February to Forget Volume 2 - 2020

[Ginx snewx]

6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The statement has value because nature always is a process seeking balance - 

nothing else. 

Human 'conceit' seems to have the restoring as somehow taking place protecting us over all else ... ?   Good luck - 

No, the balancing will happen where ever the gradient that is unbalance is given space and time to motivate - if aquatic and land-based biomes are in the way, there's no morality there - that's a human conception.  If we get what that means in super Universal objectivity?  That means your ass!!

I think you have ended humanity more ways than any science fiction writer could imagine. Perhaps you missed one but over the years you certainly are the king of doom. Lol but I am sure some day we all will die. Those who adapt die later.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, OSUmetstud said:

I guess it's how you look at it. The fact that were in a historic +ao regime but still low on ice is a bad sign too. 

I was half kidding with Will a couple weeks back when I surmised that a bad winter at the hands of a +AO indignity has an upshot in that the Arctic really could use this ice-rebuild season - to put it n"ice"ly...

I'm wondering if we are getting any positive returns on this, or if all we are mustering from this journey is static ...  My hunch is the latter, but who knows. 

The problem at the sort of 'intuitive' level is that 'warmest January ever' and point empirical observations like 64.9 F in a region of Antarctica that has never observed that - granted in only 30 years ...which is a dodging hiding post for denial and so forth ... etc etc..  Plus, NASA's reasonably high resolution color-coded salmon fest that only has where?  Alaska as the offset to "normalize" the Global perspective... heh, I would not be shocked if we are not really gaining much ice back despite that raging PV

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

You know that Australian wildfires have occurred which burned more acres right? We get in the way by not allowing open burns trying to control the natural way. Same with building on barrier beaches.  Sand moves.  The problem is us and our decisions. Being smarter is tough when people make decisions based on money or fear.

Excellent post...true and very valid points. 

I have read that regarding those wildfires...I guess what seemed to be the larger concern was how these intense fires started well before their "actual" wildfire season...?

[mahk_webstah]

45 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Oh GOD....I'm so Concerned LMAO.  Meanwhile the ICE in the Arctic as Steve pointed out has increased..but nobody wants to talk about that lol. 

Aren't you the one who was just yesterday saying we shouldn't talk about this?  What you just posted basically proves that you haven't read anything about global warming.  Sea ice extent is one data point and will change seasonally.   For the love of God, this doesn't change the bigger picture that the globe is warming rapidly, at an unprecendented rate...and that this is caused by burning fossil fuels.  Here is the chart of the change in carbon in the atmosphere that goes back 800,000 years.  https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If you want to debate this, good luck.  Perhaps you think NASA and 95%+ of scientist that study this are all engaged in fake news - okay.  It continues to be relevent to discuss how climate change MIGHT be impacting current weather patterns.  It surely is, but perhaps in many ways including ones that are conflicting or counterintuitive.   What would be helpful is that when sometimes remarks that a warming planet might be effecting our weather pattern, is to discuss that in the context of the pattern, not to tell people to go to the climate change thread.  I realize that if you have an opinion that isn't informed by much data or fact, it can be disturbing to have that pointed out to you, and you would then want people to not talk about it.  I encourage you to embrace the cognitive dissonance this creates and let it be a learning opportunity that could help the public dialogue.  Either that or maybe just read Joe Bastardi's whacked out twitter feed.  And I promise that if someone posts a ridiculous doomsday scenario about climate change that is unrealistic or not supporting facts I will be just as clear with them as I am with you.  But, funny, that really never happens on here as far as I can tell.

[STILL N OF PIKE]

Gfs has that trash Tuesday event as the last event  of the month (with say .25 QPF ) mercifully . 

Then on to Morch. This has been an abomination and ya maybe we see a bowling ball in March , but I’ll take the milder morch temps .

 

[WinterWolf]

3 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

Aren't you the one who was just yesterday saying we shouldn't talk about this?  What you just posted basically proves that you haven't read anything about global warming.  Sea ice extent is one data point and will change seasonally.   For the love of God, this doesn't change the bigger picture that the globe is warming rapidly, at an unprecendented rate...and that this is caused by burning fossil fuels.  Here is the chart of the change in carbon in the atmosphere that goes back 800,000 years.  https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If you want to debate this, good luck.  Perhaps you think NASA and 95%+ of scientist that study this are all engaged in fake news - okay.  It continues to be relevent to discuss how climate change MIGHT be impacting current weather patterns.  It surely is, but perhaps in many ways including ones that are conflicting or counterintuitive.   What would be helpful is that when sometimes remarks that a warming planet might be effecting our weather pattern, is to discuss that in the context of the pattern, not to tell people to go to the climate change thread.  I realize that if you have an opinion that isn't informed by much data or fact, it can be disturbing to have that pointed out to you, and you would then want people to not talk about it.  I encourage you to embrace the cognitive dissonance this creates and let it be a learning opportunity that could help the public dialogue.  Either that or maybe just read Joe Bastardi's whacked out twitter feed.  And I promise that if someone posts a ridiculous doomsday scenario about climate change that is unrealistic or not supporting facts I will be just as clear with them as I am with you.  But, funny, that really never happens on here as far as I can tell.

