Biggest Storm In 5 Months (jackets return this weekend - snow potential Dakotas)
- Blog Post by: Paul Douglas
- October 2, 2013 - 11:16 PM
.92" additional rain predicted by Saturday evening (NAM model).
Preparing Minnesota for Climate Change: a Conference on Climate Adaptation. This important, all-day session will be held at The Science Museum on November 7. Tickets are available for businesses and consumers; details below.
Chilly Marathon. Expect 40s Sunday morning for the Medtronic Twin Cities Marathon, a stiff breeze at 10-15 mph with higher gusts. Odds favor partly to mostly cloudy skies and dry weather most of Sunday morning, but a few instability showers/sprinkles may drift into the metro area Sunday afternoon.
Umbrella. Noun. "A device consisting of a circular canopy of cloth on a folding metal frame supported by a central rod, used as protection against rain."
I had to brush cobwebs off my umbrella, and for good reason. The last day with an inch or more of rain was back on August 6. Since then it's been "flash drought" and fickle, sporadic (piddly) rainfall amounts. It's time for a real storm, a jolt of steady rain to replenish dry topsoil and low lake water levels.
The biggest storm in 5 months will track north, pushing waves of rain, even a few embedded T-storms, across the state. Mercifully, the atmosphere will be warm enough for rain. The Dakotas may see a few inches of slushy snow. A tough break for Pierre, where the high was 88F on Monday.
Saturday looks like a good museum/movie day, and any peeks of sun early Sunday will quickly give way to low, lumpy clouds and a chilling breeze. Expect 40s and mostly-dry weather for Sunday's Twin Cities Marathon, but instability showers may pop up by afternoon.
Yes, the timing could be better, but we need the rain. I still don't see a metro frost looking out 8 days, in fact 60s return next week. Hardly a warm front but welcome nonetheless.
One Welcome Soaking. 4km. NAM model data suggests some 2-4" rainfall amounts over southern Minnesota by Saturday, 1-2" over central Minnesota. This is the long-duration rainfall event we need to ease the drought. Map: Ham Weather.
Censored For Your Mental Health. This is all happening too fast; a sudden rush of winter. You have to feel for residents of Pierre, South Dakota, where the high was 88F on Monday. A inch or two of slush is possible over central South Dakota, plowable amounts of snow over the Black Hills and Wyoming. Snowfall prediction: NOAA and Ham Weather.
A Classic Autumnal Storm. Unlike fickle summertime convection, T-storms 5 miles in diameter, autumn and winter storms tend to smear hundreds of thousands of square miles with steady, widespread rain or snow. One such storm is upon us, and lingers into Sunday. ECMWF data suggests temperatures may not climb out of the 50s in the metro from Friday into Sunday, but 60s return next week. Graphic: Weatherspark.
Looks Like Rain. The 4km NAM did a good job showing last night's heavy T-storms. As a deepening area of low pressure pushes north across the Plains waves of rain will drift across the state, heavy at times, mixing with snow over the western Dakotas. Animation: Ham Weather.
Tracking A Real Storm - And A Risk of "Karen"? GFS model guidance shows an intense storm pushing from Wichita and Omaha to the Twin Cities by Saturday, whipping up 30-40 mph winds across the Dakotas, where rain will change to wet snow by Friday and Saturday. Watch the disturbance pushing north across the Gulf of Mexico - there's a growing chance it will become Tropical Storm Karen, with possible Saturday impact between New Orleans and Pensacola. Loop: Ham Weather.
Raw Saturday Blues. I'm going to check out "Gravity" and "Rush" at the local theaters on Saturday. It'll be much too wet to take in the dock, or move the lawn chairs, or clean out the gutters. College football, rearranging your sock drawer - come up with an alternative, a Plan B. Showery rains linger Saturday, 4pm temperatures above courtesy of the NAM model and Ham Weather.
Slushy Weekend Roads Across The Dakotas? The map above shows 1 am temperatures early Sunday morning, the 32F isotherm uncomfortably close to Minnesota. Payback for all those mild, glorious days in September? Probably.
Extended Outlook: Jacket Weather. We warm up into the 60s next week, but the 3rd week of October will see another swing to colder weather, a streak of days with highs in the 50s. Much of the metro may remain frost-free into next week, but NOAA GFS data shows a much better chance of a frost/freeze after October 17.
