Typhoon Tip

26,000 tons of iron ore Tropospheric fold whoops

Yeah, I saw something related to that ^ last week. A paper discussing the pivot point as being weaker than previously thought.

Can't say I actually disagree here ... whether this chart above actually occurs in reality, the time frame in question is vulnerable to early season winter expression. This has been very consistent in the numerical teleconnectors, with a lowering -(AO/NAO). The AO and NAO share domain space; they are not exactly collocated. The NAO appears to be weighting the AO down when looking at the different ensembles spatial depictions of the H500 hgt anomalies, the expression of which are also setting up over the western limb ( E/NE Canada/ Baffin Island/ D. Straight ...etc) of the NAO domain. The cyclone genesis/track correlation for that type is S of of. The problems are the notoriously poor handling of the NAO in terms of spatial layout nuances and amplitude. It makes it less useful as a forecast planning tool as say the PNA, which given to it's massive size, tends to be change slower, making it more reliable ( bigger objects taking longer to change and so forth ) Lot of concepts to juggle here ...I know. The operational runs have been fiddling with the notion of above ... hinting in then abandoning, then back in with it... fits that notoriety of being an unruly index. But, so long as the signal is there in both numerical and synoptical presentation, the probability for a cold system type during that period is > than daily climatology.

Looked like a polar low was trying to generate as it rolled down eastern Lake Michigan a couple of hours ago. fascinating

Not to make light of what you feel your situation is ... or is in fact, but doesn't that ( bold ) qualify as a home?

Not sure if you're kidding or not but ... personally? I don't have a problem with him in general. He's had some really interesting guests on his program over the years, and has shown a type of journalistic curiosity in getting them to speak from their positions of expertise - open minded and genuinely inquisitive. When he's interviewed so many luminaries from such a broad spectrum of disciplines, ranging from the most esoteric physics, to the humanities and entertainment ... he's been fair. He allows them their presentation. He's just not right in his ideas with climatology. It's not a crime. One thing that he does not appear to be is abstinent when posed with logic that exposes what is objectively real - that's a key difference.

`Well there you go... if what you are saying is true ( bold ^ ...I'll leave that up to you) than it shows - this just a little logic application and critical analysis, they are dubious (and immoral by the way) without even knowing their history.

It was suspicious ... These two struck me as big oil moles - they may not be linked as such, but they plied the same sort of tactic that big oil used to attempt. Buyout intellectuals pay them to be lobbyists, sending them into public forums and/or legislative debates. et al, where raise points that are ultimately false, but brilliantly articulated, thus too difficult to adjudicate and/or be objectively critical of by the target audience - who by not fault of their own, are just not educated or experiences or capable. This is particularly effective when the audiences are bias to begin with, such as Rogen and his reach. He's a CC skeptic, based upon his general history, one that is more than likely influenced by a political base - a latter aspect that is evinced via his media portrait and expose' over recent years. So Lendzen wastes no time in smirkly nose laughing comments that discredit climate science, 'how can there be a huge consensus when there are so few climate scientists around' - or words to that affect. It's so patently absurd when you think that climate scientists are but a fraction of the voices. What about all the alarms from oceanographers and biologist and general environment/natural scientists, et al... what about all them? No one in his audience - for example - even knows to ask that. It's obvious these guys are specious. Or stupid. ... and then he goes on to make statements to the affect of, 'you should be suspicious of any consensus'

It's 63 here ... What little wind is actually slacked off and even though the sun's angle is pretty ablate ( OH, heh...right, today enters the solar minimum - for the next 91.25 days until we exit Feb 8-10th) it feels quite warm. After a few days of 50/27, this feels more balmy than it is ? adding to it anyway

No, your villainizing the wrong person They were talking about climate change, and the usual suspects were in this denial mode again. I asked them salient questions, based upon incontrovertible logic and actual science already proven…and then was called an asshole by Steve for it Sorry, I was triggered I wasn’t talking about fucking temperature trends. And I’m still pissed off they can both go to f hell

And you’re an ignoramus worse yet you’re an ignoramus masquerading as righteousness when you’re not fucking right about anything. you’re completely in the wrong on this and your abstinence in even trying to understand global warming is what’s actually reprehensible. And I’m through with it. I’m sick of it. I’m tired of you and people like you and it’s time to pull you guys and make an example I don’t care what you think of me for having said this; the truth needs to be said You and people like you are a problem for humanity. you’ve been told in flat undeniable logic, and you still can’t penetrate your mind Don’t respond to me ever again put me on ignore and just shut the fuck up you ignorant asshole

The truth hurts, Steve? I didn't say anything untrue There's nothing elitist about subject matter that you either don't understand, or just don't believe in. Either way... . You've always been a truculent insufferable blue collar nimrod with clear resentment issues over your station, who's also routinely lied about your env sci creds over the years - made patently obvious whenever you type - and then hide over the internet when being disrespectful. If someone has clad argument other than abstinence, I'm sure the consensus here will be glad to engage with them. You you and him ...and people like you are on the wrong side of history and truth. How's that for elitist - eat shit.

What is your reticence in accepting this very simple, objectively real fact that anthropomorphic C02 forcing is causing an acceleration of warming? You either lack the mental capacity, or you are fucking with us...either way, this grows tiresome and in fact - it matters that it is growing tiresome, because people like you, not respecting the peril the world is facing, are ultimately a detriment to finding a salvation from and panacea for this crisis. I'll explain this once in simple words: Yes, obvious records reveal that climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but never as fast as since the Industrial Revolution. And as others have directly described in no uncertain terms, this has been verified by atmospheric chemistry to be 1:1 correlated to C02 surplus that cannot be explained as originating from any other source. Moreover, "normal variability" ( to which you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground frankly because you have no accredidation to demonstrate otherwise ) cannot explain the observed warming since the 1950s - until the C02 humanity is responsible for is factored. Hook line and sinker. It is therefore among the most extremely likely scenarios known to statistical math, > 95%, that human C02 ( and actually there are also other industrial out-gassing that contribute, btw) is the cause of that warming. There is no other cause. Global Warming is happening because of anthropomorphic forcing. The beauty of all this is that it is true whether you believe it or not.

Well, anyway ... the increased variability and variance range ( large warm to cellar cold) that's been observably increasing during both autumn and spring ( transition seasons ) has already been geophysically demonstrated to be a function of CC. The altering of the circulation modes during those times of the year causes jet stream 'meanders' that increase frequency of transient blocking in the Ferrel latitudes ( up there around 60 N). Those impose unusually early ( and late season) cold and snow delivery to mid latitudes. But the integral of the whole Earth at the time that is occurring is in a state of d(warmth). But ... if one cannot understand the reality of CC to begin with... not sure how explaining why the circulation modes are changing, as part of CC, will ever get successfully registered. Not understanding how or why something works, is not a veracious reason to adjudicate a subject matter as false. I suspect though that isn't the case here; no one is lacking the intellectual capacity; the lack of admitting or acceptance is most likely for political bias blinding.

Is it possible that the scaffolding that builds up the antithetical position may be flawed science ?