Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [Way OT] Why the recent northeast blizzard was not due to globa

Subject: Re: [OM] [Way OT] Why the recent northeast blizzard was not due to global warming
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:10:04 -0500
You should first read the article before you presume to know what it's 
about.

Chuck Norcutt


On 2/19/2013 1:14 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Chuck, I think this whack-a-mole article could stand a little whacking
> in its own right.
>
> I don't think it's even remotely possible to deny that climate change
> is occurring.  It's been going on since the last ice-age, in fact. Are
> we humans contributing to the speed of change right now? Oh, I'm sure
> we are. But in the end, we really are just hurting ourselves.
>
> As to storms, and blaming them on climate change? Again, the hysteria
> is mind-boggling on both sides. Where the jet stream is located at any
> given point of time is governed by the boundary between air masses.
> And to get the monster storms we need a large variation in density of
> those air masses. If the arctic is not cold enough during a winter,
> you will actually get smaller and fewer storms. The jet stream moves
> far enough north that we'll have a dry and warm winter in the
> mid-latitudes. Getting frost and snow in Florida is proof that the
> arctic air mass is capable of building up a lot of density.
>
> Less dense air rises, dense air sinks. As air sinks, the Coriolis
> effect kicks in. Air can also rise because of temperature-based
> buoyancy, amongst other effects. It is interesting that we recently
> got our first recorded southern Atlantic hurricane, which COULD point
> to a warming of sea surface temperatures in the southern Atlantic, but
> it is likely that the primary reason is something else as the sea
> surface temperatures frequently are high enough to allow them to form,
> but other factors limit the their production.
>
> The more I learn about climate and weather forecasting, the less I
> know. The earth systems are far more complex than "it's all America's
> fault" global warming charges.
>
> In the upper-midwest, the biggest "storms of the century" tend to
> follow a similar pattern. One low pressure system comes ashore around
> Washington and Oregon and proceeds to march eastward. Meanwhile, a
> second low forms over the Texas Panhandle. When these merge, you will
> get a MONSTER storm that can pack the punch of a Cat-I hurricane. The
> Texas low pumps all the Gulf moisture right up to the the converged
> system. The East-west low is typically one that extends up through the
> entire troposphere, whereas, the Texas low usually isn't, so they get
> the converge. How often do these occur? We get them often enough, but
> rarely every year. Both lows have to form and move at the right time
> and move at the right speeds. The low coming in from the west is
> usually dry, but packs a ton of wind. (Suspension bridge destroying
> winds...). The Texas low isn't that windy, but provides the moisture.
> After blasting the Great Lakes region, the storm usually moves to the
> NE and will usually weaken within two days before fading out somewhere
> over Labrador as it becomes just another eddy in the fluid atmosphere.
> However, when the Texas low is more powerful, the storm will track
> farther to the east and hit the north Atlantic states. Which storm is
> "stronger"? Which one is the bigger "blizzard?" Neither. They just
> concentrated their greatest effect in different geographic locations.
>
> I've been watching this storm projection for the midwest in a couple
> of days. I've been tracking the models since Friday. All of the models
> have been consistently wrong on this one. One Sunday, I figured that
> here in Iowa, we'd get about 5 inches of snow. The models are
> predicting anywhere from 5-12 inches. I've altered my work schedule
> according, but the big change is that we're not getting the dual low
> situation going on which would form a superstorm. As such, this is a
> Gulf moisture pump, and it's a slow mover, so it is possible that it
> will stay slow moving, but I'm still predicting an upper-level
> splinter low to form over Montana. Only one model predicted it. We'll
> see.
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz