Wednesday, February 06, 2019

More Bad Weather to Come

FYI


No photo description available.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

We havn't been able to drive on our street since Sunday night.

Trapped

Anonymous said...

Metro League Gymnastics championships are supposed to be on Friday afternoon/evening at West Seattle High School. Next week is Districts. I wonder what they are going to do.

HP

Anonymous said...

NOAA has since lowered the amounts of snow forecast:
Snow likely before 4pm, then rain and snow likely. Cloudy, with a high near 38. Wind chill values between 24 and 34. South southwest wind 5 to 7 mph becoming light and variable in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation is 70%. New snow accumulation of less than a half inch possible.
Friday NightRain and snow likely, becoming all snow after 10pm. Cloudy, with a low around 31. Breezy, with a south wind 17 to 22 mph becoming north in the evening. Winds could gust as high as 26 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 3 inches possible.
SaturdaySnow likely. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 37. Chance of precipitation is 60%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 2 inches possible.
Saturday NightA 30 percent chance of snow. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 24. New snow accumulation of less than a half inch possible.
SundayA slight chance of snow. Partly sunny, with a high near 35.
Sunday NightA slight chance of snow. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 24.
MondayA chance of snow. Partly sunny, with a high near 36.
Monday NightA chance of snow. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 26.
TuesdayA chance of snow. Partly sunny, with a high near 37.
Tuesday NightA chance of rain and snow. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 25.
WednesdayA chance of snow. Partly sunny, with a high near 39.

SolvayGirl

Anonymous said...

You forgot how to link the cold weather to global warming, oh wait that's CNN's job.

HeHe

Anonymous said...

@HeHe, we don't need to link the cold weather to global warming--Mother Nature has already done that for us. Whether or not you recognize the relationship between weather and climate is another thing (and, in the bigger picture, irrelevant, since hopefully science will win out). You may find it funny now, but the joke will increasingly be on us.

Climate

Anonymous said...

And, of course, NOAA has increased the accumulation forecasts again. Be careful out there folks!

And HeHe—Global Warming means more extremes. READ something that's been peer reviewed by real scientists for a change will ya?

SolvayGirl

Anonymous said...

Hey! Some of the curriculum in the new Science Adoption actually teaches the difference between weather and climate! However, the 25yr old science kits that are kids are getting don't. Maybe the adpotion isn't perfect, but do we really want to slow it down with the current state of the SPS budget? If we don't move forward now, doesn't it just stay this bad? So cold for the future of science for our kids?
-Freezing Point Depressed.

Anonymous said...

@ SolvayGirl

Perhaps you should study solar weather and the direct impact of the suns minimums and maximums on the earth's atmosphere. The idea that the earth is warming is inconstant with the data.

Start with the data behind "mini ice ages" and I think you will become more concerned with that vs the flawed global warming narrative.

You are going to wish for global warming within the next few years.


HeHe

seattle citizen said...

HeHe,
Sources, please. Most...almost all...scientists disagree with you.

Anonymous said...

Most?...really and your proof? Sources please.

I could walk you through the science regarding rapid upper level thermosphereic cooling and the effects to the lower levels and the impacts the cooling has on Earth's weather and temperatures. Please read about the Maunder Minimum.

The basics...space is cold, very cold -455 f +/- When the sun's radiation collides with the upper atmosphere it warms and expands creating a greater distance between the -455 f temp and the Earth. When the radiation decreases so does the thickness of the atmosphere causing the lower levels of the atmosphere to cool and also contract and cool. This process continues until a equilibrium is established and results in the -455f moving closer to the earth. A thicker contracted atmosphere transfers the cooler air much easier and quicker than a thin one does.

Feel free to challenge me on this.



HeHe

Anonymous said...

The "abundance of caution" is not playing well.
I'm worried for all students, teachers and staff getting home safely.
-Fly

Anonymous said...

The main roads are fine. Kids might have to work off some fat walking a few blocks.


--Chad

Anonymous said...

I think it was a very bad idea not to close the schools at noon today. Many students and teachers live far away, traffic was awful, visibility was low, and the roads were well on their way to becoming a mess by 2:30 (the 75 minute early release time). School busses are not equipped to safely handle slippery snowy roads (and hills). And all to get in one additional period? It doesn't make much sense.

Thankfully the students that could leave did (at least at Garfield).

-Parent

Anonymous said...

