Meteorological Winter 2018 Banter

[weatherpruf]

4 minutes ago, 495weatherguy said:

What I am genuinely concerned with is how people are so absolutely certain with respect to global warning, reminiscent of those who were absolutely certain of our mini ice age

There was no scientific consensus in the 70's on a new ice age. There were some articles in the popular press and and popular book and a few scientists who noted a cooling trend due to air pollution. Today there is scientific consensus and thousands of peer reviewed research articles.  

 

[495weatherguy]

6 minutes ago, psv88 said:

 

 

Nobody is blaming this winter on climate change. Areas south of us got snow. Maybe the polar vortex dropping south caused by warmer sea temps in the arctic, but you guys are making stuff up. 

I don’t think anyone was “blaming” this winter on climate change or anything other than these things happen.  

[the_other_guy]

7 minutes ago, psv88 said:

 

 

Nobody is blaming this winter on climate change. Areas south of us got snow. Maybe the polar vortex dropping south caused by warmer sea temps in the arctic, but you guys are making stuff up. 

From the Feb thread “Our climate is changing. We will see more blockbuster seasons for the next few decades before we eventually reach a critical mass and temps are too warm for snow“

 

 

[psv88]

1 minute ago, jfklganyc said:

From the Feb thread “Our climate is changing. We will see more blockbuster seasons for the next few decades before we eventually reach a critical mass and temps are too warm for snow“

 

 

And that shows someone blaming this winter on climate change how?

[psv88]

3 minutes ago, weatherpruf said:

There was no scientific consensus in the 70's on a new ice age. There were some articles in the popular press and and popular book and a few scientists who noted a cooling trend due to air pollution. Today there is scientific consensus and thousands of peer reviewed research articles.  

 

Yea it’s funny there was one mainstream article on the cooling planet 45 years ago that some point to. Very strange.

[nzucker]

5 minutes ago, psv88 said:

And that shows someone blaming this winter on climate change how?

No one is saying this winter's low snowfall is caused by climate change. We've discussed many factors on here: the lack of ENSO-atmospheric coupling, the descending +QBO, high AAM and the location of AAM deposits. Part of it is also just luck, as you can see by the much higher totals in Cape May County, DC, and BWI, areas that average significantly less snow than NYC. There is a difference in pointing out trends occurring in the next few decades versus blaming this winter's low snowfall on climate change. No one has done that. 

[JustinRP37]

13 minutes ago, 495weatherguy said:

What I am genuinely concerned with is how people are so absolutely certain with respect to global warning, reminiscent of those who were absolutely certain of our mini ice age

Because we know the different heat properties of different gasses. We know that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but we release far more CO2. We know that all the carbon we are releasing from fossil fuels has been buried in the earth for millions of years. All we are doing when we pump oil, gas, coal, etc. is bringing this stored carbon and burning it, releasing CO2 into the air. Yes, CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past; yes the climate has been warmer in the past. But typically climate change is very slow allowing plants, animals, and microbes the ability evolve. And humans most likely would not have been able to survive those periods either. Further, as a vector disease researcher, we are seeing the movement of certain diseases and their vectors that are not following human paths, but climate paths. But another huge issue that does not receive much media coverage, is the ever shrinking biodiversity on the planet, which might actually have far greater impacts in our lifetime than climate change. Humans have always been smart enough in the past to figure out problems though, so I do believe we will ultimately figure things out. 

[JustinRP37]

14 minutes ago, jfklganyc said:

From the Feb thread “Our climate is changing. We will see more blockbuster seasons for the next few decades before we eventually reach a critical mass and temps are too warm for snow“

 

 

That isn't blaming this year on climate change. Many models though do show increasing snowfall here as the climate warms for some time. This is because we will also likely see an increase in precipitation. You cannot blame one year or one season on climate change. That is weather. Weather varies from year to year, day to day. Climate is long term averages. So if we note rapid changes over time those may be attributed to climate change. 

[weatherpruf]

Just now, psv88 said:

Yea it’s funny there was one mainstream article on the cooling planet 45 years ago that some point to. Very strange.

The reasons behind denial are complex and I won't get into them here. But you probably already know this.

