Extended summer stormlover74 future snow hole banter thread 23

[LibertyBell]

20 minutes ago, Volcanic Winter said:

Three homes were destroyed in Grindavik after a small fissure opened inside the town border and flowed into the first row of homes. Pretty surreal image:

 

The good news is that, similar to the last event, activity is waning 24-48 hours after the start time. 

The bad news is that Grindavik will have to deal with this for the foreseeable future, as repeated dike intrusions with some leading to eruptions will be the pattern going forward. The only similar event in recent history was the Krafla fires in North Iceland in the 70’s / 80’s, where the magma output increased substantially over time. 

Krafla is a large central volcano with a magma chamber whereas most of the Reykjanes systems are sort of monogenic fields where there is no central storage and magma is sourced from the deep mantle directly. However, we know a large sill formed around the Grindavik area which has fed the two recent eruptions here, and that sill is sort of acting as a quasi magma chamber. 

Can’t overstate how significant this is in real time, as the area hasn’t erupted in 800-1000 years. As the whole of the Reykjanes volcanic systems begin to awaken rolling forward, the most densely populated region of Iceland will have to contend with some pretty significant hazards over the coming decades. 

For some reason this reminds me of the portal to Hell.

Do you know where that's located? In Siberia lol.

There have long been reports of mass deaths of animals there, as poisonous gases emanate from the opening.

 

[Volcanic Winter]

18 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

For some reason this reminds me of the portal to Hell.

Do you know where that's located? In Siberia lol.

There have long been reports of mass deaths of animals there, as poisonous gases emanate from the opening.

 

Iceland’s Hekla was historically known as the “Gateway to Hell” as well. 

Frequent violent eruptions throughout Iceland’s settlement era, at times sending ash into Europe. Often Hekla erupts with little warning, even to modern seismic instruments. 

[Rjay]

Instead of a snow game we get this 

 

[WestBabylonWeather]

Did we lose Friday storm. Can I complain ITT

[Will - Rutgers]

6” here in New Brunswick

[BxEngine]

1 hour ago, Rjay said:

Instead of a snow game we get this 

 

At least theyre scoring some points. Who the hell wants to watch 2 teams run 3 feet and fall down. Fuk outta here. 

[Rjay]

7 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

At least theyre scoring some points. Who the hell wants to watch 2 teams run 3 feet and fall down. Fuk outta here. 

Yea this game is really entertaining....

[BxEngine]

4 minutes ago, Rjay said:

Yea this game is really entertaining....

For betting purposes it is. Grow up peter pan. Lol

[Maureen]

On 1/14/2024 at 9:49 AM, North and West said:

I do my best to make them insufferable.


.

Well I wasn’t referring to you, but good job. 

[NorthShoreWx]

This might be helpful for some people:

https://nsidc.org/learn/cryosphere-glossary/whiteout

 

[BxEngine]

26 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

This might be helpful for some people:

https://nsidc.org/learn/cryosphere-glossary/whiteout

 

Oh we can go a lot further than that to help some people around here lol

[North and West]

Thought you guys might find this snippet interesting

https://apple.news/AjU1UC8ilTGabmhH9udcz5Q

Edward Lorenz was a weatherman during World War II, tasked with forecasting cloud cover before American bombing raids in the Pacific. But meteorology in those days was largely guesswork and produced only crude predictions. After the war ended, Lorenz decided to try to unlock the secrets of the weather using more sophisticated methods and harnessing the nascent power of computing. He created a simplified, miniature world on his LGP-30 computer: Instead of the millions of different variables that affect weather systems in the real world, his model had just 12 variables.

One day, Lorenz decided to rerun a simulation he’d done earlier. To save time, he decided to start midway through, plugging in the data points from the prior snapshot. He figured that so long as he set the variables at the same levels, the weather patterns would be repeated just as they were before: same conditions, same outcomes.