Yup Mark...And I didn't bring it up, somebody else did.  They said they were concerned lol.   And I share Steve's sentiments for the most part.  I don't want to debate it at all.  It doesn't worry me one bit.   

[mahk_webstah]

16 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

I strongly agree here...in fact, I think one could argue that the result of some of what is going on is tied into the balance trying to be re-stored. I know the Earth goes through cycles and the Earth has gone through periods of extreme warmth before...but when you account for the population now compared to back then the scale of the impacts are much more extreme. 

Obviously it can be argued whether humans are directly related to the changes in climate or not...but whether humans are to blame doesn't really change the fact that changes in climate are resulting in significant disruptions to lives/nature. Australia is a great example...now perhaps centuries or thousands of years ago the Hadley cell went through a similar shift to what is occurring now and human-induced climate change isn't to blame...but that's minute. At the end of the day millions of people and wildlife are being impacted. 

Look I hope nature figures out how to rebalance.  I think we don't know about what will happen, but that would be a great outcome.  Personally I'm an optimist about most things, so I think we'll figure it out.

But what I bolded above...you should reevaluate that statement.  It is remarkably hard to argue that.  Please look at the nasa chart on burning of fossil fuels over the last 800,000 years.

[dendrite]

Even a frigid day like this will end up going in as a midnight high of 30° for me. This winter refuses to acknowledge anything cold or snowy. At least it’s winter though. 

[Typhoon Tip]

Yeah..I too am not really sure on the Australian fires.  I've yet to see a truly well-constructive theoretical framework/paper that is fully refereed that explores the total spectrum of causality. 

Embedded in said spectrum "could be" human, ...but I'm wondering if more so for direct route, rather that 'indirectly' with CC stuff.  Example, if/in decades of preventative measures coming back to bite them in the ass. The West learned it's lessons right here at home in North America over the decades, too. Fires are part of the natural order - in fact, most post-fire biomes tend come back with particularly improved vibrance and fertility .. Humanity has a habit of trying to prevent that longer termed, relatively normal ecological restorative vitality engine from running.  Then, a lightning strike happens and all that volatile carbon storage gets the heat needed in the triangle of 'heat', 'fuel', and 'oxygen' and away it goes - and it creates an inflation because the bigger that gets out of control, the uncontrolled aspect grows logarithmic - 

So I think the U.S. does control burns and so forth.  I don't know ... did Australia's burn-stricken regions suppress normal burn rates and set that table unwittingly?  Maybe..  a formal paper would be nice. 

[mahk_webstah]

5 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Even a frigid day like this will end up going in as a midnight high of 30° for me. This winter refuses to acknowledge anything cold or snowy. At least it’s winter though. 

have any hope for Tuesday?  

[Ginx snewx]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah..I too am not really sure on the Australian fires.  I've yet to see a truly well-constructive theoretical framework/paper that is fully refereed that explores the total spectrum of causality. 

Embedded in said spectrum "could be" human, ...but I'm wondering if more so in decades of preventative measures coming back to bite them in the ass. The West learned it's lessons right here at home in North America over the decades, too. Fires are part of the natural order - in fact, most post-fire biomes tend come back with particularly improved vibrance and fertility .. Humanity has a habit of trying to prevent that longer termed, relatively normal ecological restorative vitality engine from running.  Then, a lightning strike happens and all that volatile carbon storage gets the heat needed in the triangle of 'heat', 'fuel', and 'oxygen' and away it goes - and it creates an inflation because the bigger that gets out of control, the uncontrolled aspect grows logarithmic - 

So I think the U.S. does control burns and so forth.  I don't know ... did Australia's burn-stricken regions suppress normal burn rates and set that table unwittingly?  Maybe..  a formal paper would be nice. 

Yes there is great debate in Australia about lack of controlled burns being one issue. The insane IOD made for extreme drought.  Climate change certainly exacerbates human influence. Like I said our decisions to control our environment often result in unintended consequences.  The Army Corp of Engineers debacles over the years is proof enough. Sound Environmental policies try to simulate unintended consequences.  The reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone shows positive unintended consequences. No one predicted how much good became of it. My advice to Governments would be to not rush into solutions that may bite us in the ass eventually 

[Ginx snewx]

12 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Even a frigid day like this will end up going in as a midnight high of 30° for me. This winter refuses to acknowledge anything cold or snowy. At least it’s winter though. 