[Rjay]

Deniers are lolz

[nzucker]

1 minute ago, JustinRP37 said:

That isn't blaming this year on climate change. Many models though do show increasing snowfall here as the climate warms for some time. This is because we will also likely see an increase in precipitation. You cannot blame one year or one season on climate change. That is weather. Weather varies from year to year, day to day. Climate is long term averages. So if we note rapid changes over time those may be attributed to climate change. 

Right, the increase in precipitation may have a greater impact on snowfall than the increase in temperatures, especially in colder areas. We've seen this with some very high QPF storms in recent years like the March 2017 mixed event and the January 2016 Nor'easter. However, eventually the warming temperatures will become too much, and snowfall will start to decrease; most models show this happening in the second half of the 21st century. If NYC's climate does warm to the current climate of the AR/MO border, as shown in the NYT article, or even to the climate of DC, there will be a substantial decrease in snowfall.

[psv88]

7 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

Because we know the different heat properties of different gasses. We know that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but we release far more CO2. We know that all the carbon we are releasing from fossil fuels has been buried in the earth for millions of years. All we are doing when we pump oil, gas, coal, etc. is bringing this stored carbon and burning it, releasing CO2 into the air. Yes, CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past; yes the climate has been warmer in the past. But typically climate change is very slow allowing plants, animals, and microbes the ability evolve. And humans most likely would not have been able to survive those periods either. Further, as a vector disease researcher, we are seeing the movement of certain diseases and their vectors that are not following human paths, but climate paths. But another huge issue that does not receive much media coverage, is the ever shrinking biodiversity on the planet, which might actually have far greater impacts in our lifetime than climate change. Humans have always been smart enough in the past to figure out problems though, so I do believe we will ultimately figure things out. 

On that note, i was reading some article about the next mass extinction and how the earth will recover with millions of new species, like has happened after each prior mass extinction. Mass extinctions are bad for us in the short term for the elimination and management of insect pests and pollination of food, but long term it will even out. 

[psv88]

1 minute ago, nzucker said:

Right, the increase in precipitation may have a greater impact on snowfall than the increase in temperatures, especially in colder areas. We've seen this with some very high QPF storms in recent years like the March 2017 mixed event and the January 2016 Nor'easter. However, eventually the warming temperatures will become too much, and snowfall will start to decrease; most models show this happening in the second half of the 21st century. If NYC's climate does warm to the current climate of the AR/MO border, as shown in the NYT article, or even to the climate of DC, there will be a substantial decrease in snowfall.

One thing is that climate models are fickle and complex. Sure climate warms, but when Greenland melts and the North Atlantic is much less salty, what happens to the Gulf Stream? Does the lack of salinity disrupt its flow and lead to colder waters off the east coast? Does a cooler Gulf Stream means less intense nor’easters? Frankly, nobody really knows.

[Juliancolton]

21 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Yea it’s funny there was one mainstream article on the cooling planet 45 years ago that some point to. Very strange.

The worst part of that is the people who take said magazine cover as irrefutable, unassailable fact spend their days carrying on about how all media is fake news. Can't have it both ways.

[JustinRP37]

12 minutes ago, psv88 said:

On that note, i was reading some article about the next mass extinction and how the earth will recover with millions of new species, like has happened after each prior mass extinction. Mass extinctions are bad for us in the short term for the elimination and management of insect pests and pollination of food, but long term it will even out. 

Yes the earth will always recover, but what if we are one of the species that does not make it? Off topic though haha.

[weatherpruf]

4 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

Yes the earth will always recover, but what if we are one of the species that does not make it? Off topic though haha.

The stuff of nightmares....of course the sun will eventually burn out too. Long after we're gone. Always loved the Twilight Zone episode where the planet is burning up, character wakes up and the planet is actually freezing over. 

[nzucker]

41 minutes ago, psv88 said:

One thing is that climate models are fickle and complex. Sure climate warms, but when Greenland melts and the North Atlantic is much less salty, what happens to the Gulf Stream? Does the lack of salinity disrupt its flow and lead to colder waters off the east coast? Does a cooler Gulf Stream means less intense nor’easters? Frankly, nobody really knows.

A slowing Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation could actually leave eastern Northern America (and parts of western Europe) colder than average while the tropics bake. Some studies have shown slow-downs in this circulation pattern induced by the large influx of cold, fresh water into the NATL from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. I don't know the impact on Nor'easters (except we can't buy one this year), but the temperature effect is more obvious.

