Scott26

Looks like a couple of inches over here at best. Has anybody been tracking the potential major blizzard for the east coast in the Tuesday-Wednesday time frame? Our system phases with an Atlantic low to create a monster storm. 12Z Euro was probably one of the most impressive runs I have ever seen for a winter storm. It gives NYC 2.2 inches of precipitation with temperatures in the 20's. That would translate to over 2 feet of snow! At least this clipper will be useful for something...

This is the reason why I'm not going with anything more than 1-3 inches at this time. Best forcing and banding looks to be to the south of here. South side of Chicago through Northern Indiana possibly into Ohio looks to be in the best place right now for the higher totals. It's funny that yesterday I was thinking Wisconsin and Michigan were going to be the winners with this one. The Euro, the southern outlier, was even too far north will the heaviest band yesterday. We will see if lake enhancement over here can up our totals similar to Skilling's RPM model.

RIP Ernie Banks to one of the greatest Cubs of all time both on and off the field.

I still like my 1-3 inches call for over here, but I will go higher if greater lake enhancement seems evident.

It taps into some Pacific moisture as it dives south. The NAM is finally showing the nice banding I was talking about yesterday. Lake enhancement is the wild card in all of this definitely.

There are definitely still major differences between the Euro and GFS at 500 mb. The Euro shows more of a closed low by 72 hours, but the GFS still looks a bit more strung out. I do believe that Wisconsin and Michigan is going to get the highest totals from this. The Euro is too weak on QPF like it usually is with these NW flow systems. I think once we get into hi-res model range we will see more pronounced mesoscale banding with possibly a bit over 6 inches in the heaviest hit areas. For the Chicago peeps I think 1-3 inches is a good estimate at this time...

Fascinating... I know that we don't understand quantum mechanics very well at this time, but I didn't know it upended so many other theories. I will definitely try to read that when I have time since quantum mechanics and physics in general really interests me also.

My worry as well with all of the teleconnections taking a dip.

I'm not trying to get too off topic here, but wasn't Quantum Mechanics more of a discovery, as you said, instead of proving anything false? It's not like it disproved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Didn't it just bring us into a new world of physics at the subatomic level?

Are we back in the 1800's right now? With all of the technology and knowledge we have today the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely.

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...

It may be time to make a thread for the weekend clipper system. It's not like anything else is going on...

It would be nice to get some snow on the ground again. I really do want this clipper pattern to end though so we can track something more substantial.

But, water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Wouldn't a reduction in H^20 aloft being an argument that CO^2 is more likely to be the culprit? I'm not trying to argue anything, but I'm trying to understand. Also it's currently estimated that human impacts on the atmosphere exert a cumulative radiative forcing of 1.6 watts/m^2, but why exactly should most of the CO^2 radiative forcing be occurring in the middle/upper troposphere? I understand that some of the re-emitted infrared energy is lost to space and some travels back downwards, but what keeps most of the warming going on in the middle/upper troposphere instead of most of it getting absorbed into the oceans for example.

Unless you want it to be -27 degrees again

Of course, I agree with you completely. It's not like the properties of CO2 are suddenly going to change. The climate is extremely complex and there are many other factors that the models have trouble depicting. It's just ridiculous that people on this forum believe it's all a giant hoax and humans are attributing nothing to the warming of the Earth in recent years don't you think? The biggest uncertainty is, like you said, the extent of this warming in the future and whether it's going to be catastrophic, fairly harmless or somewhere in the middle.

Hence the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, which is on similar grounds to the theory of evolution, plate tectonics and the big bang, but it's just newer and therefore has more dissent. Also, I'm unsure how this related to my response you quoted me on at all...

Well, other then you and Phil most of the people that have responded to this thread clearly don't have much of a scientific background. I have looked at forums like Americanwx and most of the Meteorologists there are firm believers in CAGW. This forum is overwhelmingly tilted in the opposite direction and I wonder why. I would still like Phil to tell me where he got the 65/35 ratio. He likely made an educated guess rather than knowing that is exactly the case, but there should be some sort of source that proves the 97% consensus is complete bs. I have looked all over the internet and I have seen no study or anything other then the 97% consensus. I do find it a bit interesting and odd that there is a large percentage in which the research papers have "no opinion" in the IPCC 97% consensus study. The largest percentage outright supported anthropogenic climate change with a very small amount of deniers. Though, a bit over 30% had no opinion whatsoever. So I'm a bit skeptical about that, but I still want Phil to give me a good source that 65/35 is the more accurate ratio before I write off the IPCC study.

Understandable, but I would still like to see some source showing the 97% consensus being complete bs.

Yeah this started in the Great Lakes sub-topic since we got into a debate over there, but was moved over here by a mod/admin. I don't think it's necessary to have two threads to be honest.

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

I never said I understood it all. It's an extremely complex process as you said and I try to understand what I can.

It's all good my friend.

Anybody here watching the Bulls game? Definitely a hard one to watch so far. At least Drose is heating up so hopefully the Bulls can come back.

I wasn't aware you had such a science background so I apologize once again. It's just that many people on here are just weather enthusiasts rather than scientists as you know. We're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Through everything I know so far CAGW just makes a lot of sense to me. I did read it and I didn't quickly post a response just to cater to my side. Most of what I read so far and watched was in opposition to that statement, but I will continue to research more about that in the future.