If you are a stats guy it must be disconcerting but looking at your cam I wouldn't think non winter is part of your discussion 

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah. We finally get a good high to the north this time and the storm wants to go through Lake Huron. Useless. 

If the system was trying to track through BGM or SYR, it would probably be a warning SWFE. 

Still some time for it to trend more favorable, but it’s moving the wrong direction right now. 

And unlike some predecessor systems where the Euro was curling Lakes routed, D5+ ranged systems, ...this one doesn't have the fleeting hope that fast-flow stretching might correct the track more E.  

It appears the whole-scale flow has less meridian expansive character through that evolution/synopsis ( D 4.5 - 6 or so ..), and it's wayward proximity being closer to the the higher latitudes takes it out of the higher velocity correction region of the flow.  It's like 'tipping' into the SPV region of Canada early more so for leaning that way along the way or something.  

The D10 double unphased wave structure in/around the EC longitudes in that run would be more phased and a bigger deal imo if the west and Canadian circulation construct is true, tho. The flow is relaxed/lowered HC structure in the deep S; the ridge in the west if axial along N/S Dakota, and those two circumstances usually parlays toward a slow down and better stream mechanical interaction.  But oh yeah...D10 

[Ginx snewx]

16 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Gfs has that trash Tuesday event as the last event  of the month (with say .25 QPF ) mercifully . 

Then on to Morch. This has been an abomination and ya maybe we see a bowling ball in March , but I’ll take the milder morch temps .

 

If wishes were dishes we would all be fat

[EastonSN+]

From a snow total forecast perspective I wonder who was closest.

I am guessing the lowest as I do not believe anyone had this low.

[Spanks45]

7 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I was half kidding with Will a couple weeks back when I surmised that a bad winter at the hands of a +AO indignity has an upshot in that the Arctic really could use this ice-rebuild season - to put it n"ice"ly...

I'm wonder if we are getting any positive returns on this, or if all we are mustering from this journey is static ...  My hunch is the latter, but who knows. 

The problem at the sort of 'intuitive' level is that 'warmest January ever' and point empirical observations like 64.9 F in a region of Antarctica that has never observed that - granted in only 30 years ...which is a dodging hiding post for denial and so forth ... etc etc..  Plus, NASA's reasonably high resolution color-coded salmon fest that only has where?  Alaska as the offset to "normalize" the Global perspective... heh, I would not be shocked if we are not really gaining much ice back despite that raging PV

Odds are it is only a rebuild of a few inches(if not less) that will melt off completely this summer when they hit some record highs again...The heat has been offsetting any gains now for decades.

I assume the only thing that would produce a net gain besides few decades of this type of +AO regime would be some sort of super volcanic eruption. Otherwise it is going to take decades of gradual cooling to refreeze what we have lost. I do like seeing cooling in areas that need it, the wildlife definitely needs it, but we are sacrificing our winters int the mean time ugghh...

Not to continue derailing the thread, but the real issue with CC is how we are getting there and what we are doing to our planet during the process. Polluting our water sources and the air we breathe by burning fossil fuels that were stored perfectly over millions of years by the planet (clearly the planet's way of reaching equilibrium was to store all of it away, deep inside the earth). But we chose to yank it all out and throw it back into the atmosphere in what less than 200 years? Our intelligence has given us ways to harness energy from the sun/wind/water, which could have helped us reverse some things, yet greed has kept us from that at this point.

The melting ice sheets/glaciers has happened before and will happen again as will the rebuilding process. Flooding coastlines is not a real issue unless you live there and we are able to move away and/or build walls. As humans we can adapt(fairly quickly) to most of what climate change will throw at us. The real issues here are things such as the acidification of the oceans. Not many care about that or even have a clue as to what that will do so everyone uses the fear of flooding coastlines and sea level rises to help lead a change. Change the chemistry of the oceans too much and we are most likely not going to survive. But I will stop the "left" doomsday stuff, since science has taken a back seat recently. As a scientist with a degree in Marine Biology/Marine Science/Oceanography, the threat is real. It is very disheartening the way I have seen real science being derailed by politcal/corporate greed. I feel scientists need someone to stand up for them, they are going to be the ones that will hopefully find away to "save" us before it is too late (last one I promise)...

[Ginx snewx]

Man that's a stout high. Probably a good snowstorm far NNE ski area's 

[Typhoon Tip]

23 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Yes there is great debate in Australia about lack of controlled burns being one issue. The insane IOD made for extreme drought.  Climate change certainly exacerbates human influence. Like I said our decisions to control our environment often result in unintended consequences.  The Army Corp of Engineers debacles over the years is proof enough. Sound Environmental policies try to simulate unintended consequences.  The reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone shows positive unintended consequences. No one predicted how much good became of it. My advice to Governments would be to not rush into solutions that may bite us in the ass eventually 

Yup...bingo! 

