Typhoon Tip

It just did ... what am I missing here?

evidence here of an STJ https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atlpac-wide&product=truecolor

Dude... this looks like a crude attempt at a STJ https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atlpac-wide&product=truecolor ..time sensitive I don't particularly like recent trends with the bulk ensemble means, from either the EPS of GEFs through the 20th. Rumor has it the deep field astronomy has the cosmos expanding into cold fantasies - maybe, no opinion for now.

The problem I have with the "conservative" approach is that I believe in many cases the agenda of denial are really using it to "delay" acceptance - the recourse when they can't refute that which is empirically proven to be so. Continuing to deny in the face of objective reality becomes something of either a moral issue, or that of failing intelligence. There is nothing that needs to be conserved about empirical data - and if it creates a vector toward harm via mathematics, delay becomes dangerous and ultimately a form of Darwinism mechanics I don't want to be a winner of that particular race. It's not like those of us with moral IQ and will for the success of ours and all other species have any choice in the matter. We can't leave the party. We are imprisoned by gravity upon a doomed planet, because of their actions overwhelming our efforts. I just can't accept the false logic of denying the possibility of dying so you can keep doing the dangerous, until you prove its real. NO, you stop doing what ever it is you are doing, THEN, prove it won't kill you, FIRST. Once that's secured, resume activity ... and hope your fucking right. All "denialism" achieves is creating a reality increased risk. Tantamount to the height of stupidity. And it is getting away with murder really for creating that delay. Remember that scene in Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi, near the end, when Darth Sidious was taking joy in zapping Luke with his hate lighting ... He pauses to say, "Young Fool. Only now at the end do you understand" - welcome to hell.

Here's an article Kieran Mulvaney/ NAT Geo, that mentions Mann/'Our Fragile Moment,' among others What’s the big deal about Earth getting 2°C hotter? The increase may sound inconsequential, but scientists say there are serious ramifications for life as we know it if the planet exceeds the climate target. By Kieran Mulvaney Published December 1, 2023 • 6 min read Thirty-five years after NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the United States Congress about the specter of climate change, Earth is on pace to experience 2.7°Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100. And while there is little consensus among nations about how and how fast to reduce the carbon emissions that are responsible for that warming, there is near universal consensus that this temperature increase would be disastrous. For that reason, the 196 signatories to the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, committed to keeping the mean rise in global temperatures below 2° C (3.6° F) above pre-industrial levels and preferably limit any increase to 1.5° C (2.7° F). Participants in the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 28), taking place in Dubai November 30-December 12, will be expected to update their progress on meeting those goals. Given that the globe is already about 1.2 °C (2.2° F) warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution, that target may seem, depending on your level of optimism, either highly ambitious or perfectly within reach. But what exactly does this goal save us from, and how was it selected in the first place? How 2° C became a target According to Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the targets are as much political as scientific. "Ultimately, there is nothing geophysically sacrosanct about 1.5, or two, or three, or any other particular number,” he says. What’s more important to recognize, he argues, is that with every incremental degree of warning, the greater the likelihood that Earth will reach irreversible “tipping points”— or, as he puts it, "the more likely it is that we experience what I sometimes call unpleasant surprises.” Furthermore, explains Maria Ivanova, director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, the concept of limiting warming to two degrees significantly predated the Paris Agreement. It was, she says, a “back of the envelope calculation” in the 1970s by an economist at Yale, William Nordhaus, who argued in a pair of papers that a two-degree increase would push the climate beyond the limits of human experience. (Which cities will still be livable in a world altered by climate change?) However, it would be wrong to infer that two degrees was just plucked from thin air, cautions Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. “Clearly there is no absolute threshold,” he says. “It’s more a somewhat objective definition of where we move from ‘bad’ into ‘really bad’ territory. Two degrees Celsius is a reasonable dividing line where we cross into the ‘red’ across all areas of concern.” Some places are warming more quickly than others Is two degrees in fact too much warming? “Well, 1.2°C warming, which is where we are, is too much,” says Mann. “We’re already seeing devastating consequences. So, it’s really a question of just how bad we’re willing to let it get. 1.5°C would be bad, two degrees really bad, and three degrees is perhaps, as I argue in my new book Our Fragile Moment, civilization ending.” Mann notes that a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report found that the difference between 1.5°C of warming and two degrees could be devastating. “Basically, what it shows is that the additional 0.5°C of warming would likely mean the loss of Arctic sea ice, three times as much extreme heat, far greater levels of extinction and the possible loss of coral reefs across the planet. It would take us even closer to the tipping points for loss of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets (and the meters of sea level rise that go with it). Pretty stark stuff,” he says. (Could billions of oysters protect coastlines from rising seas?) Additionally, of course, an average global increase is just that— an average. Some places, such as the Arctic, are warming four times more quickly than the rest of the planet; what may seem like a moderate amount of sea level rise in parts of the United States, could be catastrophic in low-lying Pacific Island states. For that reason, such states have been at the forefront of emphasizing the importance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. A case for temperature targets But if 1.2°C degrees of warming is already too much, and two degrees is potentially cataclysmic, should we be setting our targets lower? Should we even be worrying about temperature targets at all? “It is imperative to have a target,” argues Ivanova. “Having a goal is critical. It is like having a speed limit, particularly when you think about how speed limits are communicated. It is one thing when you have a static sign that says 60 miles an hour. But it is another thing when you are nearing one of those signs that flashes your speed at you. Because then what you do is you push the brakes because that real time feedback of ‘Oh, I am above the limit,’ actually does lead to behavior change.” However, argues Swain, the brakes are not even close to being pumped enough right now. "If we could wave a magic wand and [eliminate] carbon emissions tomorrow, we probably could keep [the increase] under 1.5°C degrees," says Swain "But of course, we can't; that magic wand does not exist. And I think the same thing is largely true of two. I think two degrees is also at this point, a very ambitious target relative to our current trajectory.” It is unquestionable, Swain acknowledges, that there has been a lot of progress toward reducing carbon emissions. “Are we on a much better path than we were in, say, 2005? Yes, we are. There has been an explosion in clean energy. There’s incredible science going on. There have been tremendous public policy successes.” But, he argues, much more is needed, at a far quicker rate, for warming to not only slow down but stop. If that can happen in time to prevent Earth warming by two degrees, then that would be an achievement of sorts. But if it can be done well before that threshold is reached, that would be a significantly greater success for all.