@HeHe

0 °K (= -455 °F) is the background cosmic radiation temperature. That's not what temperatures in the vicinity of Earth's orbit are like. The temperature of any object 1 AU from the sun that absorbs half the solar radiation it's exposed to would read about 280 °K (= +45 °F). The International Space Station is coated in special protective layers because, when in the sun, the temperature of the metal the station is built of can get as hot as 400 °K (+260 °F). But, when the same metal enters shade behind the planet, the temperature will drop to 200 °K (-100 °F) or so. Even in shade, no part of space near the Earth's atmosphere is ever as cold as 0 °K.

Even the surface temperature of Pluto can get only as low as 33 °K (-400 °F), 33 degrees above absolute zero.

Blinded by Science

Anonymous said...

There have been no earth climate fluctuations associated with decreased sunspot activity. That is a thoroughly debunked myth originally promulgated by FOX news.

OO

Melissa Westbrook said...

First, I love this scientific debate.

Next, Chad, please watch your tone when speaking of children.

Anonymous said...

@ OO Sure it has. So why don't you astonish us with facts and not fiction of FOX news.

I suppose I could be wrong, I have never been in space or outside of an airplane at 36,000. I have never been to the sun nor was I alive during the Maunder Minimum. I have read the academically accepted principles by Eddy and find them plausible. Beyond that it just makes scientific sense.

Expansion and contraction of air with temperature is simple to prove by placing a highly inflated toy balloon in a zero degree home freezer. The balloon will shrink and the air inside will cool and condense. If you leave the balloon in the freezer while slowly heating it with a hair dryer then the balloon will expand again. Another really cool experiment to try is filling the balloon with really cold air from the freezer and then remove the balloon exposing it to room temp 68f +/-. The balloon should expand 3x +/-. These are the same effects the solar rays have on the balloon around the earth called the atmosphere. The spinning helps minimize the effect by only exposing a % of the atmosphere to the sun or shade but it does happen in a similar way.

Im not sure why you choose to use FAKE information. At 36,000 feet the standard outside air temperature is -56.5°C (-69.7°F) it doesn't matter if you're an airplane of a air molecule. As you go higher it only gets colder. I not talking about materials in a vacuum!

The only source of global warming is the sun and cow farts have no impact at all on the earths temp. Spin it all you want.

HeHe

Anonymous said...

@HeHe

In atmosphere, the reason why it's colder at higher altitude (into the mesophere at least) is because air pressure is lower the higher in the atmosphere you go. It has nothing to do with contact with the "coldness" of space, because in vacuum heat can't spread by conduction, only by radiation, and from radiation space around Earth is quite hot. By the time you rise to the thermosphere, daytime temperatures of the gas at that altitude can easily reach 2500 °C from solar radiation, as conduction no longer works well so high.

Actually a planetary atmosphere does behave sort of like a balloon in some ways, contracting and expanding based on various factors - not just heat from the sun but also effects from the magnetosphere, among other things. The atmosphere even bulges at the equator due to spin. But a party balloon isn't usually big enough to effectively exhibit convection, which is the driver of weather systems generally. A better atmospheric model on a small scale might be a saucepan on the oven. When you add heat to that system, convection starts to cycle the colder water at top down as heated water at bottom rises. The more heat in the system, the more turbulent the convection. If you add a lid onto the saucepan, the system quickly becomes turbulent enough that the water actually comes to a full boil. The atmosphere is the same, with greenhouse gases a sort of lid keeping heat in the system so that it can't radiate off.

A real-universe example is close by. We know that greenhouses gases on Venus have made an atmosphere so hot that liquid heavy metals, such as iron, fall as rain or "hot snow" there. Venus has a surface temperature hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun, because Venus has an atmosphere, full of greenhouse gases, and greenhousey atmospheres retain heat. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. Earth has a long time before we have to worry about heavy metal precipitation, but notice how the expansion and contraction of Venus's atmosphere (same as Earth's) doesn't play into to heat retention in the system. Remember that Venus's atmosphere also cools off at higher altitudes due to less density. On the surface it's around 500 °C on a good day, at 75 km elevation in its mesophere it's around -100 °C, but by 200 km (in the thermosphere) it rises again to about +100 °C.

Earth is no different. As we add more and more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere at a rate faster than the biosphere can take it out again, the more and more like Venus we will eventually become.

Blinded

Eric B said...

