Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,598
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    PublicWorks143
    Newest Member
    PublicWorks143
    Joined

February 2024


wdrag
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Brian5671 said:

It was a night time event too....32-33 degrees the whole storm-was vaporized in about 12 hrs after it stopped too lol

and Central Park was the only one who got 5" from what I remember, the rest of us were more like 2-3"

Still that was big in a season with only 0.5"

It sucks though, it would have been far and away the lowest snowfall total ever if it wasn't for that one storm at the end.  So historic in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

and Central Park was the only one who got 5" from what I remember, the rest of us were more like 2-3"

Still that was big in a season with only 0.5"

It sucks though, it would have been far and away the lowest snowfall total ever if it wasn't for that one storm at the end.  So historic in that sense.

We needed that Arctic outbreak about 10 days before the 3-22 snowstorm in NYC. The record 80s warmth didn’t occur until after the snow in March 1998.

 

2280ED6D-A881-4025-A649-2480FDDBC855.thumb.gif.1f0da321f6370aef14d3386f385e5c08.gif

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

What causes ocean acidification, Don? Does the excess CO2 get absorbed by the oceans and make them more acidic?

CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. As carbonic acid concentrations rise, oceans become more acidic, as is currently occurring.

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

27 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. As carbonic acid concentrations rise, oceans become more acidic, as is currently occurring.

I posted this in the la nina thread

unfortunately we have been talking about ocean acidification and a mass extinction event (which we have already started), it's happened in the past, where up to 90% of life on the planet goes extinct as nature is trying to balance things out.

ocean hypoxia is quite frightening, can you imagine all that life dying wow

reaching temperature thresholds like 1.5 C and 2.0 C are the wrong things to talk about, the real danger is a runaway chemical process after reaching a tipping point or threshold and that runaway chemical process is what will cascade into something we can never come back from.

 

the problem is not simply of temperatures, but of a runaway cascading chemical process from which there is no return

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

wow, so we had cold leading into the snow event then?

 

The 97-98 season was one of the few times that March had a colder daily departure in NYC than during DJF. The -16 on the 12th was the coldest of the entire season. So we needed that colder period in mid-March to prime the pattern for snow on the 22nd. NYC had two days with highs not getting above freezing after March 10th which is rare by todays standards. 

 

8641D7E1-0A71-4F38-87E7-6D6E96BA11A2.thumb.jpeg.c323a7cbf04016214614d91c9398e67e.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

He's probably thinking something like March 1998, and that was about as marginal as it gets lol.

Did we ever get below freezing during that storm?

It was a night time event too....32-33 degrees the whole storm-was vaporized in about 12 hrs after it stopped too lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I posted this in the la nina thread

unfortunately we have been talking about ocean acidification and a mass extinction event (which we have already started), it's happened in the past, where up to 90% of life on the planet goes extinct as nature is trying to balance things out.

ocean hypoxia is quite frightening, can you imagine all that life dying wow

reaching temperature thresholds like 1.5 C and 2.0 C are the wrong things to talk about, the real danger is a runaway chemical process after reaching a tipping point or threshold and that runaway chemical process is what will cascade into something we can never come back from.

 

the problem is not simply of temperatures, but of a runaway cascading chemical process from which there is no return

 

Sometimes I wonder why Venus ended up the way that it is with a run away greenhouse. Are we starting to go down that ugly road? Scary thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yanksfan said:

Sometimes I wonder why Venus ended up the way that it is with a run away greenhouse. Are we starting to go down that ugly road? Scary thoughts.

The real trigger would sufficient evaporation of the oceans. That’s currently not likely. A good paper:

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/12/aa46936-23/aa46936-23.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The real trigger would sufficient evaporation of the oceans. That’s currently not likely. A good paper:

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/12/aa46936-23/aa46936-23.html

wow some excellent articles on here about exoplanets with water, in case we need to get off of here and find another planet to live on

 

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/11/aa47539-23/aa47539-23.html

 

Abstract

Understanding the set of conditions that allow rocky planets to have liquid water on their surface, in the form of lakes, seas, or oceans, is a major scientific step in determining the fraction of planets potentially suitable for the emergence and development of life as we know it on Earth. This effort is also necessary to define and refine what is known as the habitable zone (HZ) in order to guide the search for exoplanets likely to harbor remotely detectable life forms. To date, most numerical climate studies on this topic have focused on the conditions necessary to maintain oceans, but not to form them in the first place.

 

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2022/02/aa42286-21/aa42286-21.html

 

Abstract

As the insolation of an Earth-like (exo)planet with a large amount of water increases, its surface and atmospheric temperatures also increase, eventually leading to a catastrophic runaway greenhouse transition. While some studies have shown that the onset of the runaway greenhouse may be delayed due to an overshoot of the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) – compared to the Simpson-Nakajima threshold – by radiatively inactive gases, there is still no consensus on whether this is occurring and why.