But something strange happened instead. The weather in his rerun simulation was different in every way. After a lot of scowling over the data, Lorenz realized what had happened. His computer printouts had rounded data to three decimal places. If, for example, the exact wind speed was 3.506127 miles an hour, the printout displayed it as 3.506 miles an hour. When he plugged the slightly truncated values from the printouts back into the simulation, he was always off by a tiny amount (in this case, just 0.000127 miles an hour). These seemingly meaningless alterations—these tiny rounding errors—were producing major changes.

That observation led Lorenz to a breakthrough discovery. Minuscule changes could make enormous differences: Raising the temperature one-millionth of a degree could morph the weather two months later from clear blue skies into a torrential downpour, even a hurricane. Lorenz’s findings were the origin of the “butterfly effect” concept—the notion that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could trigger a tornado in Texas—and, ultimately, of chaos theory. They also explain why meteorologists are still unable to forecast the weather beyond a short time frame with much accuracy; if any calculation is off by a tiny amount, the longer-term forecast will be useless.


.

[Stormlover74]

DT/wxrisk

 

 

[nycemt123]

Thought you guys might find this snippet interesting

https://apple.news/AjU1UC8ilTGabmhH9udcz5Q

Edward Lorenz was a weatherman during World War II, tasked with forecasting cloud cover before American bombing raids in the Pacific. But meteorology in those days was largely guesswork and produced only crude predictions. After the war ended, Lorenz decided to try to unlock the secrets of the weather using more sophisticated methods and harnessing the nascent power of computing. He created a simplified, miniature world on his LGP-30 computer: Instead of the millions of different variables that affect weather systems in the real world, his model had just 12 variables.

One day, Lorenz decided to rerun a simulation he’d done earlier. To save time, he decided to start midway through, plugging in the data points from the prior snapshot. He figured that so long as he set the variables at the same levels, the weather patterns would be repeated just as they were before: same conditions, same outcomes.

But something strange happened instead. The weather in his rerun simulation was different in every way. After a lot of scowling over the data, Lorenz realized what had happened. His computer printouts had rounded data to three decimal places. If, for example, the exact wind speed was 3.506127 miles an hour, the printout displayed it as 3.506 miles an hour. When he plugged the slightly truncated values from the printouts back into the simulation, he was always off by a tiny amount (in this case, just 0.000127 miles an hour). These seemingly meaningless alterations—these tiny rounding errors—were producing major changes.

That observation led Lorenz to a breakthrough discovery. Minuscule changes could make enormous differences: Raising the temperature one-millionth of a degree could morph the weather two months later from clear blue skies into a torrential downpour, even a hurricane. Lorenz’s findings were the origin of the “butterfly effect” concept—the notion that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could trigger a tornado in Texas—and, ultimately, of chaos theory. They also explain why meteorologists are still unable to forecast the weather beyond a short time frame with much accuracy; if any calculation is off by a tiny amount, the longer-term forecast will be useless.


.

Very cool

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[etudiant]

9 hours ago, North and West said:

Thought you guys might find this snippet interesting

https://apple.news/AjU1UC8ilTGabmhH9udcz5Q

Edward Lorenz was a weatherman during World War II, tasked with forecasting cloud cover before American bombing raids in the Pacific. But meteorology in those days was largely guesswork and produced only crude predictions. After the war ended, Lorenz decided to try to unlock the secrets of the weather using more sophisticated methods and harnessing the nascent power of computing. He created a simplified, miniature world on his LGP-30 computer: Instead of the millions of different variables that affect weather systems in the real world, his model had just 12 variables.

One day, Lorenz decided to rerun a simulation he’d done earlier. To save time, he decided to start midway through, plugging in the data points from the prior snapshot. He figured that so long as he set the variables at the same levels, the weather patterns would be repeated just as they were before: same conditions, same outcomes.

But something strange happened instead. The weather in his rerun simulation was different in every way. After a lot of scowling over the data, Lorenz realized what had happened. His computer printouts had rounded data to three decimal places. If, for example, the exact wind speed was 3.506127 miles an hour, the printout displayed it as 3.506 miles an hour. When he plugged the slightly truncated values from the printouts back into the simulation, he was always off by a tiny amount (in this case, just 0.000127 miles an hour). These seemingly meaningless alterations—these tiny rounding errors—were producing major changes.

