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.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|