Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bbr2314

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1
This would be a TAD EARLY though it is way off in la la land.


2
I would propose we re-dub our current year -12. By all accounts 2031 is our new year 0. We just have not yet acknowledged it.

It is interesting to consider what the practical implications would be of a BOE. Like, heavy snows beginning in August, no cohesive polar vortex, and dual vortices establishing themselves early in Eurasia and North America. At that point the only remaining MYI may actually be sheltered in Hudson or Kara or Okhotsk (or some combo of the three) in addition to the CAA and southern CAB.

When the event begins, as it did in the Younger Dryas, the snowfall will not stop for the next summer in the coldest locations. Imagine winter 2014-15 in Boston, but tack on another 100" in March, and then in April, with another 50" in May and continued snows into June before insolation ultimately does the trick (for the last time in a long time).

How much snow will it take until the interstates are unusable? How much SWE will it take before roofs start caving in? How deep does the snow have to get before the power fails? How frequently do storms have to occur for maintenance to become impossible?

If a population is frozen in place, with no way to escape, and the power fails, there would be guaranteed mass death occurring in short order. Such an event would be much more democratic than heatwaves, where air conditioners provide relief for some.

What use is a generator when it is encased in snow 10' deep, and you can't vent through your roof because it is also covered in snow XX feet deep, and the power goes out? At that point, you are dead, and so is everyone else. Either from freezing, running out of food, carbon monoxide, or your roof caving in.

History indicates this is precisely what happened at the onset of the Younger Dryas. It didn't happen everywhere -- the Southeast US was safe -- but where onset occurred, the switch flipped instantaneously, in the span of a year. It is because the impending event is due to cascading impacts that will only be realized to be "final" (for our purposes) after they have already occurred.

#blackpill

3
17 days earlier than the earliest on record, set almost one century ago... when CO2 was at approximately 305PPM... over 100PPM or only 75% of today's values.

Maybe it is time to acknowledge that CO2 is an albedo accelerant when ice caps are still extant, and that it is albedo which primarily drives our climate, a factor that is only modulated by GHG. And GHG are going to flip land albedo to "white daisies" as oceans heat up, more moisture becomes available, and the sea ice dwindles. The only way to maintain equilibrium is to compensate with more snowfall on land. This is already happening. 

Equilibrium in the system is maintained by LAND albedo flux much more easily than oceanic albedo flux. In short, this means more "white daisies" as the oceanic heat load worsens alongside the continuous rise of GHGs.

Just wait til it keeps snowing into July, then August, and we get a year without a summer at all in these regions. At that point the only thing left to do will be to LOL.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 07, 2019, 07:15:13 AM »
Still trying to understand how the *warmest* August on record, according to awesome +70N 925hPa temps chart produced by Zack Labe, led to such a poor loss of ice extent. No convincing explanation so far. We don’t know an iota of what’s going on apart from the inexorable warming.
I am convinced that we had normal melting conditions in 2019. That we only reached the second position because we started very low and because there was a lot of compaction at the end. The Greenland today page of nsidc https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ also shows an average year. That's something I worry about. What would happen if 2012 conditions would happen again?
2019 was much warmer than 2012

5
Quick prediction easy to make:  atmospheric blocking reaching the North Pole..   Sept 30, Oct 8, Oct 17, Oct 25th.

I'm trying to put an end to this with falsifiable claims

October 7th is here and the cut off block is reaching the North Pole on time.  Every 8 days, no change yet.
This will be accompanied by the second major snowstorm of the season for Montana, with heavy totals now also forecast for everything from Minneapolis and west. Most of the agricultural heartland could see temperatures dip well below freezing. And I think snowfall totals may ultimately extend into the Chicago suburbs. Very bad news!

6
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 06, 2019, 11:53:48 PM »
The worst consequence of AGW could also technically be its solution. New modeling shows a nuclear exchange on the Indian subcontinent would be very effective in overwhelming the warming residual from +GHG. I wonder if Washington, Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, Pyongyang, and Tel Aviv would sacrifice a billion or three untouchables so way of life for the elites can continue. I would think it would be perceived to be a reasonable trade-off.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/misery-of-a-nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-would-be-global/


7
Blizzard #2 getting ready to bear down on Montana and Upper Plains


8
Pocahontas is the worst. I would vote for Trump if the Democrats pick Pocahontas. I would not vote in the election otherwise, but if they nominate her, I will be a likely Trump voter -- and I can imagine many more independents also shifting to Trump if the D candidate is a lying socialist thief.

