[HN Gopher] An early disruption event is starting for the Polar ...
___________________________________________________________________
An early disruption event is starting for the Polar Vortex
Author : chomp
Score : 86 points
Date : 2022-09-26 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.severe-weather.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.severe-weather.eu)
| an1sotropy wrote:
| Possibly off-topic: the variety of color scales used here is
| wild, and interesting. It looks like of them may have pre-
| established meaning within the community of expertise (like the
| rainbow-ish one for the image after "Overall, no sign of any
| influence from below."), but many of them are versions of a
| double-ended scale (white in middle, at 0), but there's a wide
| variety of double-ended scales. I wonder if this less
| disorienting to the domain experts?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm kinda used to them, there's a 'library' of color scales
| used in scientific visualization that aims to balance contrast
| with complexity and also be accessible to color-blind people.
| Matplotlib docs have good reference material on this iirc.
| an1sotropy wrote:
| Right, but with those goals in mind a lot people say "so
| viridis it is!" and leave it at that; but there's nothing
| like viridis on that page, which is intriguing.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I mean why would you ever want anything else XD
|
| I think the most interesting scale on that weather page is
| the red-blue one where the extremes of both then veer into
| other colors - often the _same_ colors, but that 's OK
| because they will only appear within 'moats' of red or blue
| covering the typical temperature distributions. So you have
| increasingly deep shades of blue or red to indicate very
| cold or hot weather, and then purple to white within those
| areas for record-setting-breaking extremes.
|
| I guess you could just do normal vs deviant scales, but
| given our sensitivity to the dichotomies of weather people
| have an inherent need to know what sort of extreme it is.
| an1sotropy wrote:
| Yes I noticed that too, and I agree with your guess about
| why it's ok. Fundamentally the functions here are
| smoothly varying, which avoids ambiguities and some some
| contrast effects that affect chloropleth maps. Long path
| length in colorspace == more opportunities for nearby
| discrimination, even if with overlapping hues
| BoGoToTo wrote:
| I too enjoy living in the "and then it got worse" era of climate
| change.
| bilsbie wrote:
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Don't waste everyone's time.
| chess_buster wrote:
| Thank you.
| version_five wrote:
| Both the comment you replied to and its parent are
| throwaway and basically parallel imo. Rah rah climate
| change vs dismissing the link to climate change are both
| super boring at this point, but somehow one is presently
| the top comment and the othe dead.
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| One of them is right.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Exactly, and it's the climate change.
|
| https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/definitions/what-is-the-
| pola...
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Rah rah climate change? You think this is fun? Climate
| change makes these disruptions more likely.
|
| Do you not live on this earth as well?
|
| https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/definitions/what-is-the-
| pola...
|
| "While the polar vortex is well documented, its behavior
| has become more extreme as a result of climate change,
| according to Ullrich. He explains: warming of the Earth
| has led to the loss of Arctic sea ice, transforming a
| highly reflective icy surface to a dark absorptive
| surface. The change is warming higher latitudes and
| reducing the temperature difference between the warmer
| mid-latitude and polar regions. This weakens and
| destabilizes the polar jet stream, causing it to dip into
| lower latitudes, bringing polar air farther south.
| Ullrich expects future climate change to further weaken
| the polar jet stream, bringing rise to more extreme and
| unusual weather patterns."
| version_five wrote:
| So you missed my point and just replied with some
| religious stuff. We don't need the equivalent of "god is
| great" at the beginning of every discussion. So climate
| change is a thing, just saying that without bringing
| anything else to the discussion is as boring as just
| dismissing it (and basically invites someone to come
| along and do so) which is the point of my upstream
| comment. And this silly "do you not live on earth as
| well" hyperbole doesn't advance the discussion at all.
| baxtr wrote:
| The entire site is a gigantic ad space. Somewhere in between
| blinking banners is the news. It is really hard to digest. Is
| this a good original source to link to?
|
| Also: what does this say about the quality of the content?
| irrational wrote:
| I didn't see a single ad. I'm running uBlock Origin on Firefox.
| focusedone wrote:
| There were ads on that page? (Firefox with uBO)
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Firefox with ublock origin:
|
| The quality is great. This website taught me what a "polar
| vortex" _is_ , which the news the past couple years did not do.