HeHe, as best as I can tell from your posts, you're basically saying that the Maunder Minimum is associated with the Little Ice Age in Europe and therefore when sunspot activity dies down again in its natural cycle, the Earth will cool again. If that's not what you're saying, please feel free to correct me and be more clear about why you're referring to the Maunder Minimum in association with climate change.

The problem with the argument above is that the Maunder Minimum started in 1645. There was a clear cooling trend after the Medieval Warm Period starting in 1100 and becoming far more pronounced in 1400. The cooling trend that ended in the Little Ice Age started long before the Maunder Minimum, so you can't draw a causal link between the two.

Anonymous said...

No I'm not saying that, I'm saying the effect is real, the cause of the little ice age is debatable.

If you look at NASA's web site they post the organization's belief of how sun spot activity relates to the Earths atmosphere and it's consistent with the experiments I wrote about.

You or I can't say when the little ice age started or ended to any degree of accuracy because we where not there nor was any currently living person. We do not have any reliable data collected with modern instrumentation. People were more concerned with just surviving and not shaping public opinion with over reaching theories.

Do you want to argue over the effects of Co2 on the atmosphere and label Co2 harmful, is that what you're itching for? I believe man could burn all the oil left on the planet and that would still not come close to matching the amount released by the Earths natural sources in 5 years.

But go ahead with your diatribe.

HeHe

Eric B said...

I would have called that a reasonable discussion pointing out flaws in your theory, not a diatribe, but that's OK. Can you point to the NASA webpage that talks about sunspot influence on atmospheric warming and cooling? I see lots of articles about how space weather affects electronics and technology, but none about atmospheric effects like what you're discussing.

Anonymous said...

I guess I'm having a hard time following since climate change is not strongly correlated to sunspot activity, and I didn't even get that we were talking about sunspots, so maybe I missed a post or read something too fast. Sorry about that. The onset of the Maunder Minimum predates the Little Ice Age, which is also true of the cooling before the Spörer Minimum, so the more widely accepted idea currently is that vulcanism better explains the Little Ice Age. Eddy and his successors have made some significant advances in the science of sunspots, solar flares, and solar minima, but his ideas about direct impact on climate remain speculative at best. I think this webpage has an even better observation about sunspots and planetary climate: https://science.howstuffworks.com/sunspot3.htm

UFO watchers and paranormal enthusiasts also see links between the unknown and increased sunspot activity, but there may be more of a correlation with the intensity of a person's belief in mystical phenomena.

Blinded

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should ask Al Gore the inventor of the internet and the discoverer of man made global warming. I'm sure he has a bunker containing an exclusive collection of photos showing UFOs eating sun spots.


Those libs

Anonymous said...

Al Gore is not relevant.

Who said anything about sun spots? I'm saying solar energy as in particles heating the atmosphere casing it to expand. When the Sun's energy output is reduced the Earth's atmosphere cools and contracts.

Do you doubt this happens?

The sun spots are irrelevant. There's no one who can definitively say when or why a ice age occurred. But I can tell you the only source of global warming is the Sun.

--Sept. 27, 2018: The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

HeHe

Eric B said...

Let me link to the article: https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

The problem with your whole argument is shown in the "Layers of the Atmosphere" illustration (2nd image from the top). Yes, at the solar minimum, the upper thermosphere is much cooler. However, once you get to the lower thermosphere and below, the atmospheric temperature is identical at solar maximum and solar minimum.

The other thing you seem to be ignoring is that the hottest 10 years on record (global average temperature) are 2016, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2013, 2009, and 1998 (descending order). Seven of those ten years (1994-98, 2002-12, and 2016-present) are all listed in that NASA article as being cool to cold in the upper thermosphere. If the effect that you are arguing for existed, we would see a cooling trend here. Since that isn't what the observed data show, you might want to rethink your hypothesis.

Finally, if sunspots are irrelevant, it's not a good idea to start your argument with the Maunder Minimum, which is all about sunspots.

STEM worker said...

Eric B, you are a kind and thoughtful contributor. Thank you for that!
You mentioned the 10 hottest years on record are all since 1998. Are you aware that the number of weather stations used in calculating that was significantly reduced in 1990? Prior to 1990 there were ~6000 weather stations used for that calculation. In 1990, the number of stations was reduced by 3/4, to ~1500. And it appears that more “cold site” stations were removed than “hot site” stations. So it’s really difficult to compare pre-1990 temperature averages to post-1990 temperature averages.