Government Shutdown Affects Weather, Climate Programs. Impacts are showing up (not directly related to severe weather prediction or tracking), but some data sources are down - I know that from personal experience. Here's an excerpt from Climate Matters: "...According to a spokesperson for the Commerce Department, which houses NOAA, the missions of “weather, water, and climate observing, prediction, forecast, warning, and support” will all continue despite a lapse in fiscal year 2014 appropriations. However, much of NOAA’s research activities have stopped or been slowed. For example, Harold Brooks, a top tornado researcher who works at the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Okla., reported his furlough notice on Facebook on Tuesday. Much of the staff at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Lab and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, except for positions related to maintaining computing resources, have also been furloughed. Those two labs are heavily involved in NOAA's climate research programs..."
October Tornado Reminder. Although rare, tornadoes in Minnesota and Wisconsin have been observed as late as mid-November.
Critical Fire Risk Southern California. Powerful Santa Ana winds are forecast to howl through the canyons of southern California later this week, reaching speeds as high as 60 mph. Throw in tinder-dry humidity levels and bright sun and you have all the ingredients for erratic, fast-moving wildfires near L.A. and San Diego.
Florida Faces Ruinous Flood Rate Hikes. Here's a clip from the Bradenton Herald: "...Under the law, 13 percent of the 2 million homeowners who carry flood insurance in Florida will be affected by the rate increase — compared to 20 percent of all policyholders nationwide. Those homeowners will see their rates rise 25 percent upon renewal until they decide to sell their homes, and then the new buyer will have to pay the full cost of that insurance — in some cases as much as 3,000 percent more than current rates — to reflect the true flood risk of their property. The result is having a chilling effect on real estate sales as buyers balk at closing on purchases of older homes that now carry the subsidized rates, said John Sebree, senior vice president of the Florida Realtors Association..."
The Hard Math Of Flood Insurance In A Warming World. Time Magazine has a comprehensive story on spiking insurance rates and the escalating cost of having a home or business on or near America's coastline. Maybe perpetutal climate skeptics will come around when it hits them in the wallet - when they witness the impact of more extremes on their insurance premiums. It's already happening, because insurance companies don't care about ideology or spin - they respond to the actual numbers. Here's the intro: "Thousands of homeowners in flood-prone parts of the country are going to be in for a rude awakening. On Oct. 1, new changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which offers government-subsidized policies for households and businesses threatened by floods, mean that businesses in flood zones and homes that have been severely or repeatedly flooded will start going up 25% a year until rates reach levels that would reflect the actual risk from flooding. (Higher rates for second or vacation homes went into effect at the start of 2013.) That means that property owners in flood-prone areas who might have once been paying around $500 a year—rates that were well below what the market would charge, given the threat from flooding—will go up by thousands of dollars over the next decade..."
File Photo: 2012 Duluth flood aftermath courtesy of Glen Stubbe, Star Tribune.
The Garage Where Google Was Born. Both Google and Apple were (literally) started in Silicon Valley garages. Humble origins for what would transform into world-changing, multi-billion-dollar worldwide enterprises. Here's an excerpt of a great read at Mashable: "It all started in a garage that you can still find with minimal effort — especially if you're using Google Maps. Less than one mile off U.S. Route 101, the highway that links San Francisco to the rest of Silicon Valley, you'll come to a quiet neighborhood a stone's throw from Stanford's beautifully manicured campus. It was in Menlo Park, in a single-story home on Santa Margarita Avenue, that Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin rented the garage from Susan Wojcicki, now a Google senior VP, who was fresh out of business school and afraid of missing her mortgage payments..."
77 F. high in the Twin Cities Wednesday.
65 F. average high on October 2.
72 F. high on October 2, 2012.
.01" rain as of 7 PM at MSP International.