| I now understand the relationship between the seasons, the
| polar vortex, the jet stream, and what that means for the
| weather here in Maine where the jet stream cuts the state into
| two distinct climates, and the jet stream moving up or down
| ends up causing extreme weather events here in the state, like
| unusually cold or warm winter weather for certain parts of the
| state.
|
| I also learned a little about how existing high energy weather
| events can destabilize the formation and existence of the polar
| vortex and how that means bad news going forward for
| predictable winters in my state.
|
| I learned all this and didn't even read the whole thing.
| thrill wrote:
| It's poor writing, along with unsupported vague predictions.
| Expressions like "kinda precisely" ...
| wewxjfq wrote:
| If you search the author's name, it seems like he predicts this
| every winter. Meanwhile the seasonal forecasts of reputable
| meteorologists at the Met Office, DWD, and MeteoSwiss (I didn't
| bother to check more) all predict a high chance of above normal
| temperatures in Europe this winter.
| JackFr wrote:
| I wonder what they're saying over at https://www.mild-
| weather.eu?
| pvwj wrote:
| I agree, this was ultimately unreadable for me on IOS.
| haunter wrote:
| No ads on iOS w/ Firefox Focus as content blocker
| layer8 wrote:
| No ads here, using AdGuard Pro.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Also no ads using Lockdown (localhost VPN) on iOS. Seems
| like quite a decent site without ads.
| mongrelion wrote:
| I saw zero ads on my phone thanks to running pihole at home
| [deleted]
| jason-phillips wrote:
| Smooth surfing with Brave browser here.
| TT-392 wrote:
| So.... it is gonna get colder than usual? Article is a bit vague
| if you don't feel like reading the whole thing start to end.
| bertil wrote:
| It will get both unseasonably warm at times and have several
| days of biting cold at others.
|
| The original name for what we now call "Global warming" or
| "climate change" was "climate unsettling": balancing mechanisms
| that allowed seasons to have predictable temperature and
| precipitation (like El Nino) are being disrupted. The
| relatively small rise of average temperature (one degree) is
| enough to move airmass. Those block otherwise stable currents.
| Things aren't where they are supposed to be.
| space_fountain wrote:
| Isn't it more that they aren't where we expect them (plus
| higher energy systems tend to be more chaotic). There isn't
| really any supposed to be when it comes to nature, just
| expected/precedented.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| > There isn't really .. supposed to be.. .....
|
| Most ecosystems prefer and need some stability... myself
| included
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Sure, if the purpose of the ecosystem is human (or other
| lifeform) survivability.
|
| But what if it's not?
| abathur wrote:
| While there is certainly no place an airmass is _supposed_
| to be, this framing makes it sound like the problem would
| go away if we just updated our expectations.
|
| Do you think the problem would go away if we updated our
| expectations?
| [deleted]
| yosito wrote:
| I'd love to see an ELI5 summary of what this is predicting
| globally for the upcoming season. It's interesting, but hard for
| me not being trained in this domain to really understand how to
| interpret such detailed information.
| [deleted]
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| Europe can't catch a break. God speed.
| btilly wrote:
| A cold snap and limited supplies of gas would be miserable for
| Europe.
|
| However the backlash against mobilization will hopefully take
| Putin out of power, end the Ukraine war, and result in fresh
| supplies of gas for Europe.
| croes wrote:
| No, even if Putin is gone they can't just start buying
| russian gas again.
|
| Who knows who comes after Putin.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| If Russia remains economically isolated after Putin is
| ousted, wouldn't that worsen the odds of positive political
| reform in Russia? Economic sanctions are the stick, but if
| they continue even after Putin is gone, where is the
| carrot? If the new leader proves themselves bad as well,
| the sanctions should obviously be resumed.