9
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 02, 2019, 09:31:58 PM »
How did past fearmongering delay action? Any concrete example of that?

I don´t recall any fearmongering. For most people the issue was never important.

You must be realtively new to the issue.  A few examples include the 2005 season being the new "normal" for hurricanes.  Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.  50 million climate refugees by 2010.  It is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.  My personal favorite is snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event (although this might be welcome news to some).  What about the predictions of an ice-free Arctic in 2008? 

The reason that the issue has not been important is these ridiculous claims.  Granted, many people are little concerned about consequences decades into the future.  However, claiming that these consequences were imminent (in order to pursuade people to act) wound up making their claimants appear as chicken littles.  The general populous may not be the most intelligent, but they are not all together stupid either.  If someone makes enough false claims, they will begin to question the accurate ones also.  Presenting the issue in a factual manner is the best approach.
I disagree with KK frequently but he is correct here. It is also why a shrieking teenager like Greta is very bad for the message re: what actually needs to be done. It is easy to get hysterical (I have done this myself) when the news is XYZ is happening and the world will end in 5 years. It is hard to remember the news is designed to sell advertising via your fear. And a child like Greta does not even realize that the news is selling ads via fear (in fact Greta is helping them monetize despair / etc).


10
L-oh-L


11
One dump of snow a New Ice Age doth not make.

It blows hot & cold at this time of year. (Max & Min forecast temps attached)
The battle between snowfall and melt is underway.

Gif of snow season to date also attached - click to play (it plays three times until clicked again)
You are correct. But that is not what we have had. We have had tons of snow at all times of year resulting in very much below normal temperatures for the "triangle of coldness" centered on Montana for three years running, worsening year over year.

Will it relent at some point? Probably. But how long until it happens again, if it does not happen this time, and what happens when it is -10F on the year instead of -5F? At that point the snow will be falling through July and August with much more depth and coverage, and the scope of negatives has the potential to increase in breadth dramatically. The longer these anomalies persist into the spring and summer the more negative they are (when considering the continents). The same can be said for re-appearance of snowcover earlier than normal in autumn.

In the Nebraska climate record maps (limited back to 2003) 2018+2019 are by far the coldest couplet in this region. 2008-09 are the next closest. In that situation, the cold lingered into 2010 and 2011, though less severely, before relenting majorly in 2012. I think the problem is that 2012 was a threshold in its own right and we may no longer be able to see such an event due to how much the snowfall is now compensating for the sea ice.


12
Away we go!




13
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 01, 2019, 05:44:36 AM »
The running five-year anomaly belies the recent cooling trend NW of the blob. Jan-Mar and Apr-Jun 2019 are below. The data is not dishonest since it is technically valid but I do not think it accurately reflects the current state of things as the snowfall anomalies have begun rolling positively in tandem with the worsening sea ice deficits.






14
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 30, 2019, 11:02:18 PM »
The greens are finally growing in both continents.



It looks like snowcover is at about 7M KM^2 across the NHEM. Within the next week its extent should be about double that of the sea ice.

In a situation where snowcover expands more rapidly than sea ice, and can cover a much wider area much faster to much greater albedo differential, the Daisy Experiment explains why land snowcover compensates for blue ocean in the Arctic when surface ice caps are still extant to sufficient volume (which they are).

You can say Milankovitch Cycles 10 times over and they still can't properly account for how ice ages actually occur. I think this is the simplest explanation and it is unfolding before our eyes. Yay!

15
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: September 30, 2019, 10:46:20 PM »
Yes! IMHO the Dems should hire lawyers and investigators and shoot from any cannon they could possibly get their hands on. I want to see a firework of accusations. This way you suck the air out of the room for Trump. This will limit his ability to bullshit the public.

Yes, that's what Brooks argues in the video I posted above, and I think it's a good argument (if it works like that). But it's the only one, and the thing that triggered it all, Ukrainegate, is about the worst possible thing to impeach Trump on, from a PR-strategy perspective.