 

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2019/08/aa35585-19/aa35585-19.html

 

Abstract

Planets similar to Earth but slightly more irradiated are expected to enter into a runaway greenhouse state, where all surface water rapidly evaporates, forming an optically thick H2O-dominated atmosphere. For Earth, this extreme climate transition is thought to occur for an increase of only ~6% in solar luminosity, though the exact limit at which the transition would occur is still a highly debated topic. In general, the runaway greenhouse is believed to be a fundamental process in the evolution of Earth-sized, temperate planets

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The 97-98 season was one of the few times that March had a colder daily departure in NYC than during DJF. The -16 on the 12th was the coldest of the entire season. So we needed that colder period in mid-March to prime the pattern for snow on the 22nd. NYC had two days with highs not getting above freezing after March 10th which is rare by todays standards. 

 

8641D7E1-0A71-4F38-87E7-6D6E96BA11A2.thumb.jpeg.c323a7cbf04016214614d91c9398e67e.jpeg

especially in such a warm winter-- what caused such a late season outbreak, Chris?

The other one which comes to mind for me happened in 1994-95 another very warm winter, when we had an arctic outbreak in April with sunny skies very windy and temps in the mid 30s during the day and low 20s at night!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

especially in such a warm winter-- what caused such a late season outbreak, Chris?

The other one which comes to mind for me happened in 1994-95 another very warm winter, when we had an arctic outbreak in April with sunny skies very windy and temps in the mid 30s during the day and low 20s at night!

 

We had a great -EPO pattern in mid-March 1998.


1133108D-B74B-4D7D-9A07-582CE5DB305A.gif.07637f9dba0a80284166a6e99e4e7df9.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MJO812 said:

Models look so ugly and boring 

Sad 

Yep after a brief minor cool shot March 1st, it looks like an extended warm pattern. Lots of 55 to 60 degree days in early March. It appears likely that we're done. Obviously we can't completely rule out the possibility of getting lucky with something in mid March, but we'd much rather have cold air in early March if we're gonna get any. Only a very slim chance that something would work out near the coast in mid to late March. 

At that point I'm moving onto the gardening season anyway. We were very lucky to get as much snow as we did in a warm winter, so I can't complain. I'm ready to move on and hope we have mild weather in late March when it's time to get the gardening season started. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Syracuse only has 34.5” for the winter and is behind Binghamton by 4”. That’s eye popping bad-I think that’s about 30% of average to date and has to be close to their all time lowest snowfall winter. 

Lots of awful totals across the nation outside of a couple areas like Nashville etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Syracuse only has 34.5” for the winter and is behind Binghamton by 4”. That’s eye popping bad-I think that’s about 30% of average to date and has to be close to their all time lowest snowfall winter. 

Yes, pretty bad. I looked into this yesterday.

As @BuffaloWeather pointed out, the pre-1949 numbers aren't really directly comparable to the modern values since the city station is less favored for LES than the airport and averaged significantly lighter snowfall. Note that xMacis is missing a lot of data, so I had to dig into the old Monthly Weather Review to find the complete seasonal totals for some of the earlier years at the city office. Last year was the third least since the winter of 1934-1935 [only 2011-2012 & 2001-2002 saw less snowfall], but this winter has seen barely half of last year's total thus far. Another 16.1" could fall, and it would still be the least ever observed at KSYR and top 5 least in the threaded record.

And the advent of snowboards and periodic 6-hourly measurements certainly inflates some of the recent tallies compared to many decades ago, especially with fluffy, airy lake effect snow.

image.png.89180d3ee4f54ad77f4cb4059105d580.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

It makes a lot of sense and here's another caution flag and this is for those who think nature will balance everything out on its own.... think of what it will take to "recalibrate" and what kind of effects that recalibration will have on us as a species.

 

I just caught a bit of something that Jeff Berradelli posted about potential upwelling cooling the ocean's  surface.  But wouldn't that eventually just overall heat the entire ocean column?  Wouldn't the surface heat just get transferred deeper into the oceans?  Asking for a friend...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

I just caught a bit of something that Jeff Berradelli posted about potential upwelling cooling the ocean's  surface.  But wouldn't that eventually just overall heat the entire ocean column?  Wouldn't the surface heat just get transferred deeper into the oceans?  Asking for a friend...

Not sure if I can digest the study in this link concerning the oceans absorbing atmospheric heat...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9452516/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

I just caught a bit of something that Jeff Berradelli posted about potential upwelling cooling the ocean's  surface.  But wouldn't that eventually just overall heat the entire ocean column?  Wouldn't the surface heat just get transferred deeper into the oceans?  Asking for a friend...

Yes, especially with how deep the heat extends.  If you're talking about upwelling from increased TC activity, that only causes temporary changes to the temperature profile of the oceans; with how deep the heat is, in a couple of weeks the surface of the ocean is back to boiling.

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...