The problem is that these systems have multiple time-constraints in their moving parts?  It's complex, but ...some things that are dependent, cannot be seen now..but may need to wait a 100 years - or some unknown time where is required before effects/affects can be measured.  So we in our brazen science 'think' we truly understand a system enough, and then we go in with our ingenuity and do x-y-z and sure a-b behave ... but "c" runs amok with unanticipated consequences.   To mention, chaos and entropy in changing or forcibly adapting systems..

I'm just sort of expanding on your (bold) statement above - word!   

[cleetussnow]

41 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

I strongly agree here...in fact, I think one could argue that the result of some of what is going on is tied into the balance trying to be re-stored. I know the Earth goes through cycles and the Earth has gone through periods of extreme warmth before...but when you account for the population now compared to back then the scale of the impacts are much more extreme. 

Obviously it can be argued whether humans are directly related to the changes in climate or not...but whether humans are to blame doesn't really change the fact that changes in climate are resulting in significant disruptions to lives/nature. Australia is a great example...now perhaps centuries or thousands of years ago the Hadley cell went through a similar shift to what is occurring now and human-induced climate change isn't to blame...but that's minute. At the end of the day millions of people and wildlife are being impacted. 

The climate is changing at the moment for sure, but it doesn't appear that there is some kind of long term stability/balanced/harmonious climate state, and I mean in a thousands years timescale or something like that.  The Yellow Emperor, Caesar, Charlemagne, Louis the 14th, and Lincoln all had different climate as far as we know from records and accounts. Keep going back in human history before writing and its generally warmed since.  I'm not sure if we can really say the climate is altered forever and that this particular observed period is vastly different than other fluxy periods.  I think the human lifespan is short compared to what a significant climate episode likely is.  A significant episode could be like an ice age, or some other event that extends past a few hundred year period.

Is warming over 50 years meaningful?  Will it last 10,000 years?  I dunno.  The former is within our lifetimes so it gets the most consideration since that is the only time scale anyone living can experience.

Its 29 here, clear sky, light breeze today.  Pretty normal for this date and locale.  Does that matter?  

[ORH_wxman]

9 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Man that's a stout high. Probably a good snowstorm far NNE ski area's 

 

If we can stop trending this into Lake Huron....then yeah.

[Spanks45]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

If we can stop trending this into Lake Huron....then yeah.

Is there anything upstream to prevent this at this point?

[weatherwiz]

Waters off Africa are quite warm...just based off of looking seems like you have to go back to 2016 to find similar anomalies at the same time frame. I think that was an active Cape Verde season? If that persist into the summer with ENSO neutral or ENSO negative...maybe an active Atlantic season. 

Anyways, sometimes I like staring at these maps (though haven't done so in a while) and think about how these anomalies help to shape and configure the pattern and what relation/role they have in some of the major oscillations/teleconnections. 

[Ginx snewx]

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

If we can stop trending this into Lake Huron....then yeah.

Probably a tuck PWM

[dryslot]

Get this to track east into upstate NY then we can talk.

[ORH_wxman]

4 minutes ago, Spanks45 said:

Is there anything upstream to prevent this at this point?

There is nothing obvious...but you can always have a different looking shortwave once it gets closer and the whole thing ends up flatter (or even more amped). The main shortwave responsible is still like 3000 miles out in the pacific southwest of the Aleutians. There's a bunch of arctic jet shortwaves too up north spinning around in areas with bad satellite data....any of those could affect the pattern too.

 

[dryslot]

One would think we would be able to get at least one of these to work out favorably this winter, Its been a string of bad luck one after another, Very frustrating.

[Ginx snewx]

1 minute ago, dryslot said:

One would think we would be able to get at least one of these to work out favorably this winter, Its been a string of bad luck one after another, Very frustrating.

Wouldn't take much for a NNE special 

[dryslot]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

Wouldn't take much for a NNE special 

And there has been a few that didn't need much this winter and we couldn't get the "much" that was needed.

[mahk_webstah]

50 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

If you are a stats guy it must be disconcerting but looking at your cam I wouldn't think non winter is part of your discussion 

We have a very solid base of 6-12 in the woods up here and a decent cover in open fields.  We just can't seem to get the decent dump that would allow for more wintery activities like snowmobiling, and give us a deep snowpack for a few weeks.  We can't quite get there this year.  But it does show that even in a shitty year we do well with retention.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

7 minutes ago, dryslot said:

One would think we would be able to get at least one of these to work out favorably this winter, Its been a string of bad luck one after another, Very frustrating.

Going up to N Conway this weekend and 2 weeks ago I thought for sure they would have a good base by now.  Nope.  
 

Greenfield looks like it has as much snow on the ground as North Conway.