The way to beat Trump, is to show that he is very much part of the establishment, not outside of it. But then you have to offer an alternative, and Warren isn't it, Biden most certainly isn't. Only Sanders is, lacking a younger version. But the Corporate Democrats and media will do everything they can to keep Sanders and his movement out.
I think Buttigieg could win, I think Biden could win (less likely), but I think they may end up picking Warren and losing again.

16
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: September 30, 2019, 10:17:51 PM »
ps: maximum Greenland lost in one day's melt this year was 12.5 GT

Holy crap!
That sounds like a lot but in comparison to spring snowmelt it actually seems like surprisingly little. We have graphs for North America's total SWE but we do not have graphs for flux. As snow volume totals increase across the continent, flux is probably increasing even faster. I believe we lost about 1,000KM^3 net in the span of two weeks last spring (or maybe it was this spring). This is far greater than Greenland, and even this measurement ignores gross flux. Thusly, if Greenland melt has an impact on oceanic currents (and it definitely does) one would think the impact of seasonal meltflux across North America and Eurasia is actually even greater than that of Greenland.

17
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: September 30, 2019, 01:30:12 AM »
Poll: Majority of Americans say impeachment inquiry into Trump is necessary

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics/impeachment-inquiry-trump-cbs-poll/index.html

"...Among Independents, 49% approve and 51% disapprove, the poll found..."

(Which is a statistically insignificant difference.)

From the same linked article:
"A two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to convict and remove a president from office -- which has [/size]never successfully happened.[/color]"
Exactly. It is such a farce.

18
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 30, 2019, 12:14:53 AM »
Has anyone seen bbr2314. I'm a little worried about him.
I <3 you too  ;D

19
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: September 28, 2019, 05:45:53 AM »
My crystal ball is showing something a little different.  The House votes to impeach before the end of the year.  The Senate then holds the "trial" over a holiday weekend, while the public isn't paying attention.  Trump is acquitted.

Strongly disagree. The republicans control the senate. So if the dems make the mistake of impeaching the president, Mitch will use the "trial" as an opportunity to bring up as much demo-dirt as possible. Crowdstrike, Burisma Holdings, Fusion GPS, McCabe's Insurance-Policy, Steele Dossier, etc. will all be given center stage.

Improbable.  The Constitution describes the trial process.  Prosecution is House Judiciary committee.  Judge is Chief Justice Roberts.  Though Roberts is a Republican/Conservative, he is assertively non-partisan, and very concerned with the public perception of the Court.  He may grant some leeway for Defense witnesses, but he won't permit frank abuse of that privilege.

I expect the House to impeach on only one or two charges.  Upon Senate acquittal, I expect the House to hold additional hearings for additional articles.  Right up until the election, if Trump continues to obstruct by withholding witnesses and documents.
Do you realize how bad this is going to make Democrats look? They couldn't win on Russia so they are just throwing everything at him, whether it is true or not.

There is definitely fire re: the relationship between the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein. Trump knew him too but Epstein didn't have a painting of Trump in a dress hanging in his UES mansion. If you think the Democrats are going to get away with this, you are certainly free to your opinion, but I think it would contribute to a Trump victory in 2020 and it will potentially give him an excuse to "lock her up" as well as some of the other Ds for real this time.

20
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 28, 2019, 12:31:59 AM »
^^
Quote
We failed and our children will hate our guts for it.

Not everyone is guilty of that high energy consumerist behaviour. Not everyone is rich. Most are poor. (def: rich=non-poor)
Please keep that in mind.

They, the young people, will appreciate my behaviour because I took my personal moral responsibility (zero direct emissions etc), I have no children, chose to be poor and don't belong to the grown-up world of accumulation and I have never felt supreme over non-grown-ups. I set a good example.

BUT!
It is not too late for you. You can still change! CONSIDER: How will the young humans judge you?
Why would they appreciate your behavior if they don't know you exist or the way you acted. I don't think your consumption habits are bad but I do think you are deluded if you believe anyone will thank you for them. If humans had that kind of attitude we wouldn't be in today's climate situation.

The more likely outcome is that the young people of tomorrow will be even more stupidly brainwashed than the young people of today. They also face a greater likelihood of being pitted against one another in another way to expend excess population.