More Rest? said...

Anyone else have a problem with the lack of school days and what I suspect will be a complete unwillingness to trim mid winter break?

Given weather reports, I’m fully expecting SPS to cancel school all week. With no change to midwinter break that will mean kids (and teachers) will have been in classrooms for a total of 18 days since leaving for Christmas.

Is teaching and learning so onerous that another break is needed?

No Snomageden said...

If there is an inch or two inches of snow on the ground, our children should go to school. Other places in the country deal with snow. We have neighborhood schools. Students can walk to school.

I don't want my children to spend summer in school.

Anonymous said...

I am 100% in favor of making up snow days over the upcoming mid-winter break rather than adding them to the end of the school year. I say this as someone with travel plans for both mid-winter break and the school year-end. Families will have made plans either way but it's preferable to start catching up sooner rather than later, especially with respect to AP exams and other assessments that take place in the spring.

I do think that schools should open tomorrow.

FNH

Dreams Unlikely said...

FNH,

I'd love to cancel mid-winter break. You would have to get past Seattle Education Association to open schools during mid-winter break. It isn't going to happen.

Anonymous said...

From my point of view, it's hard to argue the world is warming when there's 8 inches of snow in my yard and it's 19 degrees outside. I don't need NASA ,Eric B o HeHe to provide links or data. The data is right in front of me.

JS

Work for a living said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Here's the big question, will SPS try and extend Black History month?


More Snow

Anonymous said...

Years ago Seattle Schools did not have a mid winter break.

When It first appeared on the calendar, it was the Tues/Wed after President's day. These were labeled as "snow day make-up" ...

I do recall making up a day on one of those days in the mid 1990s.

With schedule creep, mid-winter break is now a week long and is no longer available to be used for snow day make-up.

The school year has crept so far into June that if I were in high school today I wouldn't be able to do the summer job (at a summer camp) I did many years ago because I wouldn't be able to report for staff week.

northwesterner

Anonymous said...

OMG, Amy Klobuchar is trying to aid her political status in perpetuating the warming hoax. She's hard to believe when she is announcing her run standing outside in 14 degrees and heavy snow.

My guess is her next stop will be death valley to show case global warming. Yikes


Ironic

Anonymous said...

Wasn't some of the coldest temps ever record reached in several states just a few weeks back?

Even if not records it sure was cold in most of the lower 48. There goes the global warming tag line. Oh wait I forgot it's now climate change. Similar to when much of North America was under 100 feet of ice and now it's not, so yes the climate changed.

Looking at the data for the past 2 winters, there is no support that the average temp this winter is higher than last winter. So good luck with cherry picking the data. Yes the climate is changing...it getting colder.

Maybe it's the Earth's precession coupled with lower UV radiation output of the Sun that's causing the record colds temps? Similar the temps will rise dramatically when the Sun's UV output is at its high and the precession move the Earth closer to the Sun.

HeHe

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric B said...

Oh, so now it's precession, too? If you can't stick to a consistent argument, there's no point in talking further. You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

STEM worker said...

GS,
The 97% is a myth. I’ll bet you don’t even know how many “scientists” were polled that the 97% is based on. Hint: it’s not 100.
Also what was the question that supposedly 97% of them agreed on?

STEM worker said...

GS,
And knock off the name calling.....if someone doesn’t agree with you, they’re a “Trump cult member”??

Anonymous said...

No Snowmageden said: "We have neighborhood schools. Students can walk to school."

Not all schools are neighborhood or walkable, and far from it in many cases. Even ignoring option schools, some kids are placed into non-neighborhood schools, or non-walkable schools for many reasons; program and offering reasons, school construction causing whole school displacement, etc

- B

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

@Snomageden, ok, maybe “If there is an inch or two inches of snow on the ground, our children should go to school,” as you said—depending on bus status, icy roads, etc. Certainly we don’t want kids standing out in the snow for an hour waiting for their bus. Right?

But maybe you’re not from around here if you’re talking about an inch or two anyway. It’s abundantly clear we have much more than that.

Fluffy

Melissa Westbrook said...

Global warming includes all climate change.

One caveat I throw out to people - the new coins of the realm, if not for us but for our children and grandchildren, will be data and water. Companies and the government want as much data as they can get. You can live without oil but you can't live without water. We in the Northwest may be glad we are here.

I see what was a decent scientific discussion has dissolved so we'll end this here. It's a pity.