Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,610
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

It was a Flop... February 2024 Disco. Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Massplow said:

How far north is it reaching?

It’s got steady light snow at least into southern half of CT. It does have measurable up into MA but a bit more skeptical of that actually being more than just flurries or a few snow showers. If it ticks north again, then it would be worthy of a deeper look. 

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

5 minutes ago, Massplow said:

How far north is it reaching?

It's mostly mood snow at best. There would have to be another couple tics north for it to be anything of note for the south coast as far as I can see. 

But what else am I going to look at?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeonPeon said:

It's mostly mood snow at best. There would have to be another couple tics north for it to be anything of note for the south coast as far as I can see. 

But what else am I going to look at?

Well, take you pick - we've got a lot on the menu today:  various studies and research papers, clown maps  out to the ~300hr range, mid-90's sitcoms, vintage John Holmes films circa 1980, oh, and a touch of current weather discussion mixed in.  Clearly a little something for everyone! :lol:

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kazimirkai said:

Just kind of a random question: Do models take into consideration snow-cover enhanced radiational cooling when forecasting temperatures? Its hard to know which forecasts to pay attention that do.

I think they do to some degree but I don't think models are great with this or radiational cooling. MOS/NBM can struggle greatly with these two, especially radiational cooling. MOS/NBM can easily end up being several degrees too warm in these situations. Too me at least, forecasting low temperatures can be extremely challenging at times and way more difficult than forecasting high temperatures. The best bet would be assessing forecast soundings, particularly bufkit where you're able to do do enhanced assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeonPeon said:

What a fascinating methodology.

The framing of the study is misleading- bearing on the Paris Agreement 1.5C limit- because it specifically describes temperature rise relative to the late 19th century.

That limit was established as the threshold of unacceptably dangerous warming and describes temperature rise relative to the late 19th century. If this study has indeed identified warming from before the mid-1800s, that doesn’t mean the planet is any closer to breaking the 1.5C limit as it is widely understood.

Too, proxy data from a single relatively isolated location should not be used to make assumptions about the entire planet- or even regionally.

Finally, this study suggests that that little ocean area where the sponges were examined had a temperature increase of about twice that for what has been established had happened over land during the same period.  So I am not sure how we can then formulate a causal relationship for temperatures today, when none had existed even back then.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Patrick-02540 said:

The framing of the study is misleading- bearing on the Paris Agreement 1.5C limit- because it specifically describes temperature rise relative to the late 19th century.

That limit was established as the threshold of unacceptably dangerous warming and describes temperature rise relative to the late 19th century. If this study has indeed identified warming from before the mid-1800s, that doesn’t mean the planet is any closer to breaking the 1.5C limit as it is widely understood.

Too, proxy data from a single relatively isolated location should not be used to make assumptions about the entire planet- or even regionally.

Finally, this study suggests that that little ocean area where the sponges were examined had a temperature increase of about twice that for what has been established had happened over land during the same period.  So I am not sure how we can then formulate a causal relationship for temperatures today, when none had existed even back then.

I read the study, not the gloss on the study. The study itself already responds to your point regarding the land and water temperatures, you don't have to find it convincing. 

I'm not really interested in the political implications based on the Paris Accord definition, or even the 1.5C "limit" both because it's clear we are going to sail right by it, and because it was established as a relatively arbitrary political tool, not as any scientific metric. The Paris starting point doesn't delineate a preindustrial world, it more has to do with when reliable temperature data began to be reported.

Surely one of the points of this study is exploring another set of data that can be measured from before that starting point. It's just one more methodology and one more set of data. The data, as far as sampling goes seem reasonable enough. I'm not sure if it's a "relatively isolated area." The area seems to be limited to where this particular sea sponge lives and is accessible to divers. They could widen the sampling some, but we're talking about a very particular organism with a limited range.

Depending on how well reviewed it is, the same methodology can be used to sample data elsewhere, but only where this organism lives, to which you could raise the same doubt. It might spark interest in growth rates with other organisms, but as the research specifies, they'd also have to be an organism that exhibits some very simple linear relationship with temperature that is recordable.

I guess I'm more impressed with the good nuts-and-bolts science of this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thing the snow tonight isn’t about 4-5 hours earlier. That would’ve been a disaster for evening commute. It’s not a lot of snow but it looks like it could rip for an hour or two which will def mess up the roads. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

BOX finally wakes up and adds Wind advisories to CT. Should be HWW, but at least it’s a start 

Just remember, there's not too much snow to your NW can can get blown in.  And yours will get blown out!  I have bare patches over 25% of my property from yesterday.  Though I do have some nice 3-4 foot drifts in other areas.

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...