TODAY: Rain likely, clap of thunder? Winds: E 10. High: 68
THURSDAY NIGHT: Periods of rain and drizzle, very damp. Low: 55
FRIDAY: More rain, heaviest late PM hours. High: 65
SATURDAY: Windy & raw, lingering showers. Wake-up: 50. High: 53
SUNDAY: Mostly cloudy, PM sprinkles. Wake-up: 44. High: 52
MONDAY: Partly sunny and pleasant. Wake-up: 42. High: 61
TUESDAY: Fading sun, not bad. Wake-up: 40. High: 64
WEDNESDAY: Intervals of sun, still mild. Wake-up: 49. High: 68
Preparing Minnesota for Climate Change: A Conference on Climate Adaptation. This daylong event is being held Thursday, November 7, 2013 9 am - 5:30 pm, followed by a reception at The Science Museum of Minnesota in St. Paul. This is the first annual gathering of local and state experts covering a diverse range of topics related to climate mitigation and adaptation in Minnesota, and some tickets are still available. I'll be there; if you're personally interested in this topic, or have an interest in possible impacts on your business or public sector duties in the years ahead you should plan on attending. Here's a good overview from the organizer of the event, Dr. Mark Seeley: "The first ever statewide conference on climate change adaptation practices will take place at the Science Museum in downtown St Paul on November 7, 2013 from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm. The cost for the conference is modest at $60 and includes lunch, breaks, parking, and a free pass to the Science Museum. This conference which is titled “Preparing Minnesota for Climate Change: A Conference on Climate Adaptation” has been designed by those who have been measuring and documenting the changing climate attributes in the state and their associated consequences. Professionals who have worked in transportation, agriculture, energy, health care, city planning, watershed and forest management, and the insurance industry will share their stories and experiences relative to adapting to our changing climate. The educational sessions will be followed by an evening reception in the Science Museum cafeteria at 5:30 pm so that informal socializing and networking among citizens and groups can occur." If interested in attending you can visit the web site for the conference at www.wrc.umn.edu
Photo credit above: "June 2012's torrential rains devastated landscapes and wiped out the Highway 210 approach to the Thomson Bridge in Jay Cooke State Park, ten miles southwest of Duluth."
Climate Change: How Hot Will It Get In My Lifetime? The Guardian has an interactive tool that lets you see how much warming the world has experienced since you were born, along with possible outcomes based on future GHG emissions: "The UN is to publish the most exhaustive examination of climate change science to date, predicting dangerous temperature rises. How hot will it get in your lifetime? Find out with our interactive guide, which shows projections based on the report."
Graphic credit above: "Data provided by the Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, and Department of Physics, University of Oxford, with support from the Oxford Martin Programme on Resource Stewardship and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Modelling by Richard Millar. Interactive by Duncan Clark."
Temperature projections are based on the idealised climate model of Boucher and Reddy (2009), as used for calculation of warming potentials in IPCC (2013), driven by the IPCC "RCP8.5" high emissions scenario. They are consistent with, but not identical to, to the projections of the IPCC (2013).
Yosemite's Largest Ice Mass Is Melting Fast. I'm sure it's just an optical illusion. The Los Angeles Times has the story; here's the intro: "Climate change is taking a visible toll on Yosemite National Park, where the largest ice mass in the park is in a death spiral, geologists say. During an annual trek to the glacier deep in Yosemite's backcountry last month, Greg Stock, the park's first full-time geologist, found that Lyell Glacier had shrunk visibly since his visit last year, continuing a trend that began more than a century ago. Lyell has dropped 62% of its mass and lost 120 vertical feet of ice over the last 100 years. "We give it 20 years or so of existence — then it'll vanish, leaving behind rocky debris," Stock said..."
Photo credits above: "The photo on the left of Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park was taken by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1883; the one on the right was taken by park geologist Greg Stock in late September." (U.S. Geological Survey; Greg Stock)
Climate Change Bringing More Severe Wildfires. Fire season out west is already 78 days longer, on average, than it was 40 years ago. Here's the intro to a story at Risk Management Magazine: "By 2050, wildfire season will be three weeks longer and result in fires that are up to twice as smoky and spread considerably wider, based on calculations by a team of environmental scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. While many groups have attempted to project the impact of climate change on severe weather events like storms and floods, the SEAS team took its research a step further to examine secondary phenomena that are largely impacted by meteorological factors, such as forest fires and air quality..."
Have The Media Failed Us On Climate Change? The short answer: yes. Here's a clip from Mother Jones: "With the release of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report in Stockholm on Friday, there were a wealth stories for journalists to pursue. Scientists are now more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming. Sea level rise projections have been increased—extremely bad news for coastal mega-cities. And researchers have given a stark warning about the irreversibility of much of global warming, and how it will literally play out over a millennium. But in recent weeks, we've seen a flood of media coverage advancing dubious claims pushed by global warming skeptics, including:
* A large number of news article headlines framed around an alleged global warming "pause" that scientists have dismissed as statistically meaningless and insignificant.
* A British tabloid, The Mail on Sunday, portraying the sixth lowest Artic sea ice level on record as a "rebound" that undermines climate science—a claim that then reverberated in conservative media and even made its way to the halls of Congress..."
