavior. Second understand that the see-sawing of temperatures and sea ice between hemisphere has been shown to occur during previous significant climatic change events so it is not unprecedented nor is it inconsistent with climatic shifts.

Anyway here are some things to consider...

• The NH is characterized by ocean surrounded by land whereas the SH is land surrounded by ocean. This trivial fact accounts for the bulk of the differences between NH and SH sea ice behavior. The consequences of this can be quite dramatic and contradictory between the NH vs. SH.
• A positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is associated with increasing SH sea ice. Global warming tips the SAM toward a positive phase.
• ENSO negative/positive phases reinforce positive/negative SAM phases.
• The Montreal Protocol through its ban of CFCs, repair of stratospheric ozone, associated cooling tendencies and other effects on weather patterns has been linked to SH sea ice increases.
• Increasing GHGs actually have a cooling effect on the Antarctica continent itself especially during the SH winter when the upper atmosphere is often warmer than the surface. Remember, GHGs act like a thermal barrier preventing IR radiation from passing through. This causes the warm/cool side of the barrier to warm/cool further. Positive/negative lapse rates get more positive/negative. Antarctica often has a negative lapse rate during the winter so GHGs cause cooling at the surface and warming in the upper atmosphere. This effect (among others) suppresses polar amplification in the SH.

Disclaimer...I'm not well informed regarding SH sea ice so hopefully others who know more about the behavior down there can chime in on points I've missed or mischaracterized.

The main take away here is that sea ice is mainly a NH issue right now. Most scientists do not expect NH-style declines in sea ice down in the SH anytime soon. And the fact that the SH responds differently than the NH is probably more the rule than the exception. 

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.

2 hours ago, Luke_Mages said:

Ya I forgot about testing rates. Prob a combo of the two factors. 

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.

3 hours ago, Luke_Mages said:

It has nothing to do with politics. I’ts everything to do with being objective. My fav paper written in college when I was a left leaning dem was that global warming isn’t the problem, overpopulation and where we chose to live is. That’s not being a crass republican, that’s being objective. 
You need to realize that we as humans overvalue our importance. 
You also need to remember what caused WW2. Germany was poor and starving and forced into expansion. What happens globally if the economy keeps shrinking?
 

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.

9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

New research published by the National Bureau of Economics (NBER) indicated that rising sea levels are beginning to hinder home sales in vulnerable coastal regions. Put another way, markets are not denying the reality of climate change or one of its major adverse impacts.

Abstract:

In this paper, we explore dynamic changes in the capitalization of sea level rise (SLR) risk in housing and mortgage markets. Our results suggest a disconnect in coastal Florida real estate: From 2013-2018, home sales volumes in the most-SLR-exposed communities declined 16-20% relative to less-SLR-exposed areas, even as their sale prices grew in lockstep. Between 2018-2020, however, relative prices in these at-risk markets finally declined by roughly 5% from their peak. Lender behavior cannot reconcile these patterns, as we show that both all-cash and mortgage-financed purchases have similarly contracted, with little evidence of increases in loan denial or securitization. We propose a demand-side explanation for our findings where prospective buyers have become more pessimistic about climate change risk than prospective sellers. The lead-lag relationship between transaction volumes and prices in SLR-exposed markets is consistent with dynamics at the peak of prior real estate bubbles.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27930

 

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.

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

Windmills are selective killers, they preferentially kill large soaring birds, eagles, hawks and other large avifauna. The victims,  who seek out the same windy spots to stay in the air without much effort, cannot see the blade coming down of them from above. Removing the slow breeding large birds this way is not a sensible policy imho.

They also are efficient bat killers, as the vacuum left by the blade speeding by (tip speed is close to sonic velocity) ruptures the bats lungs, but bats get less attention.from the media.

That said, no argument about the damages inflicted by the fossil fuel industry. But that is no reason to give the other 'green' power initiatives a license to destroy either.

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

36 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The new proposed wind farms were are supposed to be even higher up than current ones are going to be mass slayers of birds. Birds already have enough to killing them off...cats, collisions with buildings, windows, cars etc. Now we are going to put up tons of new wind farms even higher up. For what?  Nothing its not going to make a difference at all except make some energy company rich. Oil companies indeed have exploited the environment too with negative consequences too. Now "green" energy companies will do the same. They underreport bird kills on purpose. 

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.

19 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

https://sciencing.com/effects-solar-power-farms-environment-13547.html     

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.

16 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

That pales in comparison to the threat posed by climate change.

https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees

 

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

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

who do you think YOU are?  Why should I listen to YOU! Say it 100 times. You are highly biased and very arrogant. You are a bully on this forum and should have been removed a long time ago.   have a nice day. 

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.

On 10/2/2020 at 9:41 AM, skierinvermont said:

This is a lie and you know it is. As I have explained 7 times to you over the last month, wind and solar energy cost approximately the same as natural gas, and much less than coal. This is why wind and solar are already being chosen by the free-market and comprise nearly 50% of new electric generation capacity over the last 5 years. In other words, when a power company has to decide what new power to build, they choose either wind or natural gas, and occasionally solar, because these are the cheapest sources. With a modest investment at the federal level, this process could be sped up dramatically without any increase in electric costs (with a small cost to the taxpayer). It would dramatically improve our ozone and PM2.5 pollution in addition to reducing future climate change. Countries like Germany have already succeeded in this with only 39% of energy coming from fossil fuels, while maintaining a very high standard of living.

Your Haiti and economic destruction scare tactics are despicable, fly in the face of the most basic facts (that have been shared with you 8 times now), and reveal your complete lack of objectivity. Your lies do not fool or convince anybody.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

 

On 10/4/2020 at 3:49 PM, skierinvermont said:

As the numbers I posted just showed, everything you just wrote is a lie. Wind and solar are equally as cheap and efficient as natural gas, and getting cheaper, and the free-market does embrace them equally with natural gas already.

26 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted.  Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts.  Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions?   Why is it different now?  It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world.   It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful. 

25 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted.  Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts.  Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions?   Why is it different now?  It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world.   It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful. 

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.

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

One plausible explanation is status quo bias. Bias for the status quo, with which people are familiar, can impede rational judgment about choices. In status quo bias, perceptions of risk are disconnected from objective factors and are skewed in favor of the present state of affairs. Change from the status quo is seen as inherently risky. Thus, when it comes to cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the present are overstated while the costs of some new state are exaggerated. Therefore, even when the status quo is unsustainable and costly—as is the case with fossil fuels and the impact of resulting greenhouse gas emissions—and an alternative state offers more long-term benefits (reduction of the discounted future costs of climate change), the status quo is embraced. This bias impairs judgment, nourishes motivated reasoning (which reinforces preferences for the status quo), and contributes to the common phenomenon where companies and societies often fail to make necessary changes until a crisis has erupted. 

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.

47 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Our bird species evolved 2 million years ago and have seen massive swings in climate, plus at least in North America it was 2-4C warmer 8000 years ago and the birds we see today survived. This is not true and is part of absolute junk science. The land use of proposed wind and solar farms will decimated a lot of our bird species. Plus it destroys the aesthetics of the rural countryside. God knows we have already done enough to destroy this with current forms of energy extraction but now this too???  Just add it on to the plethora of threats our birds face to save them?  It won't save them it will lead to further declines. If an energy company truly starts to see profits from renewables they will go on a binge in development and this will be disastrous.  There has to be lands that are off limits. But we know how that all works. Ask the Ivory Billed Woodpecker ghosts that persisted in the Singer Tract in the 1940s...look how that turned out. Extinction.  

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.