Agree...feels made up but don’t doubt there’s some fool out there in a similar type situation .Quote:
Originally Posted by plugboots
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
Agree...feels made up but don’t doubt there’s some fool out there in a similar type situation .Quote:
Originally Posted by plugboots
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
They had Judah Cohen on CBC this am on the topic of this weather event. He was talking about the sudden stratospheric warming that disrupts the polar vortex in the arctic sending cold air masses down to the lower latitudes. I recall he mentioned this is related to the warming arctic. His blog is pretty sweet, but really dense. https://www.aer.com/science-research...c-oscillation/Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
I think there is quite a bit of debate about his theories.
"13 Curses to Mutter Against Ted Cruz While You Boil Snow to Drink"
https://www.texasmonthly.com/politic...snow-to-drink/
Hmmm... this seems relevant. Texas had the same problem in 2011. Same root cause, power generation wasn't able to perform in cold weather.
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/f...-11-report.pdf
I don't know Cohen, but overall this is relatively basic climatology. "Global" warming occurs disproportionately at the the poles. The weakened temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles destabilizes the polar vortex and makes detachment of the vortex and excursions into mid-latitude regions more likely. Predicting when and where those detachments will happen is exceedingly difficult (i.e., weather vs. climate), but the increasing probability of occurrence as the planet warms is not controversial in climate science.Quote:
Originally Posted by danmelon
"Well, we don't believe in global warming, but global warming means that won't happen again, so no reason to implement those winterization recommendations."Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Oh, wait....
Right, the debate about Cohen is that he keeps claiming that he can predict the detachments of the vortex based on like, Eurasian snow cover as an indicator or something like that. But yeah, what you stated was pretty much what I heard him say this morning. I've been reading his blog for a while now and was surprised to hear him on the radio!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I hear the Texas outages are a hoax. The people on the news are all crisis actors!
Ah, that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by danmelon
Nope, it’s the work of Antifa and the ultra elites. We’re not free anymore. Anywhere.
What evidence? All the evidence is so sketchy. Ok, this broke records about a century old. So, fine, was there climate change then? I don't think so. Or, maybe there was. How would you know? Who was keeping records a century before that? Oh, wait, nobody, right? Because nobody lived there. How about a century before? Wow, practically ancient history. But, it wasn't. It was just about 300 years ago. That ain't squat in weather time, right? As though somebody was keeping score. The thermometer was invented in 1709. Before that, who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rature-proxiesQuote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
we have a pretty good idea.
No, it's not really a "pretty good idea" if you're speculating on ice core and, God forbid, tree ring data. I mean, really, prove that shit. You can't.
How old do you think the earth is Benny? Absolute age, or age compared to you would work too.
Now that you can date, sort of. Pretty fucking old.
Also '99 I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Still snowing here.
FFS, Benny, just a few posts up it's explained how this is a perfectly predictable climatic response to GW, nor does that explanation require paleo climate proxy data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
"Perfectly predictable" assumes that climate scientists have achieved something no human has ever achieved. Predicting the future. My point is, they really didn't even know the past that well.
Local weather blogger Cliff Mass is always quick to jump on these stories when the media jumps on the "it's because of climate change!" for any weather event--hot or cold, and I tend to agree with him on that point: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/...by-global.html These kinds of assertions need to be backed by real data otherwise it just gives the deniers more ammunition.
Forkin Cliff Mass can shove it! 2 weeks ago he said "it's unlikely at this point in the year that we will see lowland snow."Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Well guess what Cliff? I've got 2 feet of snow on the ground and it's still coming down.
Get bit!
Arctic Amplification. (Positive feedback loops). But it’s kind of difficult to collect data there.
https://news.yale.edu/2021/02/12/sci...-amplification
Holy-o fuck dude. I used to think you were a little misguided occasionally. But statements like this make you sound like a flat earth whackjob. There's this thing called geology heard of it? Glaciology?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
For some the slide into senility gets steeper as time passes. But the anger at the world increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyfromterrace
Actually what he said was "Running Out of Time For Lowland Snow West of the Cascade Crest" since we rarely get it after March 1st and it should be noted that you definitely aren't west of the Cascades.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
Honestly he seems like a bit of an asshole, but I do think he knows a lot about weather and what he does say about weather is based on data.
Check the weather forecast Benny, they are right far more often than not. Usually only miss on really difficult storm events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
You really want your mind blown see astronomy, where they can predict orbits of object for thousands of years into the future!