[ForestHillWx]

1 hour ago, nzucker said:

A slowing Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation could actually leave eastern Northern America (and parts of western Europe) colder than average while the tropics bake. Some studies have shown slow-downs in this circulation pattern induced by the large influx of cold, fresh water into the NATL from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. I don't know the impact on Nor'easters (except we can't buy one this year), but the temperature effect is more obvious.

That sounds like the plot of "Day After Tomorrow"; a guilty pleasure, as I am a "climate denier" by in large. I even read posts above yours, where our neighborhood professor alleges "complexity" in these "denials", in a rather dismissive post; I shudder to think what else he may know about me, that I do not know. 

As this post will be deleted, and I may in fact be shunned from the main thread, in my own humble opinion, there is nothing worse in life than stifling debate by casting out the heretics. Science is a continual study of nature. Always evolving, much like our weather/climate. 

Personally, I drive a 12 year old car that still gets 35mpg; my home is lit via led lights. Much to the dismay of my wife, the winter time indoor temperature stays below 67 degrees. I do all of this, not because of my contribution to the carbon foot print, but the impact on my wallet. (Which if the greenies get there way, will cause everyone of us to reconsider our power demand, but I digress).

Anyway, it seemed the AGW debate was permitted latitude here; I just wanted to speak up in case there are any other "deniers" looking for snowstorms on the horizon. 

 

[nzucker]

1 minute ago, ForestHillWx said:

That sounds like the plot of "Day After Tomorrow"; a guilty pleasure, as I am a "climate denier" by in large. I even read posts above yours, where our neighborhood professor alleges "complexity" in these "denials", in a rather dismissive post; I shudder to think what else he may know about me, that I do not know. 

As this post will be deleted, and I may in fact be shunned from the main thread, in my own humble opinion, there is nothing worse in life than stifling debate by casting out the heretics. Science is a continual study of nature. Always evolving, much like our weather/climate. 

Personally, I drive a 12 year old car that still gets 35mpg; my home is lit via led lights. Much to the dismay of my wife, the winter time indoor temperature stays below 67 degrees. I do all of this, not because of my contribution to the carbon foot print, but the impact on my wallet. (Which if the greenies get there way, will cause everyone of us to reconsider our power demand, but I digress).

Anyway, it seemed the AGW debate was permitted latitude here; I just wanted to speak up in case there are any other "deniers" looking for snowstorms on the horizon. 

 

Well we're all looking for snowstorms on the horizon, denier or not, lol. It's been that kind of winter.

[bluewave]

This is why the new FV3 has been showing so much virtual snow. I really hope this is corrected before next winter when it will be the only GFS.

https://mobile.twitter.com/plustssn/status/1096449031889477664

A cold bias below ~700 mb (way more severe than the current GFS) has been a fixture of the FV3 runs since early November

[LibertyBell]

13 hours ago, JustinRP37 said:

Yes the earth will always recover, but what if we are one of the species that does not make it? Off topic though haha.

If you consider the health of a planet, maybe us not making it would be a good thing.

Maybe that is the ultimate answer to the Fermi Paradox- technological species sow the seeds of their own destruction.

We may need to start colonizing space, but what if the distances are so prohibitive that most technological species die off on their planet of origin because of how they've affected their environment?  Poetic justice in a way and yet also tragic.

To be honest, I believe if we do make it, future humans will look upon us and our systems of government and economics the way we think of Neanderthals.  Hopefully they are far more evolved than we were and learn their lessons about avoiding the unsustainability of greed, using up resources, pollution and overpopulation.

 

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, psv88 said:

On that note, i was reading some article about the next mass extinction and how the earth will recover with millions of new species, like has happened after each prior mass extinction. Mass extinctions are bad for us in the short term for the elimination and management of insect pests and pollination of food, but long term it will even out. 

Human caused mass extinctions like the one we are in now are far far worse because of the way they happen.  Make no mistake about it, humanity is in a much more fragile point than most people realize.  We are dependent on these species, because we are part of the environment and what happens to it happens to us.  The only way it will really even out is when humanity is gone from the planet- one way or another.

Human land usage, like animal agriculture, and usage of pesticides are big problems.  And the number of people on the planet is bordering on unmanageable.  We'll reach a crossroads at some point, either colonize space or face extinction.