That observation led Lorenz to a breakthrough discovery. Minuscule changes could make enormous differences: Raising the temperature one-millionth of a degree could morph the weather two months later from clear blue skies into a torrential downpour, even a hurricane. Lorenz’s findings were the origin of the “butterfly effect” concept—the notion that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could trigger a tornado in Texas—and, ultimately, of chaos theory. They also explain why meteorologists are still unable to forecast the weather beyond a short time frame with much accuracy; if any calculation is off by a tiny amount, the longer-term forecast will be useless.


.

Does this not kill the hope of longer term (say more than 4-5 days) forecasting?

Certainly the models have grown a lot bigger, but they still don't verify very well in the medium or longer term.

[nycsnow]

Turning into another crappy winter real quick 

[forkyfork]

what is this next el nino step up going to do to our climate?

[LibertyBell]

37 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

what is this next el nino step up going to do to our climate?

It'll be interesting to see if 2024 hits that +1.5C mark.  Some are saying we aren't going back under it and others are saying next year's la nina will get us down, but only just barely, to +1.4C.  Either way, we're in a new era now.

[Stormlover74]

Very cool

 

 

[donsutherland1]

What happens when one posts maps for extreme cold from late November through December and the period winds up among the warmest on record? What happens when one posts maps of near historic cold in the Northeast to end December and start January but temperatures again average above normal? What happens when one posts a GGEM run showing 10”+ snow for NYC on January 19th with a PNA- pattern and it becomes clear that there will be no major snowstorm? 

Some punt ahead to hype another cold or snowy event.

And how does the GFS look the following day for the same point in time?

Although such maps remain well outside the skillful range, the dramatic change underscores the futility of latching onto unskillful guidance. Serious forecasters respect the limitations of models. They don’t exploit the models’ limitations to confirm biases and pursue clicks.

Yet, that’s the kind of hype one finds on X/Twitter and other social media from several accounts on a frequent basis. Such hype damages the credibility of professional private and public sector meteorologists who consistently provide good forecasts, but who often are drowned out by the hype of those who seek clicks/views but then tarnished by the fallout resulting from the failed extreme forecasts made by those who hype extreme events.

And even as some of the accounts frequently punt ahead with repeated calls for cold/snow, it’s important to remember that in the larger context, the periodic convergence of cold/snow with such calls is far more a matter of coincidence than skill. 

[North and West]

What happens when one posts maps for extreme cold from late November through December and the period winds up among the warmest on record? What happens when one posts maps of near historic cold in the Northeast to end December and start January but temperatures again average above normal? What happens when one posts a GGEM run showing 10”+ snow for NYC on January 19th with a PNA- pattern and it becomes clear that there will be no major snowstorm? 
Some punt ahead to hype another cold or snowy event.

And how does the GFS look the following day for the same point in time?

Although such maps remain well outside the skillful range, the dramatic change underscores the futility of latching onto unskillful guidance. Serious forecasters respect the limitations of models. They don’t exploit the models’ limitations to confirm biases and pursue clicks.
Yet, that’s the kind of hype one finds on X/Twitter and other social media from several accounts on a frequent basis. Such hype damages the credibility of professional private and public sector meteorologists who consistently provide good forecasts, but who often are drowned out by the hype of those who seek clicks/views but then tarnished by the fallout resulting from the failed extreme forecasts made by those who hype extreme events.
And even as some of the accounts frequently punt ahead with repeated calls for cold/snow, it’s important to remember that in the larger context, the periodic convergence of cold/snow with such calls is far more a matter of coincidence than skill. 

is there a tl;dr for what’s going on in this post? is this someone on this board?


.

[North and West]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/mike-freeman/2024/01/19/sports-illustrated-layoffs-gold-standard/72283622007/

Interesting note for sports fans of a certain age, it seems like Sports Illustrated died today.