Greta's entire shtick is exactly that and I think it does more harm than good to the actual narrative on climate change when a little girl can dominate headlines with substance-less histrionics on the subject. Meanwhile climate scientists are incapable of explaining why catastrophe is actually impending, and instead spit out numbers like 1.5C bleep bloop bloop, sounding like sad little robots.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: September 27, 2019, 04:17:58 AM »

I've seen a lot of debate about this, the consensus here is that continental snow doesn't really have much bearing on Arctic sea-ice. Recently (2017, 2018) the snow mass charts have gone off the scale in winter (ECCC had to make a new y-axis) and it really hasn't correlated with a change in Arctic sea ice melt.


More snow = more sunlight reflected = cooling.  But the best way to get a wider cover of snow on the continents adjacent to the Arctic is to disrupt the polar vortex and allow more cold arctic air to spread further away from the central Arctic, meaning the central Arctic becomes warmer.
Yes! Extra snowcover also has the impact of aiding -500MB anomalies in the continents, with ensuing cold blasts into the mid-latitude oceans a particularly potent method of advecting additional oceanic heat into the Arctic. Continental snowfall is good from the perspective of blunting incoming warmth to the Arctic that would originate from the continents, it is bad from the perspective that -500MB anomalies are effective at evacuating mid-latitude oceanic heat northwards, into the Arctic.

IF the continents are snowcovered AND the Arcic is fully ice-covered, the outcome of snow-covered continents is probably net beneficial to sea ice. However, if the continents are snowcovered and the Arctic pack is entirely surrounded by water -- as is currently the case -- perhaps this is when the oceanic feedbacks derivative of the -500MB anomalies really kick into overdrive. When the sea ice is surrounded by hundreds or thousands of miles of open water, the positive benefits of continental snowcover are lost as that air which would normally advect overtop the sea ice, depleted of heat and moisture, is instead often muddled by cyclonic activity as it meets the open waters of the ESS / Laptev/ whathaveyou.

I had not considered this juxtaposition before, but it would make quite a bit of sense in explaining why atmospheric circulation goes to particular sh*t in the autumnal months as of late.

22
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: September 25, 2019, 06:09:53 AM »
Media like Warren: "Maybe she isn’t like Bernie"

"as long as Sanders is in the race, he will no doubt continue to draw the most intense fire. "

Hollar at FAIR:

https://fair.org/home/what-media-like-best-about-elizabeth-warren-shes-not-bernie-sanders/

sidd
Hilary didn't work out in 2016 so nominating someone who is substantially LESS palatable will surely work out in 2020. The Ds are in the process of alienating the entire moderate population of the US, it will come as no surprise when Trump wins again in another 300+ EV landslide.

23
Am I crazy?
No. This has quickly become one of the best threads on the forum.  :)

We should see +500MB height anomalies in the Arctic steadily worsen as we head through autumn as the PV repeatedly splits. As snowcover revs across the continents under the guts of the Arctic (-500MB anomalies, which seem end up being quite tenacious when they get going across the continents), this will get much worse through October.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 20, 2019, 12:41:41 AM »
This is a new look at what is actually happening now that we are in it

I find it fascinating how you always seem to post, yet you never seem to articulate whatever it is you're trying to say. People hardly ever respond, especially posters here who do seem to understand what it its they're saying. Do you just repeat what you read elsewhere?

I mean no disrespect, I just have a hard time understanding the motive
I understand sark's post, he articulates perfectly fine.

25
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 18, 2019, 08:06:26 PM »

Hmm... Won't snow act to trap heat in the ground? I think the best analogy is when you burn yourself. The first thing you want to do is run lots of cold water over the burn.

Heat flow of a spike on the surface (say summer insolation) is best reduced by applying lots of cold to the the surface as quickly and for as long as possible. Having a nice snow cover reduces the heat loss dramatically compared to emissive heat loss from the ground itself. You have to conduct that heat through all those nice insulating air bubbles in the snow rather than just through a couple of meters of soggy ground.

Of course it depends on the timing, but I think there would be a good thermodynamic argument that deep and early snow cover is really bad for permafrost and sea ice retention. Snow on sea ice effectively reduces the FDDs buy elevating the temperature of the ice compared to having no snow. That snow cover persisting into the high insolation months has the opposite effect. Raising albedo when the sun should be warming the ground has the opposite effect.

