Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,529
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Gonzalo00
    Newest Member
    Gonzalo00
    Joined

January Banter Thread


H2O

Recommended Posts

CO2 levels have gone up and down before, so why is this time different? I understand that the current CO2 levels are not 100% natural, but who's to say they won't naturally go back down? Only time will tell..

 

Why would they go down in a timeframe that people alive today care about? Besides the system becomes a self-sustaining process when you reach thresholds like 450 ppm.

 

There is simply no going back from that. Would take at least 150k years to return to holocene climate without geoengineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All joking aside I'm wondering if this system on Sunday is what is changing the entire look for next week.

Probably part of it. Santabomb was modeled to form in a similar way and ended up underperforming/not becoming a 50/50.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All joking aside I'm wondering if this system on Sunday is what is changing the entire look for next week.

This is my storm :P I claimed it as a possible "surprise" event. Its low prob, but bears watching as it has trended wetter, and with colder air moving in, if it gets its act together a bit sooner, gets precip further inland, and holds on a bit longer, there could be some snow on the backside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not brave enough

to post this in anything but banter :bag:

 

 image lags -hit refresh

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2015011618/gfs_apcpn_us_40.png

loop

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs&region=us&pkg=apcpn&runtime=2015011618&fh=6&xpos=0&ypos=400

 

If it matters to anyone here....

there was a  E PAC NOAA- winter flight last evening 

so I would think that data was ingested by the GFS the last few runs 

 

http://www.tropicaleastpacific.com/recon/recon.cgi?basin=ep&nontasked=2015

 

talk about the hole in the doughnut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the 00Z GFS looks like s-h-i-t-e, or else blah otherwise, as there's been no discussion whatsoever in the medium range thread.

 

ETA:  And...that would be correct!  GFS with the whiffff (said in a Dan Patrick voice).  That once nice storm looks like it is so far south now that the Hurricane Center might have to give it a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the system becomes a self-sustaining process when you reach thresholds like 450 ppm.

There is simply no going back from that.

If that were the case, Earth would've followed the route Venus took a long time ago. Eventually, the intercepted frequencies will be fully saturated, hence the logarithmic nature of radiative forcing in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the 00Z GFS looks like s-h-i-t-e, or else blah otherwise, as there's been no discussion whatsoever in the medium range thread.

ETA: And...that would be correct! GFS with the whiffff (said in a Dan Patrick voice). That once nice storm looks like it is so far south now that the Hurricane Center might have to give it a name.

Would probably extrapolate to a day 17-18 HECS...la la lock it up! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were the case, Earth would've followed the route Venus took a long time ago. Eventually, the intercepted frequencies will be fully saturated, hence the logarithmic nature of radiative forcing in the long run.

Good derailment. Co2 tends to stabilize at certain points. The greenhouse range is 450-1550ppm. We are not even living in a 400ppm climate due to lag as you point out.

 

Alas, the difference between greenhouse and icehouse is immense and you are either in one or the other at any given point, hence expecting abrupt climate change at some point down the road.

 

You may of thought it felt like Venus if you were around 55 million years ago, of course without the extreme barometric pressure. The worst regions would be like combining Phoenix with Miami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good derailment. Co2 tends to stabilize at certain points. The greenhouse range is 450-1550ppm. We are not even living in a 400ppm climate due to lag as you point out.

Alas, the difference between greenhouse and icehouse is immense and you are either in one or the other at any given point, hence expecting abrupt climate change at some point down the road.

The icehouse/greenhouse distinction simply refers to the presence or absence of polar ice caps. It's too early to say if/when AGW will push us into another greenhouse climate regimen, though most of the recent literature puts ECS @ 2.5-3.5C per doubling, which is bad enough.

That said, we've seen greenhouse climates w/ CO^2 below 350ppm, and we've seen full blown ice ages w/ CO^2 above 2000ppm. A lot of factors go into the longer term climate changes, and in most cases it's a product of overlapping forcings/harmonics.

There's a lot of paleoclimate literature out there suggesting that lower frequency forcings promote the most significant systematic responses. The ice age cycle is a good example of this..there's no change in the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth..it's merely a tiny redistribution, and it's enough to throw the system into and out of ice ages in extremely rapid fashion.

These forcings are tiny..decade-to-decade shifts in forcings/circulations are greater than these minute redistributions. Difference is, they're higher frequency phenomenon, and the system is an inertia-laden fluid.

/endrant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...