Image credit above: "
Climate Skeptics More Likely To Be Conspiracy Theorists And Free Market Advocates, Study Claims. The Guardian has the story - here's a clip: "Do you think the Apollo moon landings might have been faked or that Britain's Royal family maybe, just maybe, conspired to assassinate Princess Diana because they didn't like her very much? How about that other conspiracy theory, where there really is this secret New World Order group with designs on global domination. Maybe you're up for that other chestnut that has the US government knowing beforehand about the September 11 attacks but letting them happen anyway so as to have a good excuse to bomb Afghanistan? If you answered yes to any of these conspiracy theories then a new study published today has found that you probably also think the science of human-caused climate change is some sort of hoax and you might think too that there's no good evidence for vaccinating children..."
* more on the possible link between conspiracy theorists and climate denial from Mother Jones.
Did The Arctic Ice Recover? Demographics Of True And False Climate Facts. I guess this reinforces what we already know: political affiliation and ideology often impact our personal data filters - we're more willing to "accept" scientific findings if they align with our world-view. Here's a summary of a new research abstract at the AMS, The American Meteorological Society: "Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better-educated or informed respondents are more likely to align with their parties on climate change. This information–elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge..."
Sourcewatch. Some of that cash was aimed at trying to defeat President Obama while the preponderance was given to congressional Republicans who say that climate change can’t be consigned to human activity..."Why the “distrust” in its (IPCC) findings? Some genuinely dispute the methodologies. Others, though, are influenced not by the research but by the funds they are receiving. The burning of coal to make electricity, for example, comprises at least a third of all man-made heat-trapping emissions. But those interests have given millions to sitting members of Congress, none of whom have any professional background in the field of climate science. During the 2012 campaign season, Alpha Natural Resources, Murray Energy, Console Energy, Arch Coal and Peabody Coal donated hundreds of thousands to candidates. The coal industry as a whole gave $8 million during that election cycle, says
The World's Best Scientists Agree: On Our Current Path, Global Warming Is Irreversible - And Getting Worse. Here's an excerpt of a good summary of the latest IPCC climate report (AR5) from Quartz:"...Some other important takeaways from the new document:
• Between 1901–2012, “almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming… Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.”
• ”The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia…. It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100.”
• ”Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and N2O have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years….Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped...”
Photo credit above: "Brace for more of this." AP/Mike Groll.
Hit By Climate, Disaster Victims Call For Congressional Action. Here's an excerpt of an Op-Ed at Live Science: "...Their stories were powerful and diverse, telling tales of crop-crippling drought in farms across the midwest, ravaging fires in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the west, and record-setting hurricanes and flooding along the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico. But all shared a common message: climate change is real and fueling more dangerous extreme weather events. They implored Congress to take action to cut carbon pollution and promote policies that will protect future generations from even greater climate threats predicted by scientists. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the Safe Climate Caucus, said these were voices that more Americans need to hear. "Your experiences are proof that climate change does have consequences," Rep. Waxman told the witnesses. "Congress needs to hear from you and have you explain how a rapidly changing climate can exact a tremendous toll on communities across the country..."
IPCC Digested: Just Leave The Fossil Fuels Underground. New Scientist has the article - here's an excerpt: "Merely reducing emissions is not enough. It will slow climate change, but in the end how much the planet warms depends on the overall amount of CO2 we pump out. To have any chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C, we have to limit future emissions to about 500 gigatonnes of CO2. Burning known fossil fuel reserves would release nearly 3000 gigatonnes, and energy companies are currently spending $600 billion trying to find more. The implications of the numbers are staggering. The value of these companies depends on their reserves. If at some point in the future the world gets serious about tackling climate change, these reserves will become worthless. About $4 trillion worth of shares would be wiped out, according to the non-profit Carbon Tracker Initiative. For most of us, that's our pension funds at risk..."
Technology Is Moving Too Slowly For Climate-Change Target. Will technology save us? Or some combination of innovative energy breakthroughs and behavioral changes (we can all live with, accept and even embrace?) I don't pretend to know. Here's a clip of a rather gloomy assessment at M.I.T. Technology Review and Salon: "The IPCC says we can emit a trillion tons of carbon and still avoid major warming. We’ll emit much more. One of the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released last week was that we need to emit no more than one trillion tons of carbon in order to stand a good chance of limiting global warming to 2 °C. The problem is this: technology is not progressing fast enough to make this happen. The trillion-ton figure is really an estimate, as no one knows precisely how many tons of carbon will raise the temperature of the planet by 2 °C. And less warming than that could cause significant damage, while humans will probably survive higher levels. That said, the number provides one of the clearest ways of thinking about what most climate scientists believe needs to be done to avert serious climate change..."
Photo credit above: ".
© 2016 Star Tribune