pcbjr
Member
5 runs in a row on the GFS with very low 30's down here, and each one has dropped a degree - Goofy may be on to something ....
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Pattern Microwave March
- Thread starter SD
- Start date
Indeed! It has been so warm that just getting a cold rain has been quite difficult! I've been following model biases closely since the winter of 2001-2, when I noticed a horrible E US cold bias of the then MRF/AVN (renamed GFS since then). That Dec and Jan had numerous runs showing deep Arctic plunges in the E US that even fooled Joe Bastardi (he was going batsheet as each very cold run was released and never seemed to give up) as those months ended up warmer than normal in the E US. So, the GFS cold bias was really bad then and you could start seeing it clearly within just 4-5 days. But the Euro was not showing a cold bias then.
In contrast, this winter has shown that even the Euro suite and practically all models have been cold biased though not to the extent of the GFS suite. The cold bias has been relentless the entire winter and can be seen starting just a couple of days out even though it grows with forecast time. So, by 300 hours it becomes laughable.
I have recently learned quite a bit from Webber but also from a pro-met contact, who has been quite warm in the SE US most of the winter because he's been excellent at taking model runs and then adjusting them significantly warmer. He has continued to be reluctant about forecasting much cold, if any, getting into the SE US in early March. Despite the solid cold model consensus, he still has the SE US a little warmer than normal for the average for 3/6-10 as well as a warm overall March. His main idea is that persistent Indonesian convection is the big driver for a warm E US and that it is still persisting.
Fool me once, shame on the models. Fool me hundreds of times, shame on me!
pcbjr
Member
Yup
pcbjr
Member
So if you remember - now on to David's Bar B Q !!!!!
pcbjr
Member
Cannot speak for anyone else - but when data is provided, it's easier to understand the conclusion. Your post provided background - so someone may disagree with the conclusion, or agree, but there is a yardstick ... hope this makes sense - not pontificating at all - just sharing - Phil
Storm5
Member
Hell the last two winters haven't been cold to begin with
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pcbjr
Member
is "cold" a 4 letter non-PC term these days?
2016-7 at Atl is about to become the warmest in 127 winters! What's amazing, however, is that 1889-90 was a whopping 2 degrees warmer back before global warming and back when ATL was in a colder location!!
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
"2) During 1650 and 1715, that was the last mini ice age and there was a solar minimum. There were many more ice ages and not just mini ice ages, there were significant ice ages over the thousands of years and millions of years. So, that tells me that there had to be solar minimums during those ice ages."
Ugh... For crying out loud Don, you're basing all of this off one one or two events. The likelihood that this cooling period occurred due to random chance is relatively high unless you increase the sample size which failed to do... A large proportion of the cooling during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums was induced in large part by a series of large volcanic eruptions (Tambora being the most famous), what if there aren't any major volcano eruptions this time around superimposed onto the low solar activity? Actually go and look at the Be or O isotope reconstructed solar data instead of making this up off the top of your head. The climate forcings and their relative magnitudes are considerably different now than they were in the 17th and 18th century, the response will be much different with the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing...
"3) No, I'm not trying to impress nobody, as you're trying to make it sound like I'm trying to impress people by taking notes in a notepad.
You need to learn how to code in computer programs such as Java, Matlab, NCL, etc (or even excel) to actually perform the kind of rigorous analysis that you're trying to get at... We're not in the early-mid 20th century anymore, there's absolutely no need to put all your data into a journal, that wastes too much time.
"You asked me if I had a journal, my notepad is my journal."
*Facepalm* Don, that's not a scientific journal...
This is what I'm talking about, these are actual scientific journals where legitimate scientists publish and interact, critique, and build upon their work. It's one of the primary modes of academic communication.
AMS is a fantastic example.
http://www.ams.org/journals/
So is Elsevier
https://www.elsevier.com
As well as Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
"4) Why are you making a big deal about my "misspelled" word, it was a typo actually. What is this, a typo correcting forum? Also, if you don't understand what I'm talking about with the currents, I'd say you need to do more research. Just remember what Einstein as said, "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it enough". I don't mind if I get laughed at in the scientific community cause I like to come up with possible theories based upon observations and past events that have occurred, that is one way to predict things. How is that a laughing manner? because some theories are things that possibly can occur."
Btw, you actually misspelled several words but whatever... I hate repeating myself but to make myself very clear on what an actual scientific theory is... it's based on a broad set of observations, principles, has been meticulously reviewed, repeated, and confirmed by a multitude of studies, scientists, etc. and is well accepted in the scientific community. Yours fits none of these of characteristics...
"5) I did research from web pages, not just one web page, several web pages to fact check. I don't remember all the exact web pages. I was during a study alone, I was not doing a study for a class."
I specifically mentioned/hinted at published scientific journal articles, papers, and dissertations for a reason, there's a lot of unpublished (& for good reasons), back-of-the-hand, amateur climate science misinformation out there that isn't very credible esp wrt solar activity.
"Stop assuming things to come up with conclusions about someone doing something without you knowing what they actually did."
The problem is no one actually knows what you did. You essentially said you just stared at some sunspot graphs over the last 30 years and looked at sunspot activity graphs from the 1700s and came up with this "theory". That's not research, literally anybody can do that...
whatalife
Moderator
It must be March Madness around here. The back-and-forth is epic today.
I guess at some point we'll be able to talk more about March vs. who's solar flare is bigger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess at some point we'll be able to talk more about March vs. who's solar flare is bigger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The only time I can recall the models being too warm in the LR was in 09-10, when we had all that blocking. Since then (and before) it has seemed to me, anecdotally at least, that the LR is frequently modeled too cold. This year has just been abysmal in terms of cold being able to sustain itself. Until I see evidence of that changing, I won't believe it. But now, we're out of time, so it doesn't matter too much anyway.
