Moderator: S2k Moderators
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.
Brent wrote:I'm not really sure I believe it but everyone is saying winter isn't over here yet and March could still deliver I mean I know it has before but that doesn't mean anything with the way this winter is going
Regardless of that I'm flying to Denver tomorrow for a few days to chill out and maybe find some snow there who knows lol even there it's gonna be pushing 60 by Monday
Stratton23 wrote:I just want to go on the record and say im not trying to argue with anyone here about winter, I just personally think after reading through NOAA’s discussions and a great report by Judah Cohen, that things could definitely change depending on what this SSWE does, and if im wrong, ill eat the crow chowder, I enjoy this group a lot and i think its always important to discuss things before completely writing off winter!
. Personally I'm in no rush to see summer again.
rwfromkansas wrote:Well, I am hopeful for some sudden change in a week or two. Things can happen even fairly late, especially for Tulsa. Kansas often had snows even in mid-March, and I am sure Tulsa can as well. Down here our window is closing.
Please have a decent severe weather season and rains before La Nina comes back this summer.
Time to put out the spring weed preemergent due to the warmth...
Stratton23 wrote:I wouldnt trust the GFS beyond 5 days lol, hell i barely trust it beyond 24 hours, same with the euro and cmc
Ralph's Weather wrote:Looks like some sprinkles or flurries tonight for NE TX.
orangeblood wrote:DukeMu wrote:orangeblood wrote:
I'm not arguing whether geothermal is increasing or isn't in that particular region, just that it absolutely is a part of the climate equation. The debate is still by what magnitude ?
There are a slew of factors, including geothermal. We can parse them out better than decades ago as boundary conditions are becoming better known.
The continuous trend for CO2 is up. The analogies I use are like a thumb on the scale affecting outcomes and a probability model. While it's difficult to link specific weather events to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, like adding millions of entries into a Lotto. It increases the probability of events While CO2 is only the 3rd most potent major greenhouse molecule (water vapor and methane are 1 and 2), CO2 is homogenously distributed in the troposphere (latitude, longitude, and altitude), it has a long half-life of (decades). Antarctica and Mauna Loa get the same values. Absorption of infrared radiation is an essential thermodynamic property. So the effects of upward trends are predictable in that the hum presses harder on the scale.
I measured CO2 in the atmosphere quite a bit back in the 80s for calibration of O2 and CO2 analyzers and it was 330 ppm (up from 280 ppm at the turn of the 20th Century. Today we're at 430 ppm and rising. Some of the temperature rise from 1980 - today was ironically reduction in particulate pollution (smog), some is UHI. A good bit of it is the rise in CO2 due to hydrocarbon burning and loss of tropical forestation.
While expected rise in night temperatures and largest changes at the poles are consistent with a modest greenhouse effects, predicting the future and the effect on specific areas and biosystems is difficult. The effects of CO2 are heterogenous and intertwined with complex ocean current oscillations. Models over-estimate the contribution of an expected rise in water vapor...by gaseous H2O is not homogenously distributed and has a very short half-life (days). However, the impact on the loss of albedo has been greater than affects.
I think we're looking at a 20-40 year transition to a carbon neutral environment. Carbon capture, potential development of fusion (now that we have superconductor magnets), hydrogen, ammonia, biofuels, planting more trees, greening the cities. I'm on the technology and innovation solution side.
Meanwhile, the probability of the # of Atlantic basin hurricanes will either not change or possibly decrease. However, the probability of CAT 4 and 5 bombs will continue to trend upwards. Most winter days will probably be warmer, with an occasional disrupted polar vortex.
My main concerns over the next 20-40 years are (slowly) rising sea level and potential for mega droughts scattered around the globe, taxing food supplies. These are things the Pentagon worries and plans potential scenarios where wars are ignited by limited food and resources in an increasingly unstable political climate.
The Earth will survive, regardless. Most of the Earth's existence was been without polar ice caps. That's a relatively "new" phenomenon, and the last 10M years have featured relatively unstable polar ice coverage.
Thank you for the thorough and well thought out hypothesis, I appreciate it! This is very important and valuable dialogue that needs to continue.
I obviously come from the other side of this debate, more so being that WAY TOO MUCH attention is on CO2. Yes, its 3rd on the list of greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere but it is extremely miniscule when compared to the other two (Water Vapor and Methane) and it's really not even close particularly when compared to Water Vapor. Water Vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, don't believe there's really much of a debate on that. My point in bringing up geothermal and it's little known contributions to the atmospheric cycle (mainly because it's not well monitored across our vast ocean sea floors) is that it contributes to the undebatable strongest Greenhouse Gas contributor, Water Vapor!!
The warming ocean, mainly away from the tropics, puts more water vapor into the air. That water vapor is the most prominent greenhouse gas and thus the temperature responds more so to that than anything else. The idea that its the air warming the ocean, and co2 is what is warming the air seems counter intuitive given the oceans have a 1000 times the heat capacity of the air. The colder the ocean, the more co2 and water vapor it holds vs the air. A warming ocean releases extra co2 into the air along with more water vapor. However the amount of extra water vapor is far far greater than the co2. So what would drive more warming.....water vapor. Where would that water vapor cause the greatest increase in temperature, given only small variations are needed to produce such things. The arctic, during their winter. This is easy to verify... just go to the DMI site and examine the temperatures to notice there has been no warming of the arctic in the summer, its all in the winter. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I'm bringing this up because there are perfectly logical arguments and examples, simple in nature, that demonstrate why the idea that ALMOST ALL of the temperature variation is natural and as a matter of fact intuitive when one understands the entire system and how big it is and how small co2 is. That is not to say co2 DOES NOTHING anything has some effect on everything else, but if its so small, it's likely not worth spending too much time arguing over and definitely not worth spending trillions upon trillions of $$$ on. Our main focus of the climate community needs to be on gaining a better understanding of our oceans, the biggest contributor to the strongest Greenhouse Gas contributor on our planet, WATER VAPOR!!