Whatever. He jinxed us but good. Still snowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
There’s a huge percentage of deniers that will not be swayed by any amount of data. It’s become a religion and facts don’t matter. One could argue it’s the same on both sides but the climate change folks seem to have the preponderance of evidence on their side.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Wouldn't it be wonderful if climate change wasn't real though. Man that would be great. I bet a lot of climate change believers would happily change their opinion if it wasn't true and humanity could just go on its merry polluting way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
Political scandal aside, the guy is still rocking that mullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I thought maybe the shears ran out of battery or something, but oh no, this is an intentional style choice.
Pssh, I'm going to predict the future right here: the Blazers will not win the NBA championships. There you go, you can send me some beer once my prediction comes true in July.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Reading that post it feels like he's arguing against a point that no one is making. He's generally talking about average conditions, not low-frequency events like this one. Even then, east of the Rockies his second figure does not seem to support his conclusion that cold snaps are becoming considerably less frequent. The article he cites that "debunks" the idea that "cold waves are enhanced by a "lazy" jet stream, weakened by global warming" is from 2013 and he's quite arguably misrepresenting their findings. At best, it's not representative of the current scientific consensus. From a 2019 review article published in Nature Climate Change:Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...winter_weather
Observational analyses support that AA, and in particular sea ice loss, can infuence midlatitude winter weather through a stratospheric pathway. Climatology favours a strong polar vortex supported by cold air over the Arctic and milder air at lower latitudes. This temperature distribution forces low geopotential heights over the Arctic and higher heights in the midlatitudes (left panel of the figure). In recent decades, this climatologically favoured configuration of the polar vortex has become increasingly perturbed 15,70,88,116. Although Arctic warming is strongest at the surface (see Fig. 1 in the text), it extends throughout the mid-troposphere. In addition, the sea ice loss and associated warming is not uniform across the Arctic, but rather regionally focused. Concentration of Arctic warming in the Barents–Kara Seas dilates geopotential heights over northwestern Eurasia, leading to more frequent high-latitude Scandinavian/Ural blocking that is favourable for the excitation of vertically propagating energy associated with large-scale planetary waves9,67,69,88. The increased vertical propagation of energy is coupled with more frequent intrusions of warm air from lower latitudes, depositing heat in the polar stratosphere, which causes a second maximum of Arctic warming where the polar vortex normally resides. Warming throughout the atmospheric column dilates the geopotential heights suffciently to reverse the normal Equator–pole geopotential height gradient, resulting in cold air previously trapped near the pole to be displaced to the midlatitudes. As air flows southward away from the North Pole towards the Equator, the air is deflected to the west by the Coriolis force, forming an easterly wind around the North Pole. The redistribution of air masses that happens first in the stratosphere is then replicated through the troposphere to the surface. This completes the reversal of the NH circulation pattern with relatively warm temperatures and high geopotential heights over the Arctic and lower heights in the midlatitudes accompanied by more frequent cold air out-breaks to the midlatitudes.
The full text of the paper is available through the link.
Now, that said, I'll certainly concede that certain parts of the media are almost certainly overplaying and/or mischaracterizing this relationship. Hype machines gonna hype and "GW may increase probabilistic likelihood of Texas cold snap from 100-year event to 30-year event" isn't exactly an attention-grabbing headline. There are probably many, many more climate change deniers out there claiming that the Texas crisis disproves anthropogenic GW entirely. I'm shocked Ron Johnson hasn't materialized in this thread to say just that.
NASA predicted the future with astonishing precision and accuracy yesterday. I can tell you with >99.99% certainty that in 10 million years the southern coast of California will be hundreds of miles to the north of where it is now, and that there will be an oceanic channel through East Africa. Where's my money?Quote:
Originally Posted by neufox47
I think you can concede that there are many more red arrows on the map than there are blue ones, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B-ZE6bsI3...load5-2016.png
BTW ted was born in Canada but they moved when he was 4 and then he became an American citizen 5 yrs ago so if he is all fucked up it was whatever influences from living down thereQuote:
Originally Posted by char_
In the West the trend is obvious, not so much in the Midwest and East. Regardless, I'm not sure that dataset is an appropriate one to use for very low-frequency extreme events. That NCM article clearly does not support what he's saying, and the older article he cites doesn't "debunk" anything, it only says the mechanism appears to be more complex than some researchers have suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
You should head over to Lewiston. Downright tropical.
+3 here today, might be the daytime high.
Doubt grrr still reads this forum, but it was -1 F on the dollar lot's thermometer this am.
8 was the low at my house last night. Balmy 16 and sunny now.
it got up to -16F in Calgary today. that’s cold but what’s annoying is that people on the canadian radio were talking about -50, i thought “huh, that’s notable” but it was of course just windchill. clickbait everywhere!