And as far as severe goes, I hope we get some interesting weather to track this spring. I think we'll see a few episodes, but my thinking has been and continues to be that either we'll see wedging kill instability over here or the main dynamics will move well north and east, leaving us with broken showers (and we're off to a good start here -- see today).
Anybody take into account the magnetic pole shift when thinking about future climate, or does it matter at all? I wonder if the weakening magnetic field would offset any "benefit" of reduced solar activity?
Your theory in the weather message board world is fine, IMO. But if you are wanting to promulgate your ideas beyond these forums, Webber's advice is sound.
Here is a link that I didn't recall having seen until just a couple of weeks ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
IF this is accurate, the sun just had its most active 100 years of sunspots averaged out in over 2,000 years!! I had already known that 1950-2000 was the most active 50 year period in 400++ years. However, this is even more telling IF accurate and further leads me to not discount the possibility that the sun has been at least a nontrivial contributor to the 2-3 F global warming over the last 100 years. If so, it could very well be that there is a multiyear lag before significant grand solar related minimum cooling starts to show up.
Eric and others, any comments about this graph? Have you seen this before?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
IF this is accurate, the sun just had its most active 100 years of sunspots averaged out in over 2,000 years!! I had already known that 1950-2000 was the most active 50 year period in 400++ years. However, this is even more telling IF accurate and further leads me to not discount the possibility that the sun has been at least a nontrivial contributor to the 2-3 F global warming over the last 100 years. If so, it could very well be that there is a multiyear lag before significant grand solar related minimum cooling starts to show up.
Eric and others, any comments about this graph? Have you seen this before?
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Yeah, this looks legitimate, most literature I sifted through seem to echo this conclusion that solar activity in the modern era is unusually high, and may be the most active period in the last several thousand years... It's probably worth mentioning here that these reconstructions are based on cosmogenic radionuclides which are essentially atoms with very specific numbers of protons and neutrons that produced via cosmic ray spallation, a natural form of nuclear fission wherein, for example Be-10 cosmic rays (cosmic rays consist of high energy electrons, protons (essentially hydrogen atoms), alpha particles (essentially helium nuclei w/o electrons)), that strike an oxygen atom and cause nucleons (protons and neutrons) to split away from the initial primary nuclear body, thus leaving isotopes of other elements in its wake that are later stored (in the case of Be 10 they are stored in polar ice caps, C-14 in tree rings). Also considering that cosmic ray flux is modulated by solar activity (w/ higher solar activity leading to less cosmic rays and vis versa) the concentrations of these radionuclides provide a decent approximation of solar activity at a given time. However, the resolution of solar activity reconstructions from these radionuclides is 1-3 years at best and thus some amplitude may be lost in the process. Additionally, ~25-35% of the concentration of these isotopes is not dependent on cosmic ray flux, but rather the background climate in which they're deposited, henceforth, there's some uncertainties in these reconstructions, but overall they seem to perform fairly well in providing a general picture for solar activity thousands of years ago. Other cosmogenic radionuclides not mentioned but often used in solar activity reconstructions include Carbon-14, Alumnium-26, Silicon-32, Chlorine-36, and Argon-39...
Oth, while we can't completely discount the possibility that the sun played a significant role in the recent warming, the integrated solar irradiance forcing is appreciably smaller than that induced by the addition of greenhouses gases that selectively absorb and re-emit outgoing longwave infrared radiation towards the surface. The alterations in UV radiation that are several orders of magnitude larger than solar irradiance impacting stratospheric circulation anomalies, including the polar vortex, as well as the QBO and Brewer Dobson Circulation offer a more viable, realistic, and potentially more robust pathway through solar activity can modulate sensible weather in the troposphere at interannual-interdecadal timescales (equivalent to a few years to a decade or two)
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
This is probably the ultimate weenie post but I love the smell of a fresh cold air mass
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Regarding that brilliant pro met who I mentioned as having done so well this winter by significantly warming the model consensus as a result of excessive Indonesian convection, he was as I said still going a little warmer than normal for the SE US for 3/6-10, a period when the models had been quite cold until the not as cold 12Z/18Z consensus today.
Here is what he has for KATL maxes and mins as of yesterday's forecast in the face of quite cold models:
3/6: 63/47
3/7: 66/46
3/8: 62/42
3/9: 63/43
3/10: 67/47
These are all near to a little warmer than normal, nothing like the cold models have! I mean sone of the runs have had hard freezes there. His coldest is 42 or some 15-20 warmer than a good number of the recent GFS runs! That takes both guts and someone very much in tune with the cold model biases. I plan to post again about this near 3/10 to see how well he verifies.
Here is what he has for KATL maxes and mins as of yesterday's forecast in the face of quite cold models:
3/6: 63/47
3/7: 66/46
3/8: 62/42
3/9: 63/43
3/10: 67/47
These are all near to a little warmer than normal, nothing like the cold models have! I mean sone of the runs have had hard freezes there. His coldest is 42 or some 15-20 warmer than a good number of the recent GFS runs! That takes both guts and someone very much in tune with the cold model biases. I plan to post again about this near 3/10 to see how well he verifies.
dsaur
Member
What we need is some big volcanic eruptions to put a blanket of particulates around the earth to act as a soothing, cooling blanket of cloudy softness. Kind of a Downey atmospheric cap to keep those harmful sun rays from heating up the air down here, lol. Get a big one in Iceland, another in Indonesia, and a huge one in the Yucatan, and we'll once again have a change at very cold rain, and might find our missing winters, in the spring and fall, lol. Plus we'll get to use up all those extra grain supplies clogging up the strategic reserve silo's! Tony
olhausen
Member