Spring Banter

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Yeah... I never understood the idea that homeschool kids were less social.  The ones I know had the gamut of personalities and successes/failures that "regular" school kids show.  

The quirkiness of kids in general is just unreal.  Some are like miniature accountant adults, others should be in the circus.  Not sure which I prefer... probably the circus ones...lol

I think people don't appreciate the mimicry of adults that kids do, good and bad. They pick up so many habits and quirks by watching the adults around them. It's really important to raise them in a good environment. It's also why a good teacher is sometimes the last line of defense for a kid from a bad home. That's his/her last good role model to emulate.

[DavisStraight]

38 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Man, BOS is going to be in for a lot of below average snowfall seasons with a 49.1" average now....get ready for all the news stories about climate change depleting their snowfall (while ignoring that it went up like 8 inches between the 1961-1990 and 1991-2020 norms)

What would it be if you removed 2015 from the average? Would it be much closer to the old average?

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

What would it be if you removed 2015 from the average? Would it be much closer to the old average?

2015 adds about 2 inches to the BOS average. That is a lot of influence for one season. That said, it would still be up around 47.1 or 47.2 if you removed 2015, so it is still a pretty obscene 30 years compared to historical BOS even if you take out 2015.

[Typhoon Tip]

47 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Man, BOS is going to be in for a lot of below average snowfall seasons with a 49.1" average now....get ready for all the news stories about climate change depleting their snowfall (while ignoring that it went up like 8 inches between the 1961-1990 and 1991-2020 norms)

They will get it wrong because there is no responsibility to real science and vetting practices in media - or eroding ...badly,

but - the snow "increase" in the first place was predicted by climate models to occur in a warming atmosphere that holds more PWAT density going into precipitation mechanics. I mean that pertains to all of it.. Not just snow. Rain too...  It's not like we dismiss climate change - just wanna make that clear...seeing as despite the drought in New England -LOL...

Simply put, they'd be wrong over that as a signal, when the signal is/was the anticedent increase before they got to it. 

I think- -personally ... what happens is that it continues to snow harder relative to storm, pattern, and seasonal climate inferences ... either scale or dimension, until it declines because more and more of it gradually begins to occur as liquid rain.  Who knows when that will be...  But obviously, we can always have seasonal anomalies that are at times anti-correlating anyway - those'll get f'up too

[CoastalWx]

55 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Man, BOS is going to be in for a lot of below average snowfall seasons with a 49.1" average now....get ready for all the news stories about climate change depleting their snowfall (while ignoring that it went up like 8 inches between the 1961-1990 and 1991-2020 norms)

I may leave the board.

[ORH_wxman]

8 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

They will get it wrong because there is no responsibility to real science and vetting practices in media - or eroding ...badly,

but - the snow "increase" in the first place was predicted by climate models to occur in a warming atmosphere that holds more PWAT density going into precipitation mechanics. I mean that pertains to all of it.. Not just snow. Rain too...  It's not like we dismiss climate change - just wanna make that clear...seeing as despite the drought in New England -LOL...

Simply put, they'd be wrong over that as a signal, when the signal is/was the anticedent increase before they got to it. 

I think- -personally ... what happens is that it continues to snow harder relative to storm, pattern, and seasonal climate inferences ... either scale or dimension, until it declines because more and more of it gradually begins to occur as liquid rain.  Who knows when that will be...  But obviously, we can always have seasonal anomalies that are at times anti-correlating anyway - those'll get f'up too

This was true of more arctic and sub-arctic regions but it wasn't modeled well for places like New England (sans maybe NNE mountains).....there are still latest-generation climate models that predict a 50-70% decline in snowfall for our area between 2010-2040....doesn't pass the smell test. Not that climate models are overly reliable on a regional scale anyway. They tend to perform much better on the global scale.

BTW, I agree with you on what is going on though. Increased water vapor should lead to more snow given the nature of the warming going on (it is not fast enough to offset the precip increase, and more of the warming if occurring during overnight clear nights than at other times).

[Typhoon Tip]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

This was true of more arctic and sub-arctic regions but it wasn't modeled well for places like New England (sans maybe NNE mountains).....there are still latest-generation climate models that predict a 50-70% decline in snowfall for our area between 2010-2040....doesn't pass the smell test. Not that climate models are overly reliable on a regional scale anyway. They tend to perform much better on the global scale.

BTW, I agree with you on what is going on though. Increased water vapor should lead to more snow given the nature of the warming going on (it is not fast enough to offset the precip increase, and more of the warming if occurring during overnight clear nights than at other times).

I wonder if that comes down to getting cutesy with the modeling parameters specific to geo-classing at regions ... ?