| throwawaygal7 wrote:
| Since Global petroleum supply and demand is inelastic
| even a small shortfall in Global Production will result
| in much higher prices
|
| In the turmoil of regime change in Russia production
| would fall and probably not come back online again for
| decades
|
| When the wall fell Russian production declined and has
| never reached its 1980s Peak because of the geography of
| Russia. In fact I think most of the wells that were
| turned off at that time have never come back online and
| recent production increases are due to new infrastructure
| being built
| anonAndOn wrote:
| IIUC, once an arctic well is stopped, it freezes and
| bursts and can never be used again.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Won't it increase the odds of positive political reform
| in Europe and elsewhere, if they have energy independence
| rather than being beholden to dictatorial petrostates? It
| seems like a worthwhile goal even outside of the
| environmental benefits.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| That seems another matter to me. Are the sanctions
| against Russia meant to change Russia's warmongering
| behavior, or are they meant to save the environment? At
| present these motivations seem to align, but if the
| political situation in Russia changes that may no longer
| be the case.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > Are the sanctions against Russia meant to change
| Russia's warmongering behavior, or are they meant to save
| the environment?
|
| They're not capable of doing anything to save the
| environment - in fact it's likely they're a net-negative.
| Russia is still selling that energy to someone - right
| now China and India - and it's unlikely the new buyers
| will be taking the same steps to burn the natural gas as
| cleanly or efficiently as western Europe would.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > Are the sanctions against Russia meant to change
| Russia's warmongering behavior, or are they meant to save
| the environment?
|
| it is, as I said above, not an either-or. The
| environmental benefits (which might be a good step, but
| will not be in themselves enough to "save" anyone) are
| outside of the consideration, and not the matter at hand.
| I thought that was clearly phrased.
|
| Rather, removing Russia, or other petrostates ability to
| blackmail with energy supply, makes them less likely to
| warmonger. Russia's warmongering is very much supported
| with oil and gas leverage - i.e. threats of "don't
| interfere or you'll go cold". Like the other reply says -
| if bullies no longer have a hold over you, you'll get
| less bullying. It's a poor assumption that Russian
| leadership will be better or even different in nature any
| time soon, Putin or not. And it's good for European
| domestic politics as well, to be less concerned with
| appeasing other powers, especially dictators.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| If nobody buys Russian gas even after sanctions are
| lifted, that's not because of sanctions against russia,
| but rather because nobody likes to do business with a
| bully that has shown they will happily attempt to screw
| you over with any power they hold over you, no matter how
| friendly they have been in the past.
| btilly wrote:
| They are meant to change Russia's warmongering behavior.
|
| Given that Germany is now turning coal plants back on to
| cope, I can't even see that there is alignment with the
| environment even in the short term.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Russia has been threatening world stability and ww3 for
| many decades.
|
| They need to become unable to support a nuclear arsenal.
|
| China is the new Russia anyway.
| nostrademons wrote:
| If Putin's gone Russia collapses into anarchy and civil
| war. Putin has spent the last 20 years ensuring that
| there is no viable "new leader" of Russia. He's
| structured the Russian state so that every possible
| person in power has a well-delineated job to do, they all
| distrust each other, they all report to him, and nobody
| has the bigger picture. Anyone who gains enough of a
| following to threaten him gets thrown out of a window or
| poisoned with polonium. If he didn't do this he would've
| been ousted years ago.
|
| Countries in the midst of civil war aren't very good at
| shipping natural gas either. Europe's best hope for not
| freezing is to go invade Russia, capture the pipelines
| and gas fields, and staff them with Europeans.
| Unfortunately this plan has worked out for Europe (and
| the world) approximately never.
| pstuart wrote:
| My (extremely limited) understanding is that even if
| Putin wanted to flip the script and move Russia away from
| an oligarchy, that he'd be replaced with someone
| stronger, more heartless, etc.
|
| Does somebody have an idea for how reform could occur in
| a place that has never really been "free"?
| scrumbledober wrote:
| Well that's how it always happens at first
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Oligarchs will oligarch. Putin's security apparatus will
| pivot to whomever provides the coin and Louis Vuitton.
| West is comfortable with that model.
|
| They deliver oil and gas, we deliver carrots so they dont
| starve.
| btilly wrote:
| I agree that even if Putin is gone, they need a transition
| plan to get off of Russian gas.
|
| However if Europe is running low on gas, and gas is
| available, Europe will save a lot of pain by buying it.
| xwdv wrote:
| swayvil wrote:
| If you aren't poor then you have nothing to worry about.
| synergyS wrote:
| Energy prices skyrocketed in 2022 :(
| croes wrote:
| The bigger problem is the food and energy prices for poorer
| countries.