As the Earth warms, perhaps we will go through a phase of increased snowfall as the amount of water in the atmosphere increases, but that snow will melt out faster in the spring. The worst of both worlds for ice and permafrost.
I think it IS trapping heat in the ground, but this is only happening in areas that have persistently warm summers, I.E., Siberia. Siberia's anomalies year over year have become increasingly HOT.

However, in parts of Canada, summertime anomalies are actually below recent normals. This would IMO have the inverse impact, of resulting in increasing / expanding permafrost zones. Of course, Siberia is much larger than Canada, but the seesaw is (IMO) occurring in opposite directions in both of these areas (and the warmer Siberia gets, the colder Canada becomes).

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 17, 2019, 12:49:35 AM »
It is interesting to note that there is a pattern to the very bad years of 2007, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

The first "bad" year was 2007. It took five years for 2012 to happen. It took four years for 2016 to happen. It took three years for 2019 to happen.

Perhaps it is nonsense, but that would put 4M KM^2 minimum as "normal" come 2021 (two years after 2019, and then we are down to one year separating these instances, i.e. it becomes each and every year), with each year thereafter likely to achieve a max under 2019, 2016, and 2007.

It should also be noted the last minimum above 5M KM^2 looks to be 2009. That is potentially about 11 years between the last minimum above 5M KM^2 and the last minimum above 4M KM^2 (using the step-trend above, that year would be 2020, or it may have already occurred).

We cannot say whether the remaining decline will follow on the same gradual continuum. Below 4M KM^2, the area / volume discrepancy inherently favors massive drops in area relative to volume as 0 is approached. I would think that there will not be another 11 years between the last 4M KM^2 min and the last 3M KM^2 min.

Does that mean we are approaching an asymptote at 4 M?
Maybe temporarily but I think the volume decline means it will not hold. Maybe it is a situation of once the asymptote is breached twice consecutively it cannot recover and spirals to near 0. Until it happens two years in a row, or rather until now, there has been sufficient momentum for temporary recoveries. As we can see in the year over year charts that momentum has been fading.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 11:56:48 PM »
It is interesting to note that there is a pattern to the very bad years of 2007, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

The first "bad" year was 2007. It took five years for 2012 to happen. It took four years for 2016 to happen. It took three years for 2019 to happen.

Perhaps it is nonsense, but that would put 4M KM^2 minimum as "normal" come 2021 (two years after 2019, and then we are down to one year separating these instances, i.e. it becomes each and every year), with each year thereafter likely to achieve a max under 2019, 2016, and 2007.

It should also be noted the last minimum above 5M KM^2 looks to be 2009. That is potentially about 11 years between the last minimum above 5M KM^2 and the last minimum above 4M KM^2 (using the step-trend above, that year would be 2020, or it may have already occurred).

We cannot say whether the remaining decline will follow on the same gradual continuum. Below 4M KM^2, the area / volume discrepancy inherently favors massive drops in area relative to volume as 0 is approached. I would think that there will not be another 11 years between the last 4M KM^2 min and the last 3M KM^2 min.

2009 is actually a great year to illustrate this increasingly gaping volume discrepancy. It has a September PIOMAS minimum of about 7,000 KM^3 (I can see the charts but not the exact #s). 2019 is probably going to come in around 4,000 KM^3. That is an approximate 45% volume decline, while area has only declined 25%ish (approx 5.25M KM^2 down to 4M KM^2).

At some point in the near future if volume decline continues, area is going to give out in a big way IMO, as the two most converge as 0 is approached.

28
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 16, 2019, 10:00:32 PM »
Indeed it has, and again last night. I think by 10/1 we will be well above normal in Eurasia, by 10/10 we will be well above normal in North America as well. (we are well above normal in Eurasia already, but will probably diverge even more with normal over the next two weeks, with forecasts showing major snows across most of Siberia).



This is going to have very interesting implications for the sea ice. We are going to have the most snowcover sandwiched (latitudinally) under open Arctic Ocean in the satellite record. This should act to advect an unprecedented amount of oceanic heat into the Arctic in sync with worsening +500MB anomalies centered overtop the Arctic. In short: snowcover growth and accumulation this year is, IMO, likely to be quite explosive.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 09:08:14 PM »
Just take a look at the poll-results year on year and you will see that weatherdude88 is not alone in his inaccuracy of prediction AND that the data is invariably weighted toward lower-than-actual prediction (though i suspect this year may buck that trend).