I remember pretty clear and cleanly the early stuff from the 1980s and 1980s that was papered on the subject - I know it was significantly more coarse...

It's interesting that these later generations are contrary perhaps at more regional scales - I wonder if they 're-ran' those early versions, if they still suggest heavier rain-fall.  

As far as the 2010 to 2040 ... that may fail, or succeed ... I mean, if get into a drying/drought mode more signIficant at at continental scale, we drop snow anyway - it's an ambrosia of opportunity to mislead due to conflicting layers that 99.9999% of audiences have no f'ing clue how to critically absorb  - LOL

[powderfreak]

13 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

This was true of more arctic and sub-arctic regions but it wasn't modeled well for places like New England (sans maybe NNE mountains).....there are still latest-generation climate models that predict a 50-70% decline in snowfall for our area between 2010-2040....doesn't pass the smell test. Not that climate models are overly reliable on a regional scale anyway. They tend to perform much better on the global scale.

BTW, I agree with you on what is going on though. Increased water vapor should lead to more snow given the nature of the warming going on (it is not fast enough to offset the precip increase, and more of the warming if occurring during overnight clear nights than at other times).

That’s always been my take.  Temperatures are still cold enough to produce snow in the means, even with multiple tenths of a degree of warming ongoing.  Physics says more water in the atmosphere means more snow below 32.0F.

Conceptually one would imagine a gradual increase in snowfall until at some point it starts to fall off a Cliff once that critical point is hit, no?

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I wonder if that comes down to getting cutesy with the modeling parameters specific to geo-classing at regions ... ?

I remember pretty clear and cleanly the early stuff from the 1980s and 1980s that was papered on the subject - I know it was significantly more coarse...

It's interesting that these later generations are contrary perhaps at more regional scales - I wonder if they 're-ran' those early versions, if they still suggest heavier rain-fall.  

As far as the 2010 to 2040 ... that may fail, or succeed ... I mean, if get into a drying/drought mode more signIficant at at continental scale, we drop snow anyway - it's an ambrosia of opportunity to mislead due to conflicting layers that 99.9999% of audiences have no f'ing clue how to critically absorb  - LOL

Yeah, i mean, climate modeling is kind of a tough science anyway....there is a huge ensemble of them out there. You can probably find a few that will verify on any given parameter. Something like "oh, 80% of these model predicted a decrease in snowfall but a few of them actually predicted an increase".

Some of it is probably the unique geography too. You already know this, but New England sticks out into the ocean like a chin and there is a natural strong baroclinic zone to the south of us because of that....which is enhanced even greater by the gulf stream veering off to the east south of the benchmark. Add in the Appalachian mountains to the west which entrenches CAD cold domes and it creates sort of this zone that is not going to be affected as much by small deviations in the polar jet as a place off to the west....say, the midwest. The storm systems are still going to want to respond to that natural baroclinic zone and CAD dome and commonly try to move south of us. Add 1C to the temps on the cold side of these system due to climate warming? Won't do much in New England....it gives us a snow with -4C 850 temps instead of -5C. Eventually, warming would start to erode these more marginal episodes as you say....but that could take a while given the geography/topography of the region.

[CT Rain]

1 hour ago, tamarack said:

Must be a different data set, maybe Brainard Field or downtown?  For there to be an 11-inch increase, the 2011-20 period would need to be 33"/year snowier than 1981-90.  The '80s were terrible but not that terrible.
Checked my numbers (from Utah Climate Center and Climod2) and found a mistake:  Corrected BDL from my data is 47.0" for 81-10 and 51.5" for 91-20, so a 4.5" gain rather than the 2.7 I posted earlier.  Worth noting that the UCC data was missing 5 of 6 winters 96-97 to 01-02, which could cause issues in comparisons.

Edit:  The monthly numbers for 91-20 match my BDL almost exactly - couple months are 0.1" different, which could just be rounding error.  

The 1981-2010 normals for BDL incorrectly included two or three years as 0" at BDL because of the missing data. By the time the NWS was aware it was too late to change it as they were already published.

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, CT Rain said:

The 1981-2010 normals for BDL incorrectly included two or three years as 0" at BDL because of the missing data. By the time the NWS was aware it was too late to change it as they were already published.

also didn't they use an incorrect 1995-1996 seasonal snowfall total number for BDL?

[tamarack]

30 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

The 1981-2010 normals for BDL incorrectly included two or three years as 0" at BDL because of the missing data. By the time the NWS was aware it was too late to change it as they were already published.