Sad end, but a good life. I had a subscription 25 years ago, right around the time I still enjoyed the Local on the 8s.


.

[donsutherland1]

10 minutes ago, North and West said:

is there a tl;dr for what’s going on in this post? is this someone on this board?


.

Bastardi's claims still influence opinions and posts, including here. So do claims of some others e.g., the wild map drawn by the forecaster showing 12"-18" of snow at Allentown in early January when nothing remotely close to that was on the table.

Bastardi and some of the others draw upon the wishes and hopes of those who like cold/snow, leading them to believe ideas that, quite frankly, are often absurd from the onset.  Afterward, when the extreme forecasts fail, there is unnecessary disappointment, along with inaccurate perceptions that meteorologists can't forecast.

It's worth examining some of these claims periodically. Perceptions that February will start very cold are based on nothing but a single cycle operational run (ensembles, weekly guidance, other operational guidance, and expected teleconnections all argue against such a scenario). Invoking the mid-February 2016 Arctic outbreak absent strong evidence for such an extraordinary outcome is reckless.

So far, all of January's storms have behaved relatively in line with what had realistically been expected. There were no huge surprises so far this month.

 

[LibertyBell]

42 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Bastardi's claims still influence opinions and posts, including here. So do claims of some others e.g., the wild map drawn by the forecaster showing 12"-18" of snow at Allentown in early January when nothing remotely close to that was on the table.

Bastardi and some of the others draw upon the wishes and hopes of those who like cold/snow, leading them to believe ideas that, quite frankly, are often absurd from the onset.  Afterward, when the extreme forecasts fail, there is unnecessary disappointment, along with inaccurate perceptions that meteorologists can't forecast.

It's worth examining some of these claims periodically. Perceptions that February will start very cold are based on nothing but a single cycle operational run (ensembles, weekly guidance, other operational guidance, and expected teleconnections all argue against such a scenario). Invoking the mid-February 2016 Arctic outbreak absent strong evidence for such an extraordinary outcome is reckless.

So far, all of January's storms have behaved relatively in line with what had realistically been expected. There were no huge surprises so far this month.

 

Even worse, Bastardi claims that those who are what we call "warministas" are always biased warm because of being climate change cultists and that they have a political agenda to push the agenda of climate change and that's why they always forecast warm and snowless.

 

[donsutherland1]

10 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Even worse, Bastardi claims that those who are what we call "warministas" are always biased warm because of being climate change cultists and that they have a political agenda to push the agenda of climate change and that's why they always forecast warm and snowless.

 

Bias can be an issue regardless of one's position on climate change. However, objectivity requires that one consider the climate context when assessing, for example, potential analogs.

All things being equal, identical 500 mb patterns will be warmer than those in the past. Thus, one can't conclude that every pattern similar to past one that brought extreme cold will bring similar magnitude cold today. Bitter cold outbreaks can still occur, but they have decreased in frequency and expanse.

Patterns can also get "stuck" more often than in the past. That means warmth can persist for longer periods of time and the more limited areas of cold can persist for longer periods of time. December 2023's exceptional warmth in North America and notable cold in Scandinavia are examples of what can happen when the pattern largely becomes "stuck." Globally, of course, December 2023 was the warmest December on record on all the major datasets.

[IrishRob17]

2 hours ago, Rjay said:

2.7ish here on the season 

Time to get off the island and move to Rockland with @BxEngine

[BxEngine]

13 minutes ago, IrishRob17 said:

Time to get off the island and move to Rockland with @BxEngine

 

[rclab]

32 minutes ago, IrishRob17 said:

Time to get off the island and move to Rockland with @BxEngine

 

19 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

 

I hope Governor Abbot doesn’t hear about this. As always ….

[WestBabylonWeather]

Philly got there’s. Jersey got there’s 

I’m read for another Jan 2022 Long Island special. 

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, WestBabylonWeather said:

Philly got there’s. Jersey got there’s 

I’m read for another Jan 2022 Long Island special. 

hope for January 2016 instead