That being said he did take a risk coming out with what he did.
He is a denier troll and it was not a risk, it was a lie designed to further obfuscate and derail the discourse on this forum.

30
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 10, 2019, 05:27:47 AM »
Looks like winter may be coming early to high elevations of Norway this year, those totals are pretty ridiculous.



Forecast hour 240
That is through 240, i.e., D1-10, not D10.

31
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 09, 2019, 09:36:23 PM »
I've read both the article and the blowback, and the latter to me exemplifies left-wing denial that in some ways is even worse than the classic climate risk denial. I will dive some more into the blowback on Twitter to see if they actually address points made in the New Yorker article.

edit: Diving into the blowback reinforced my opinion. So many people who claim to accept AGW just don't get it.
The left-wing denial is worse because they say they are educated and look down on all the right-wing deniers in spite of their "privileged" position re: information / etc. It is the difference between simple and occasionally malevolent ignorance, and insufferable righteousness.

32
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 09, 2019, 06:56:18 PM »
There was definitely snow, it may not have stuck that well, but there could also have been cloud interference with the maps (IDK). It snowed in Caribou, but I can't find any news stories (it was on social media).

33
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 09, 2019, 02:19:22 PM »
Looks like winter may be coming early to high elevations of Norway this year, those totals are pretty ridiculous.


34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 08, 2019, 07:03:31 PM »
Sark if that November model forecast is actualised then I will be genuinely apologetic but until then I remain healthily sceptical. Those kind of anomalies in the ESS and Laptev in November just dont make sense. There will be bumps absolutely but a sustained >+13C?
That isn't a model, those are the "actualised" temps from the past three Novembers, where there have been consecutive +13C++ readings across wide swaths of the Arctic.

36
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 08, 2019, 04:28:57 AM »
Dorian was not a major blizzard, however, modeling did keep totals in elevated splotches down to New Brunswick, so I would imagine many of the highest locations in Quebec / surrounds have seen an inch or four.

The next week++ looks to include more momentum in Siberia than North America, with major totals now appearing across very wide areas of northern Russia.



I am not sure I agree with the temporary departure of most of the cold air over northeastern North America, but there is consistency in the modeling that Siberia is going to get colder than normal, and fairly snow-covered, by September 20th(ish). At the very least, the CCIN charts should start to move more substantially.


37
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 08:45:16 PM »
^^
I do think this is more than a little overblown.
But I won't get drawn into a debate.
It was stupid. It didn't bring the NOAA to a halt.
Terry

I think it's a serious problem because it erodes the public's trust in impact forecasting. Can you imagine how much of a nightmare emergency management & response would be if the populace was as distrusting of the NWS as they were of climate scientists?
Who cares? This is so overblown and the outrage machine in response is even worse, it has derailed this thread and dominated discourse.

Would it really be so bad if the trust of the "general public" in the NWS was reduced? In those susceptible to "trust reduction" I would argue that most already do not believe in climate change and are generally egregiously stupid. If they get sucked into a tornado or blown away by a hurricane, what's the loss? I would say it is actually a gain in terms of reducing emissions, ironically the roundabout way of doing this is also the most effective.  :)

38
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: September 06, 2019, 07:55:59 PM »
The UN disagrees with your info.

http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/
The UN is not based on science or data. Satellite measurements firmly support the data posted by Hefaistos (and my constant scouring of data, anecdotally, also supports this notion).

Furthermore the linked articles only discuss DEFORESTATION which is meaningless when you do not include REFORESTATION as well. Saying 1M KM^2 of forests are disappearing every year when 1.5M KM^2 of forests are also appearing every year, yet the bigger number is being left out, is a gross omission.

39
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: September 04, 2019, 08:03:32 PM »
Shouldn’t these comments be on 2019/2020 thread? Seems this thread should be general info on snow cover.
I thought it was, my mistake!

40
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: September 04, 2019, 09:08:06 AM »
It looks like winter may set in very early across parts of Canada, particularly good old Quebec.