OT, It's become a wholesale internet crisis of greed, and its about to shut out all for access to free information - across the board. Ad blockers are becoming overwhelmed by exclusionary code, and as soon as the host site knows its working, they not only deny access but even try to force you to see their ads before you can even close the page ... You Tube Nat Geo ( edit, if you want Nat Geo axis, just create an account called, "[email protected]" that works) NY Times ... The list is huge actually. ...capitalism is no longer a salvation when it gets to the point where it suffocates the very freedoms upon which capitalism is allowed to thrive.

Old news

Tucking

Yeah, getting that temperature shedding here now too. 43 to 38

It’s likely that it’s over amplified in the runs to begin with, just based upon modeling performance over the last 5 to 7 years across-the-board ; they all seemed to engage in that.

I caution about attribution to El Niño with fast jets… We’ve been having fast jets due to gradient saturation for several years now, regardless

Uh, actually ... it means that rain is falling into a thermodynamically colder layer(s). Usually it's snow melting through an elevated WARM layer, and then as the rain droplets fall back through a lower DP layer, it cools and freezes. Typical sleet sounding has temperatures falling going up to about 925 or even as high as 700 mb in some extreme cases, with an overriding melt layer.

Well that's new to me. Add that to the birthdays. Hell, maybe he was born on every day - god is everywhere, right? I don't frankly care. I mean, I honor the guy if he was a some kind of "humanitarian Einstein" but it stops there. I'm happy faith gives people happiness. We only live once. Shy of harming others in the procuring of happiness, go for it! Personally? I'm gonna go ahead with actually needing to see walking on water, or pulling fish out of an eerily empty wicker basket for the hapless masses, before I bother to look into it any further

Not that you asked but I suspect during this WAA thrust aspect where ever is rain at this time, stays as is... A bit later, some commitment to 2ndary ...blah blah, the cold/mixing drawn south, but it will be light. This system was a pain in the ass. Its a higher than usual latitude quasi Miller by smear, that could have occurred even 100 miles S in totality and at least inserted marginal chance to SNE. I don't think CNE/NNE will complain, just sayn'. This "signal" was around the charts for over a week. I brought it to attention days and days ago as a 'period of interest' but wah wah, the GFS does astoundingly well from a long range with a warmer solution and also negative interfering wave spacing. The Euro seem to spend time too chilly, but I stopped looking when it appeared to be nothing for my back yard. LOL I've noticed the lack of front side cold air has been a prevalent in all systems, regardless of ENSO this, polar index that ... going back years. Interesting. Imho, that February 2015 was a completely different hemispheric phenomenon which can and should be considered an unique outlier for study. Otherwise, the definitive porking of specifically snow thing began around 2011... 2010 was the last year I remember front side cold being substantive enough to force a colder profiled systems. No, I am not saying it hasn't snowed, nor that front side hasn't been cold upon occasion. We're trying to be lucidly fair about trends here.

I think there is an argument out there that Jesus may have been really born in June.

