ORH_wxman

Our big blocking NAO from this warm season disappears faster than a hair follicle on Kevin's head as soon as October/November swing around.

Hopefully the Labor Day of Yore signal gets stronger on the ensembles....some hints there

Looks like an initial step up around 1995 which retreated briefly in the mid-2000s and then a monster step-increase after 2010...I think the next set of normals will help but it really won't be totally gone until the 2011-2040 normals come out. This matches from what I recall with MADIS too...MADIS really started hating BTV in the 2010s after not being bad in the 2000s.

That paper basically argues the opposite of tip's gradient "fast flow" theme. Kind of reinforces my statement earlier how there is a bit of "flavor of the month" syndrome in the literature. That paper was published right after the epic blocking of 2009-2011 where we had slow moving bombs.

I think the backloaded winters are more of a result to a shift of +PDO/Niño type PAC since 2011 rather than some permanent alteration of the polar jet. Before that, we couldn't buy a blockbuster Feb/Mar for like 7-8 seasons going back to the early 2000s. Instead, we had a lot of front-loaded big Decembers and Januarys in that 2003-2011 time period. I suspect this will shift back again once we have a more Niña/-PDO look again like we did in the late 2000s/early2010s. You may be right about the increased blockbuster storms though and the Gulf Stream anomaly since 1996 though. I'm not sure how accurate those maps are on a small scale like that, but certainly higher SSTs up against lower anomalies to the north would be a good breeding ground for cyclogenesis.

Well, it sounds like a subjective analysis then by you on other people's posting behavior. Not sure I can really help other than the below explanation: If you go back through the beginning of this thread and previous Arctic sea ice threads, you'll note that IMS hasn't been used. It's been consistently NSIDC and JAXA...sometimes U bremen and previously Cryosphere Today (now defunct..but they used NSIDC data). I don't know a ton about IMS but my little experience with it from sheer recollection back to the 2009-2013 days is that it seems to lag the other datasets significantly. It will "catch up" to them eventually if it looks like it is deviating on a trend line. That is my guess on what happens this year as well. We won't have to wait long to find out.

Here's some sources....the record we discuss isn't supposed to be about what it means longer term. Most of us know the longer term trend is down. But records are interesting to all of us in the weather community. Why do we sit around and track the thermometer at 101F on a hot summer day when the record is 102F? Does it really feel much different from 99F? Of course not, we're just tracking whether the record gets broken or not. FWIW, we've discussed when we think the first total melt out (definition below 1 million sq km of extent) will be in here: https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/40881-when-we-will-see-an-ice-free-arctic/ https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/46677-when-will-the-2012-arctic-ice-extent-minimum-record-be-broken/?page=3 It does not appear we will set a new record this year based on JAXA, ubremen, and NSIDC. We'll see about the IMS plot you reference but is suspect that will flatten out at some point. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhcmN0aXNjaGVwaW5ndWlufGd4OjU1OGIwZWI0NGI2ZDI5YTM https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/ https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/vishop-extent.html

Area and extent loss have slowed to a crawl the last couple days. We're now behind 2012 by about 300k on extent and 200k on area.

Most of those are in Webster square. The old park theatre was also Webster square. That was by far the worst area hit over to Main St near and just south of downtown....and then over to southbridge st. Basically the areas closest to the blackstone river. Though ive seen pics of shrewsbury st totally flooded (where funky murphys is for those who don't know Worcester well).

A few pics of ORH during the 1955 flood...again, prob never see this type of inundation again due to the changes made in flood controls after this one:

The 1955 floods changed the way Worcester handled their runoff. Those floods basically put downtown under 10-12 feet of water...but they put in flood control channels and other defenses on the blackstone so we'd probably never see another like it again.

Lol. Can he get any further away from CT and still be in SNE?

Keep it AN right through October...maybe one or two sharp cool shots just to remind us that winter is coming but I don't need daily frosts every day between 9/15 and Halloween. No use for that.

Yeah his best hope is probably PVD since they don't really radiate and downslope torch on a NW flow. Maybe BDR too. BDL will put up some good negative lows next week and ORH will put up some good negative maxes. BOS is tossed until they fix it.

BDL +0.8 BDR +0.9 PVD +0.9

We gotta remember this in winter when he switches to using ORH.

It's still there on both OP and ensembles.

Lol he just made it up.

Kevin was kind of spinning it too assuming I meant it had to be a cape tracker. I never even mentioned that. I just said, IJD is sneaky good in those CAD events to see when it's about to collapse for Kevin. Frequently he will go within an hour of IJD spiking 38 to 40.

Lol you know the type of storms I was talking about. Those triple pointers over SE MA that the primary tracks into Ny state...you spike to 36-38 eventually while it never makes freezing to your north until like 33-34F at FROPA. Or maybe it's just a straight track over ginxy. Worst ice storm of my life did that back in 2008.

IJD is secretly a good place to look when you know the CAD is breaking at the sfc around Kevin. They'll be 33F and rain while Kevin is like 28F and ZR/IP. Then all of the sudden IJD will spike to 38F and you know he's done within an hour and it's 33F and RA up on the massif while it rots in the 20s for another 3-5 hours up in interior MA.

Oh I know why he's doing it. That was mostly irrelevant to my overall point though. I was actually talking about him doing that kind of stuff when he was still head of GISS and publishing papers. I was comparing him to Pielke jr in that often the rhetoric didn't match their peer reviewed literature. A lot of the climate science debate has become not very scientific at all and centers around blogs and also interwoven into politics about what "should be done" about it versus the actual numbers. It's understandable at times, but it also hurts the integrity of the science in those times the literature takes a back seat. Btw, I'm not in here to dispute the claim of heat wave attribution. Increased heat waves is one of the few attribution studies that have very high confidence in the science.

Pielke jr's rhetoric is probably fair to be called "impact skeptic"...but it obviously shouldn't be confused with his peer review literature. We could probably make a similar comparison to former head of GISS Dr James Hansen in the opposite direction...he often had very alarmist rhetoric that was fair game for subjective criticism but the literature he published was frequently more subdued than that. It seems to be an increasing issue in the science these days. Separating the twitter feeds, blogs, and press release articles from the actual literature is getting harder and harder to illustrate to the lesser informed public.

You cant look at raw data when it comes to temps...the data has problems that need to be adjusted to make the dataset homogenous. Biggest problem is TOBs (time of observation) adjustment. These are real...TOBs produces about a 0.3 to 0.5C warm bias on temps in the US (and some other sites in North America) in the early/mid 20th century...depending on exact dataset...it might be as low as 0.1 or 0.2 if you use a regional dataset like the southeast US. That's why if you look at the raw data, you'll find that the Arctic temps look similar to the 1930s and 1940s. There are other adjustments too like the change from the older Liquid MMTs to digital thermos.

Pielke has definitely been the subject of smears. It's pretty embarrassing for the scientific community actually given that a lot of his stuff is legit. Chris Landsea is another who got smeared a bit when he published important literature on hurricanes that proved the increase in the Atlantic was almost all due to observational limitations in the early/mid 20th century. Desmog blog ranks as a far leftward bias news site even though the factual reporting is high. So it is no surprise they would try and discredit or downplay anyone who has a milder view of climate change attribution studies like Pielke jr.