By 48 hours 850s are below 0 across most of Quebec.



They stay that way through 240 hours with reinforcing cold arriving 216ish.



Forecasts have trended colder continuously. The EURO shows 12"+ falling across most elevated spots of Quebec by the end of the period, with a dollop of 24" totals in the southernmost elevated part of Quebec adjacent to New Brunswick, btw.

Ensembles for GFS and CMC show warmer temps setting in after the 15th so will be interesting to see if forecasts hold or change for colder as we approach 00z hr (as has seemingly been the case as of recent).

41
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: September 04, 2019, 08:39:27 AM »
00z EURO shows 6-12" in parts of New Brunswick. That would be pretty crazy, and the trend colder was strong this past run. There could be a solution in the works that is substantially more significant re: totals (or not).

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 03, 2019, 02:14:16 AM »
The 18z GFS has Dorian's extratropical remnant impacting the Atlantic Front at Day 11 or so. This is very far out but it is likely going to happen IMO, though the exact timing may be different. It should be something to watch out for.

44
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 01, 2019, 11:03:54 AM »
These slums will get the right front quadrant of the storm.

https://ewnews.com/3041-reside-in-six-abaco-shantytowns-report-reveals

They are situated directly in the path on Abaco Island.

45
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: September 01, 2019, 06:30:48 AM »
Dorian could be first major blizzard of season for Quebec, would be very early


46
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps
« on: September 01, 2019, 02:32:12 AM »
I'll repost my link to the model of Earth 3000 AD ("Dubia") here because I realized this is where it really belonged:
http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM
Melting 100% of Greenland by 3000AD would require approximately .1% losses each year (based on current mass balance). That would mean that the entirety of the SMB loss between 2002 and 2019, which I believe to be .1%, would be repeated EACH AND EVERY YEAR. That is a loss of 4,000 GT a year of ice, approximately 15X the mass loss we see each year today.

I feel like the impacts of such MASSIVE ice loss are always lost in these projections. If the changes since 2002 -- and 2012 in particular -- are enough to result in changes we have seen to date, a melt year where Greenland loses 2X the volume of its record loss year to date is going to potentially have exponentially worse impacts than what we have already witnessed. Even if the impacts aren't exponential, at what threshold does mass loss result in year without a summer for much of the NATL? 3X current worst to date? 4X? 5? 10X? 20X? Because if projections are correct we are going to hit each and every one of those numbers at some point in the relatively near future. And I do not believe that will be without dire consequence that temporarily halts or stalls the melting of the ice sheet (the only good result).

47
The 00z CMC is preparing for most of the Upper Midwest's first frost / freeze by D10. Wow.




Looking at this image, I see a tiny sliver of western N.D. below freezing. Did you mistype "most of the Upper Midwest's first frost?
It gets colder in subsequent frames and frosts also occur under 36F not 32F

48
The rest / Re: Are you hoping for a global civilisational collapse?
« on: August 29, 2019, 09:45:47 PM »
I've just finished reading about 50 posts here. Excruciating.
I see bbr is his usual sweet self. Kind of forgot the Mongol empire there, I would imagine someone with such views would look highly on Genghis Khan. Half the known world indeed. And yes, some of it survived, in case anybody is unaware of the history of Beijing.

Binntho, I disagree with your definition of civilizational collapse. A sharp decrease is societal complexity, carrying with it a decrease in population, science, technology, infrastructure (roads, sewers, aqueducts, bridges), knowledge, and many other factors, is indeed a civilizational collapse. There is a huge gap between the Roman empire and subsistence farming, falling just half that gap is collapse enough.

If we don't have free will, why bother posting here? Ah yes, we are compelled.
I would argue that the Mongols were not hegemonic, they did conquer most of the known world, however it was exceedingly brief and collapsed very quickly. More importantly, they didn't exactly "spread" civilization in the way the Romans, British, or Americans have -- they did the opposite, in fact.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 29, 2019, 07:36:12 AM »
Not often you SEE ICE survive into September in these parts


50
The 00z CMC is preparing for most of the Upper Midwest's first frost / freeze by D10. Wow.





The GFS is not too different.



Looks like consensus for the first legitimately cold outbreak of the season with frosts, freeze, and mountain snows could be building for 9/7-9/12.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36