 

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, JustinRP37 said:

Because we know the different heat properties of different gasses. We know that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but we release far more CO2. We know that all the carbon we are releasing from fossil fuels has been buried in the earth for millions of years. All we are doing when we pump oil, gas, coal, etc. is bringing this stored carbon and burning it, releasing CO2 into the air. Yes, CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past; yes the climate has been warmer in the past. But typically climate change is very slow allowing plants, animals, and microbes the ability evolve. And humans most likely would not have been able to survive those periods either. Further, as a vector disease researcher, we are seeing the movement of certain diseases and their vectors that are not following human paths, but climate paths. But another huge issue that does not receive much media coverage, is the ever shrinking biodiversity on the planet, which might actually have far greater impacts in our lifetime than climate change. Humans have always been smart enough in the past to figure out problems though, so I do believe we will ultimately figure things out. 

But guess what- methane leaks from fracking- which is one reason why fracking is banned in NY.  Methane is also being released in the Arctic as the ice melts.  We will be off of fossil fuels completely by 2050, the question is, will that be soon enough?

Biodiversity is a huge problem directly linked to human overpopulation.  We need a greater balance on the planet and if it happens because of humanity's demise- that's just how it will have to be.  Nature self-regulates and we are a part of that system, whether we like it or not.

 

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, nzucker said:

No one is saying this winter's low snowfall is caused by climate change. We've discussed many factors on here: the lack of ENSO-atmospheric coupling, the descending +QBO, high AAM and the location of AAM deposits. Part of it is also just luck, as you can see by the much higher totals in Cape May County, DC, and BWI, areas that average significantly less snow than NYC. There is a difference in pointing out trends occurring in the next few decades versus blaming this winter's low snowfall on climate change. No one has done that. 

It's idiotic how emotional deniers get like if it somehow effects them personally that there is climate change.

They should get so mad at corrupt corporations that cover up research, pollute the environment and put unsafe chemicals in our food and cease private land to build dirty pipelines.

You know the type of low information people I am talking about- the ones that specifically follow the low IQ orange skinned moron that is our dictator-in-chief, while he criticizes other forms of government that are far more democratic and the fact is he is far more authoritarian than any one he criticizes and a lot more like the ones he supports- like Saudi Arabia and North Korea.  He's the intellectual equivalent of a Flat Earther.

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, sussexcountyobs said:

Yup. If your 45 yrs old or older, this winter is not an anomaly caused by climate change. We had these winters in the 70's and 80's when the global warming crowd said we were heading into an ice age .

Nothing is "caused" by climate change- it's not as simple as that.  It is simply the base state on top of which everything else happens.

 

[LibertyBell]

16 hours ago, sussexcountyobs said:

Asking a serious question. I read on here that climate change is the reason we've had bigger snow storms in the last 10-20 yrs, then its melted in a week or so, because of climate change. And it's going to get worse in the next few decades. Supposedly it's gotten so warm over the last 100 yrs? Maybe it has? But 100 yrs is a blip in the time frame of Earth's age. So. The last 100 or even 200 yrs of temperature or snowfall does not represent any global climate change caused by man. 100 , 200 or 300 yrs is is 1 second on the geological scale. Hence my question. What was the winter weather in the NYC area 800 yrs ago?

If you want to compare what the climate on this planet was on geological time scales (which are millions of years if not billions) then you might as well compare it to Mars.  Hint: the planet was not habitable through most of its history, so that argument doesn't apply.  And changes that happen naturally are far different from artificial changes which happen on much shorter time scales.  This doesn't just apply to climate change but to all the horrible stuff humanity has been doing to the planet and ourselves in the name of larger profits.

 

[Stormlover74]

Lol long range gfs. Teens and an MECS

[IrishRob17]

25 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Lol long range gfs. Teens and an MECS

At least its within 400 hours...

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

23 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Lol long range gfs. Teens and an MECS

Could be mixing issues in SENJ, watch out for icing in SE Virginia. Sun angle could also be a problem. Luckily we won't have changed the clocks by then and it will still be dark earlier. I'm also worried about suppression in the HV. Did I miss anything?

[Stormlover74]

11 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

Could be mixing issues in SENJ, watch out for icing in SE Virginia. Sun angle could also be a problem. Luckily we won't have changed the clocks by then and it will still be dark earlier. Did I miss anything?

it'll be 75 the day before so the snow won't stick right away