Oh I think that's worth a proverbial couple of bucks, actually. I've yelled with pen for years that CC doesn't have enough natural advocates, in that, it's taking too long to appeal to any of the natural senses. That is the problem What is read on the side of humanity's bus is, "Denial Unlimited" while we ride along toward the cliff. The ass end of the vehicle is completely stained by exhaust soot. This probably all should go over to the climate forum somewhere, but the lacking evidence aspect is at last starting to change. Images of glacial retreat, sea level rise this and that. Hearing of rising heat -related deaths (empirically) at an alarming rate all over the world. It's not like it was just a hot Asia. It's observed and objectively measured spanning every continent (when will DCA-BOS have their 108 day). For objective minded observers, these are not easily explainable by so-called, 'naturally occurring phenomenon' of rogue weather patterns. The unilateral aspect is damming, nor are these invented CNNers... As much as we loath the "Industrial Media Complex," you know ...maybe, just maybe, the shock headline can in principle serve an unintended good - this is what it takes (apparently) for pacified Industrial societies to wake the fuck up. It's always been that way. Since (really) the early to particularly mid last century. Anyone can search this material and read about it in short order but scientists began postulating global warming over a 100 years ago. It was mostly drilled into volcanoes and/or celestial mechanics in the early decades - probably the source of the "this has always happened" mantra. But, by the 1960s the first postulations were advanced related to C02 - that which can be related to human activities. The 1970s were an 'awareness set-back,' more apt to say an 'ah, bunch of bullshitness' decade (the very primitive first form of denial) as the global temperature curve either leveled off for awhile, or even descended slightly (I've seen conflicting records on either). But really, this warming world has been a non-deviated positive when observed over the longer term trend, going back to 1900. It's just that only in the last 20 years have we begun to cross thresholds. So yeah, the proverbial memo is now passing through eye balls and ear canals. Kind of reminds me of how art can be inspired by reality. We only hope reality won't parody that scene in the movie "Return Of The Jedi," between "Darth Sidious" and the "Luke Skywalker" hero: "Young fool. Only now, at the end, do you understand"

Scott noticed the inverted trough on the GFS 3 or 4 days ago. So yeah, it's been there. The column should be cooling over top so that may offer that instability. Thing is, 'NORLUN' used to always be difficult/elusive. As far as I'm aware they are yet to be very well forecast' ? not sure what the skill on that phenomenon is as of late. I've tried to make a call on NORLUN in the past. The errors I observed were most commonly: getting it to happen, then, pivoting S as a correction in guidance. They seemed to start out at some latitude and then tick S. I've seen some up in Maine tick S and keeping ticking S, ultimately ticking right on out to S and not happening on land at all when the time frame arrives.

I know. CNN is and cannot be trusted, as their vetting and materialization of "news" is completely sculpted for manipulating mouse clicks, thumb swipes and TV channel selection. But in this case, the essence is valid and I'm willing to drop that reticence in lieu of the bigger picture: I don't have qualms with reality and I don't play games with statistical portents, ever. As soon as the latter starts to materialize a portrait of either cold, warm ...wet or white ...etc, that's it. I critique that art, not the intent of the artist. In this case, .9" on day A and .9" on day B ... is a meaninglessness distinction to me. The two day being 1.8" does nothing to invalidate the astonishingly bad illustration of what that means when considering the 650 day span. Sometimes we do this in society. We latch on to some meaningless trifle in the make up of the grander dog shit truth because there's comfort in the debate. It reminds me of my cat while growing up. I would do something like all little shits do to mess with her, and she'd run and stick her head in bag or under the covers. Her whole ass end and tail would be completely sticking out and exposed. The little space we provide in the debates shelter our perceptions, puts off our necessary acceptance. Again... it's a human thing. The other thing, the articles that I have read, state, 'in a single day' . I'm not numb to the notion that the way that is presented is divisive, but consider the source LOL. It's like that scene in that over-the-top Michael Bay ( the CNN director of Hollywood ) movie, "Independence Day" when all the clamor (debating .9 spanning two days...) fades to silence while this eclipsing shadow overtakes skies.

"normally" it would trigger me, also? But it doesn't in this case. The latter aspect, "The point stands..." is an empirical that's shared at continental scale - at least the eastern limb. So much so that overwhelms the ability to do so for me. - seeing as everyone gives a shit what I think. lol

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/02/weather/northeast-snow-new-york-climate/index.html

Everything sucks until it doesn't. Stop trying to convince others that it doesn't suck prior to not sucking.

Heh, wasted effort. It strikes me as a contrived argument. Latching onto semantics when it's patently obvious ...when someone says, 'exactly like last year' ..etc, they don't mean, exactly like last year down to the quantum variances the foam the Plank field, where so emerges the space time-fabric of the cosmos ... ( I call that 'the IQ of God') Nothing is absolute, in reality for that matter ... I guess even God cannot make up his/her mind ( most likely, a she then - ) including comparing any aspect of weather history. The obvious: any poster content that says 'exactly like this or that,' is far in a way intending to mean similar? just sayn'

Agreed ... regardless of approach/technique/method in this game, that feature/handling on that run looks like an artifact of noise.

Agreed ...the Euro began a lean into a better fitted solution for the erstwhile telecon behavior - but also the observed mass field/synoptic evolution during the period - about 5 days ago at this point. Just wanna add for the general reader. I suspect the GFS may not do as well in a warm ENSO hemisphere *IF* the longer term correlation of tending to meridian flow types/coupling transpires. The La Nina was perhaps its recent hay-day during times when the hemisphere was more coupled.

acceptance of the world as both changing, BUT changing in a direction that will continue to erode on winters ... might go some distance in amelioration. Like the Buddha teachings inform, ... all anxiety is ultimately rooted in failure to realize expectation - from what I gather, that is... Even if that butchers that philosophy at its core, that's 'sides the point. There are kernels of usefulness for this engagement/hobby of seeking dopamine tied to weather modeling HAHAHA. Cut the expectation of actually getting a hit off the crack pipe in the first place -