|
| Europe won't have a real problem compared to them.
| tomohawk wrote:
| It's a hoot that the weather has been made to be so dramatic with
| terms like "polar vortex" and named storms for what used to be
| thought of as fairly pedestrian occurrences.
| samatman wrote:
| The imputation of drama to "polar vortex" is entirely in how
| you see it.
|
| "Polar" refers to the poles, in this case the North geometric
| pole, and "vortex" is an exact description of what wind is
| doing in a polar vortex.
|
| Storms have been given names since the early 19th century, so
| your "used to be" here is well beyond the threshold of living
| memory.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Tropical cyclones have been given names for a long time, but
| that's not what I was referring to. Now-a-days snowstorms and
| other run-of-the mill phenomena are given names. That's
| pretty recent.
|
| And is it really "entirely" in how I see it? I'm referring to
| the breathless intonation of modern weather talking heads as
| they discuss normal weather phenomena as a "polar vortex" (in
| scare quotes). They used to just say it was going to snow
| more or be colder. The use of "polar vortex" in that context
| definitely amps up the drama.
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Because polar vortex storms aren't a very common
| phenomenon. Aside from the past couple of years, the
| previous occurrences seem to be 2014-2015, 2013-2014, and
| then 1985 prior to that.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
|
| So, we have a very rare, very extreme weather phenomenon
| that's hit multiple in the last 10 years after decades of
| static behavior. The wiki on the Polar Vortex even
| attributes the 2013 storm with popularizing the term due to
| the heavy reporting.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Storms have been given names since the early 19th century,
| so your "used to be" here is well beyond the threshold of
| living memory
|
| My interpretation of the parent post is that it refers to the
| naming of every typical winter storm during a season, which
| was begun by the Weather Channel in 2012. I do in fact
| remember the debate at the time over that practice.
|
| Wikipedia gives only two examples of winter storm names
| predating 1900, "The Great Snow of 1717" and "The Schoolhouse
| Blizzard" or "Children's Blizzard" of 1888.
|
| That seems to be a different practice than winter storms
| Ajax, Bella, Cara, Delphi, Echo and Ferus of the 2021-2022
| season.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| California has implemented a plan to name heat-waves. After
| the last few years on the Western side of North America,
| maybe not a bad thing.
| [deleted]
| btilly wrote:
| Unless you are over 70, named storms and the polar vortex have
| been a feature of meteorological reporting since before you
| were born. Your impression that this a change is due to your
| ignorance.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Thanks for keeping it classy on HN!
|
| I'm not over 70, but you never used to hear "polar vortex" in
| popular weather forecasting broadcasts. I'm not a
| meteorologist, so I can't comment on its use by pros.
|
| And you never used to hear about named storms unless they
| were tropical cyclones.
| LocalPCGuy wrote:
| The media (and weather broadcasts) latched onto the term in
| the 2013/2014 winter, and has been using it ever since. And
| the media is prone to over-exaggeration, we know that, no
| argument. There have even been scientific papers about
| whether the use of the term is problematic and how to best
| describe it to non-experts. Even using the word ignorant,
| as the person you replied to above did, is not a slight IMO
| (at least, I don't see it that way, I see it, in the
| context used, as a descriptive term for "the state of not
| knowing").
|
| The point being, the weather phenomena is not new, nor is
| using polar vortex to describe it. And just because you
| hear about something in the media for the first time and it
| seems exaggerated, that does not necessarily invalidate it
| or somehow make it a "pedestrian event" being over-hyped.
| It could be, but in this specific case, it definitely does
| not. And those words, as explained elsewhere, are the
| correct words to use from a descriptive point of view.
|
| > The earliest scientific papers describing the broad-scale
| tropospheric or stratospheric flow as a "circumpolar
| vortex" or "polar vortex" are from the late 1940s and early
| 1950s. (Although a much earlier usage appears on pg 430 of
| Littell's Living Age Map, 12 November 1853.)
| zamalek wrote:
| > you never used to hear "polar vortex"
|
| Because it was behaving in a manner consistent with at
| least a few thousand years.
|
| > And you never used to hear about named storms unless they
| were tropical cyclones.
|
| Which is no different to today?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-26 23:01 UTC)