Bingo!  BDL snowfall "gaps":
                                                                  OCT            NOV          DEC           JAN           FEB           MAR           APR           MAY

10/1/1995	6/1/1996	0.0	5.6	20.0	42.8	20.6	17.8	0.0	0.0		106.9
10/1/1996	6/1/1997
10/1/1997	6/1/1998
10/1/1998	6/1/1999
10/1/1999	6/1/2000
10/1/2000	6/1/2001			8.1	10.4	21.4	13.5	0.0	0.0		53.4
10/1/2001	6/1/2002			3.0
10/1/2002	6/1/2003	0.0	5.0	13.6	15.6	21.4	11.1	2.3	0.0		69.1

 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, powderfreak said:

That’s always been my take.  Temperatures are still cold enough to produce snow in the means, even with multiple tenths of a degree of warming ongoing.  Physics says more water in the atmosphere means more snow below 32.0F.

Conceptually one would imagine a gradual increase in snowfall until at some point it starts to fall off a Cliff once that critical point is hit, no?

I see a "flex point" at which temp rise overwhelms potential snow from increased precip.  Maybe that point is now at PHL or NYC or BWI, and will slowly progress northward assuming current or similar trends are maintained.  Be a long time in that scenario before the flex passes over NNE.  (Of course, places below the flex will have increasing variation, like 09-10 when BWI had 7" more snow than CAR.)

[ORH_wxman]

41 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

also didn't they use an incorrect 1995-1996 seasonal snowfall total number for BDL?

 

10 minutes ago, tamarack said:

Bingo!  BDL snowfall "gaps":
                                                                  OCT            NOV          DEC           JAN           FEB           MAR           APR           MAY

10/1/1995	6/1/1996	0.0	5.6	20.0	42.8	20.6	17.8	0.0	0.0		106.9
10/1/1996	6/1/1997
10/1/1997	6/1/1998
10/1/1998	6/1/1999
10/1/1999	6/1/2000
10/1/2000	6/1/2001			8.1	10.4	21.4	13.5	0.0	0.0		53.4
10/1/2001	6/1/2002			3.0
10/1/2002	6/1/2003	0.0	5.0	13.6	15.6	21.4	11.1	2.3	0.0		69.1

 

I think so? Maybe Ryan has more insight....I am pretty sure that BDL had in the 115" range in 1995-1996 and not 106.9. Not a massive error if that is the case, but you still want to get the record correct.

 

edit: I can already see at least one error for that season. They have 0.0" for April 1996 which is not correct.

[weatherwiz]

8 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

I think so? Maybe Ryan has more insight....I am pretty sure that BDL had in the 115" range in 1995-1996 and not 106.9. Not a massive error if that is the case, but you still want to get the record correct.

 

edit: I can already see at least one error for that season. They have 0.0" for April 1996 which is not correct.

Nothing maddens me more than this whole snow record keeping debacle which occurred during the window in the 90's...how completely irresponsible and utterly ridiculous. What tops it all too is...the errors are INCLUDED in calculations for averages...how absurd. I mean fine...a huge mishap occurred with the record but don't incorporate that into averages. 

[tamarack]

15 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

I think so? Maybe Ryan has more insight....I am pretty sure that BDL had in the 115" range in 1995-1996 and not 106.9. Not a massive error if that is the case, but you still want to get the record correct.

 

edit: I can already see at least one error for that season. They have 0.0" for April 1996 which is not correct.

Just checked Climod2 and BDL is "M" for April 1996.  Precip/temps would support some snow on the 7th and 9th but their getting another 8" (on 0.41" LE) seems a stretch for April.  Of course, Norfolk at 1340' had 20" that month so who knows?

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

What’s a fair price for brake work for a pickup truck per axle? My trucks going in to have at least the rear brakes done tomorrow, and the front ones are also a little iffy. Fair price for the whole truck?

[CT Rain]

24 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

I think so? Maybe Ryan has more insight....I am pretty sure that BDL had in the 115" range in 1995-1996 and not 106.9. Not a massive error if that is the case, but you still want to get the record correct.

 

edit: I can already see at least one error for that season. They have 0.0" for April 1996 which is not correct.

Correct, they still have the wrong number for 95-96 as the data in April got thrown out as it was incomplete. So it's sort of a mess. At least they're not using zero to compute the normals (how that made it through QC is beyond me). 

I just go with a 50" seasonal average and call it a day.

[BrianW]

There have been a couple of tudies recently done and published on how long antibodies last. They are finding people who had covid still show high levels of antibodies 10-12 months later. I was also reading that during the first SARS outbreak in 2002 they still found antibodies 17 years later and they were cross reactive to sars-cov-2.