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
orangeblood wrote:DukeMu wrote:orangeblood wrote:
I'm not arguing whether geothermal is increasing or isn't in that particular region, just that it absolutely is a part of the climate equation. The debate is still by what magnitude ?
There are a slew of factors, including geothermal. We can parse them out better than decades ago as boundary conditions are becoming better known.
The continuous trend for CO2 is up. The analogies I use are like a thumb on the scale affecting outcomes and a probability model. While it's difficult to link specific weather events to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, like adding millions of entries into a Lotto. It increases the probability of events While CO2 is only the 3rd most potent major greenhouse molecule (water vapor and methane are 1 and 2), CO2 is homogenously distributed in the troposphere (latitude, longitude, and altitude), it has a long half-life of (decades). Antarctica and Mauna Loa get the same values. Absorption of infrared radiation is an essential thermodynamic property. So the effects of upward trends are predictable in that the hum presses harder on the scale.
I measured CO2 in the atmosphere quite a bit back in the 80s for calibration of O2 and CO2 analyzers and it was 330 ppm (up from 280 ppm at the turn of the 20th Century. Today we're at 430 ppm and rising. Some of the temperature rise from 1980 - today was ironically reduction in particulate pollution (smog), some is UHI. A good bit of it is the rise in CO2 due to hydrocarbon burning and loss of tropical forestation.
While expected rise in night temperatures and largest changes at the poles are consistent with a modest greenhouse effects, predicting the future and the effect on specific areas and biosystems is difficult. The effects of CO2 are heterogenous and intertwined with complex ocean current oscillations. Models over-estimate the contribution of an expected rise in water vapor...by gaseous H2O is not homogenously distributed and has a very short half-life (days). However, the impact on the loss of albedo has been greater than affects.
I think we're looking at a 20-40 year transition to a carbon neutral environment. Carbon capture, potential development of fusion (now that we have superconductor magnets), hydrogen, ammonia, biofuels, planting more trees, greening the cities. I'm on the technology and innovation solution side.
Meanwhile, the probability of the # of Atlantic basin hurricanes will either not change or possibly decrease. However, the probability of CAT 4 and 5 bombs will continue to trend upwards. Most winter days will probably be warmer, with an occasional disrupted polar vortex.
My main concerns over the next 20-40 years are (slowly) rising sea level and potential for mega droughts scattered around the globe, taxing food supplies. These are things the Pentagon worries and plans potential scenarios where wars are ignited by limited food and resources in an increasingly unstable political climate.
The Earth will survive, regardless. Most of the Earth's existence was been without polar ice caps. That's a relatively "new" phenomenon, and the last 10M years have featured relatively unstable polar ice coverage.
Thank you for the thorough and well thought out hypothesis, I appreciate it! This is very important and valuable dialogue that needs to continue.
I obviously come from the other side of this debate, more so being that WAY TOO MUCH attention is on CO2. Yes, its 3rd on the list of greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere but it is extremely miniscule when compared to the other two (Water Vapor and Methane) and it's really not even close particularly when compared to Water Vapor. Water Vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, don't believe there's really much of a debate on that. My point in bringing up geothermal and it's little known contributions to the atmospheric cycle (mainly because it's not well monitored across our vast ocean sea floors) is that it contributes to the undebatable strongest Greenhouse Gas contributor, Water Vapor!!
The warming ocean, mainly away from the tropics, puts more water vapor into the air. That water vapor is the most prominent greenhouse gas and thus the temperature responds more so to that than anything else. The idea that its the air warming the ocean, and co2 is what is warming the air seems counter intuitive given the oceans have a 1000 times the heat capacity of the air. The colder the ocean, the more co2 and water vapor it holds vs the air. A warming ocean releases extra co2 into the air along with more water vapor. However the amount of extra water vapor is far far greater than the co2. So what would drive more warming.....water vapor. Where would that water vapor cause the greatest increase in temperature, given only small variations are needed to produce such things. The arctic, during their winter. This is easy to verify... just go to the DMI site and examine the temperatures to notice there has been no warming of the arctic in the summer, its all in the winter. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I'm bringing this up because there are perfectly logical arguments and examples, simple in nature, that demonstrate why the idea that ALMOST ALL of the temperature variation is natural and as a matter of fact intuitive when one understands the entire system and how big it is and how small co2 is. That is not to say co2 DOES NOTHING anything has some effect on everything else, but if its so small, it's likely not worth spending too much time arguing over and definitely not worth spending trillions upon trillions of $$$ on. Our main focus of the climate community needs to be on gaining a better understanding of our oceans, the biggest contributor to the strongest Greenhouse Gas contributor on our planet, WATER VAPOR!!
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
