Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,592
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Manpower
    Newest Member
    Manpower
    Joined

March 2023 Obs/Disco


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

God, I have always hated those maps....its like hyrogliphics.

Theyve been the same since I first found them in the late 1990s too. I'm amazed they still even exist in that hideous capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah if we're talking butterfly effects....then you can attribute CC to everything, since we're in a world with that influence. There no world without at the moment.

But the true value of attribution studies is the "net effect". One reason I like to stick to the truly empirical studies is you can actually measure some of this stuff more confidently rather than trying to fix too much of it into a model which will always have some levels of assumptions. You still need models even on empirical attribution studies, but you try and use as much real data as possible. Temperature is probably the bets example....we have a TON of temperature data so we're pretty confident on a lot of the temperature changes.

But other things with lower sample sizes shorter periods of record can get really dicey very quick. There's a model for everything....in the 1997-2002 period, we saw a lot of studies that said CC was helping make the NAO more positive having come off a recent 2 decade binge of positive NAO winters. Of course, fast forward 10-15 years to the early/mid 2010s after that binge of excessive -NAO/AO winters between 2009-2013 and so many of the NAO/CC studies started claiming the opposite....that reduced sea ice and arctic amplification was actually causing the NAO/AO to become more negative. We don't hear about those studies much anymore after the binge of +NAO winters again post-2013 (and prior to this season). We saw similar papers come out that you mentioned about the "pacific warm blob" causing the big +PNA ridges out west in the 2013-2015 years.....now in the past few seasons we can't stop talking about troughs slamming into Cabo San Lucas.

I'm sure CC is involved in all of these things, but the net effect isn't confident so when I read claims like "CC making negative NAO winters more/less likely", I tend to mostly roll my eyes since so many of those things are based on shorter samples and lots of models with assumptions in there. Sometimes, the headlines don't really match the paper either...you'll read that headline and then the paper has this really weak correlation where they state a lot of uncertainty and I'm thinking "how did that headline get written based on that paper?".

They already have CC into the mix for the LA tornado the other day. :lol: 
 

https://www.vox.com/science/2023/3/23/23653712/los-angeles-tornado-montebello-california

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I saw the 84h RGEM and was thinking "GGEM is prob gonna be interesting"....and sure enough.

Yea actually noticed the same thing ha. Idk could be a blip? Do models struggle more during this time of year? I just use these maps because they always come out before the rest lol


.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

the public is too stupid for that shit. just attribute everything to cc so they get scared enough to want to reduce emissions 

They sure are , especially if they are upper middle class and above , Even when the alternatives increase prices for energy and food costs worldwide  , and that the majority of poor countries who drive emissions will always care more about feeding their children then the pressure to appear “PC “ and have the privilege to have emissions as a bigger concern than necessities 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Heisy said:


Yea actually noticed the same thing ha. Idk could be a blip? Do models struggle more during this time of year? I just use these maps because they always come out before the rest lol


.

Model skill does start to decrease as the PJ weakens and lifts north. March is a little early for that though....maybe late March there's a slight degradation, but I wouldn't expect model guidance to be noticeably worse than a month ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Can we take the CC talk to banter for the 5th time…geez. Who gives a flying F.  It’ll be snowing long after you’re all dead…Bank on it. 

It’s not snowing after I’m dead unless all of you are nice to me.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

So is the front runner Monday? Or is Monday something else? 

Monday night really…some models have it going well into Tuesday…I don’t think that one is all that interesting from a snow standpoint. Maybe a few sloppy inches for the hills but prob white rain or plain rain for many unless we see the intensity ramp up a bit more. The one behind it seems to have a little better look from a ageo flow standpoint if we can bring it back. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

We want the weak ass SOP special on Monday to go bye bye if you want the big storm follow up....but I'd just assume miss it than watch hubdave post more pics of his roof caved in again

I want Dave to pull another near 30.  That should mute mehing for a bit…right Dave?

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...