Next, we showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS (the disease associated with SARS-CoV infection) possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Maintenance of neutralizing antibodies over ten months in convalescent SARS‐CoV‐2 afflicted patients

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tbed.14130

Public Health Watch: Military Study Suggests SARS-CoV-2 Immunity May Last Up to 1 Year in Some

https://www.contagionlive.com/view/public-health-watch-military-study-suggests-sars-cov-2-immunity-may-last-up-to-1-year-in-some

Here is the study from the above article.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies remain detectable 12 months after infection and antibody magnitude is associated with age and COVID-19 severity

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.27.21256207v1

[PhineasC]

Good news for those who already had it and another reason why vaccinating those who already had COVID is counterproductive and opens them up to miserable side effects for no gain. 

[Hoosier]

3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Good news for those who already had it and another reason why vaccinating those who already had COVID is counterproductive and opens them up to miserable side effects for no gain. 

Seems like it's more nuanced than you portray.  Not everybody who had covid is the same.

[radarman]

10 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Good news for those who already had it and another reason why vaccinating those who already had COVID is counterproductive and opens them up to miserable side effects for no gain. 

Well... The paper actually states the opposite.  See bold.

Interestingly the abstract starts with: 

"The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be a predictive correlate of protection for both natural infections and vaccinations."

It concludes with:

"However, the magnitude and durability of the antibody response after natural infection was lower and more variable in younger participants who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19. These findings support vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in all suitable populations including those individuals that have recovered from natural infection."

However... From the very large Kings College of London study that used actual tests, we know that reinfection risk for young people is vastly lower than that for older people.  Assuming the actual antibody analysis of this paper is correct, the infection data partially calls into question the assumption that the paper starts off with.  The binary presence of antibodies may be correlated with immunity but antibody counts do not in fact appear to be a good proxy.

[PhineasC]

Just now, Hoosier said:

Seems like it's more nuanced than you portray.  Not everybody who had covid is the same.

More doctors should be telling people this and allowing them to make an informed decision if they already had COVID. 

[PhineasC]

4 minutes ago, radarman said:

Well... The paper actually states the opposite.  See bold.

Interestingly the abstract starts with: 

"The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be a predictive correlate of protection for both natural infections and vaccinations."

It concludes with:

"However, the magnitude and durability of the antibody response after natural infection was lower and more variable in younger participants who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19. These findings support vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in all suitable populations including those individuals that have recovered from natural infection."

However... From the very large Kings College of London study that used actual tests, we know that reinfection risk for young people is vastly lower than those for older people.  Assuming the actual antibody analysis of this paper is correct, the infection data definitely calls into question the assumption that the paper starts off with.  The binary presence of antibodies may be correlated with immunity but antibody counts do not in fact appear to be a good proxy.

For young people who had very mild illness, I agree. 

[PhineasC]

It seems like at least half the time someone delivers food to the house, it’s someone aged 50 and up. That strikes me as a sign of a bad economy and a bad sign for the future. That’s a job for 16 year olds...

[Brian5671]

3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

It seems like at least half the time someone delivers food to the house, it’s someone aged 50 and up. That strikes me as a sign of a bad economy and a bad sign for the future. That’s a job for 16 year olds...

you're right on that-it's mostly older people here too....

[MJO812]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/10/who-classifies-triple-mutant-covid-variant-from-india-as-global-health-risk-.html

[Typhoon Tip]

Right ..and of course, you have to vet the source the claims that vaccine is still necessary, to make sure they are unaffiliated -

[Brian5671]

2 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/10/who-classifies-triple-mutant-covid-variant-from-india-as-global-health-risk-.html

media will do its best to spin this that a 4th wave is imminent....

[WhitinsvilleWX]

12 minutes ago, radarman said:

Well... The paper actually states the opposite.  See bold.

Interestingly the abstract starts with: 

"The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be a predictive correlate of protection for both natural infections and vaccinations."

It concludes with:

"However, the magnitude and durability of the antibody response after natural infection was lower and more variable in younger participants who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19. These findings support vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in all suitable populations including those individuals that have recovered from natural infection."

However... From the very large Kings College of London study that used actual tests, we know that reinfection risk for young people is vastly lower than that for older people.  Assuming the actual antibody analysis of this paper is correct, the infection data partially calls into question the assumption that the paper starts off with.  The binary presence of antibodies may be correlated with immunity but antibody counts do not in fact appear to be a good proxy.

The bolded is the authors opinion. I’ve read countless scientific papers and authored/coauthored over 100. That sentence is pure speculation from a particular agenda. It may or may not be true. The best papers present the data and discuss the results, period. Again, my own opinion.