Weather & Bullsh*t

clouds, 5/22/11

2011-05-23T01:38:00.000-05:00

Table of Air Mass Source Region Characteristics

2010-04-04T00:14:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of/lifted from a UCAR page to which my students may not have access.

Rain we need (but may not get)

2009-07-20T04:50:00.012-05:00

The numerical models are at it again, predicting between 1/2 and 2 inches of rain over Minnesota. For last Tuesday's storm, the one that produced tornadoes in western MN, the models did reasonably well. Much of central Minnesota received 1-3 inches of rain, most of which merely ran off, but in any case helped at least a little bit. The recent cool conditions have probably kept some of that new moisture from escaping, which means that tonight/tomorrow's system will probably be producing more rain up there. The wet get wetter.

As of this writing, our drought is severe and expanding (click here for weekly updates):

Don't look for much change over the Twin Cities area any time soon. Any change will be nickel/dime-style, through the end of the month, and that's putting a fairly positive spin on things...we could easily make it through the rest of the month without another half-inch of rain. Let's hope not, but it certainly is possible.

Tonight and tomorrow, we have the chance for a nickel. A weak system, with accordingly poor instability, weak winds aloft, and no real fronts, is going to loll about the region. Despite the poor instability, this is actually a decent set-up for heavy rains, mostly because the weak winds will help storms sit over the same places for more time than is usual. The heavy-ish rains have already been hitting the Dakotas and now western Minnesota. More rain will fall there, and it will expand into central, northern, and southwestern Minnesota. Some of those areas will see flooding. But that's them. Those areas are not super-dry. They do not have problems with moisture convergence. We do.

The main axis of precipitation will move over eastern Minnesota later tonight and tomorrow morning. Most of the precipitation should be of the showery, thunderless variety (owing to the lack of strong instability), and thus, rainfall amounts over the Twin Cities should not be very high. But, whatever rain does fall may help moisten up the atmosphere for a bit of afternoon destabilization tomorrow (Tuesday). This could lead to redevelopment of thunderstorms fairly close to the Metro, and that could score score some areas a whole inch of badly-needed rain. Most areas though, should see less than that...maybe a quarter-inch, and that's only if round two gets going in the afternoon.

Here is 2-day precip forecast from the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, for the period ending 7PM Wednesday:

Since the forecast begins this evening, I think for starters, the heavy amounts need to come westward some. I think the .75-1.00" amounts over the entire TC area are very optimistic, but I hope they're correct. We shall see.

5-day precip from HPC (updated!)

2009-06-22T13:36:00.005-05:00

Updated 7/20/09: If you were wondering how the HPC did with this forecast, the six-day total (I threw in a day for them), June 22-27 at MSP, was .88"...about 29% of what they called for.

Below is the 5-day "QPF" (Quantitative Precipitation Forecast) from the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC), issued at 7 AM CDT on Monday June 22, 2009. In other words, this shows the expected total rainfall during the next five days.

These forecasts have been coming in quite a bit wet over the past week or so in the Twin Cities area. Recent heavy rains certainly have dented the regional drought, but over east-central MN and west-central WI, we've seen little improvement. Calling for 3" in five days at a time when we can barely get that amount in two months seems bold to me, but I hope it happens, mostly for selfish reasons. You can follow the changing forecast values here.

A Pretty Good Fight

2009-06-05T00:19:00.016-05:00

I get irritated when television meteorologists dumb-down the elegant complexity of atmospheric processes and tell viewers about "clashing air masses," and "battles between warm, humid air and cold dry air." I also get irritated when they wax idiotic about climate change (see here too), but that's a topic for a day when I have given up coffee.

So what gives...me using battle metaphors?

As of this writing, the TC area and much of the surrounding region is in a drought:

It's worth noting, too, that the many of the non-drought areas have been pretty wet (though the drought area is expanding slowly):

And this weekend, our established drought is in for its first real challenge of the 2009 warm season, as a sloppy weather system attempts to squeeze out big-time rains, right over Drought Territory. That's the fight. You can go to sleep now.

If you are still awake though, the always-loved and always-trusty models have been fairly consistent, in their subtly morphing way, about advertising significant rains this weekend. As of the evening model runs (Thursday evening), here is what the GFS model, which can get carried away, is depicting:

And here is the five-day total precipitation forecast from the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, just to show what real forecasters are thinking:

Both of these forecasts (that is, in the heads of forecasters, and also in non-heads of the computer models) put a significant dent in the drought. In order to end the drought, we would need a thorough breaking of the pattern that has been in place for several months, and it's a bit early to call for that. But, 1-2 inches of rain would put water into the ground and into the soil, and some of that water would be available for the next system, making precipitation production at least a little bit easier.

Right now though, I would encourage readers to hold off on those "Yay, the Drought is Over!" parties that you may have (or almost certainly have not) been planning. While this system is the best-yet candidate to take the drought down, a few things make me suspicious. First, the GFS is clearly suffering from some "gridscale feedback," meaning basically, that it is inventing small features that produce small pockets of intense precipitation. This might be artificially balanced by the fact that the same model will generally under-forecast precipitation associated with thunderstorms, which operate on scales too fine for it to resolve.

I am also suspicious about the placement of the precipitation. The warmest, most humid air will be to our south, in Iowa, and while the conditions do support "overrunning" precipitation, which is found on the cooler side of the warm front (where we should be), I tend to think that storms are going to build towards the higher energy content of the warmer, more humid air...even if that means just barely being on the warm side of the warm front. Thus, I am concerned that the models might be driving the heaviest rains a bit too far north.

Lastly, any intense storms that do form in or very near the warm sector, will detract from moisture streaming to the north, and thus, would reduce--perhaps dramatically--the amount of rainfall we receive.

This will be interesting to follow, at least for me. I don't know if we should consider this weekend event a fight, or just the first round of a fight. If MSP ends up with a half-inch of rain or less between Saturday and Monday night, then I think we'll know this drought means business (has a tough chin, sticking with the fight theme). A half-inch, while potentially valuable, would be a real disappointment considering what this system has going for it (namely a good feed of moisture and a hang-around-the-region, slacker-ish attitude) On the other hand, if the event evolves as advertised, then the whole area would get a good soaking, indicating that the drought can be beaten, and soon (or that it had been wobbled...again, sticking with the fight theme).

As always, we shall see.

Model Baroclinicity for Next Tuesday

2009-03-18T12:55:00.007-05:00

Here is a simple illustration of baroclinicity. Both images from
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/model/

The top image is the pressure and wind pattern from the GFS (7 AM on Weds Mar 18, valid 7 PM Tues Mar 24). Notice the center of low pressure in northwestern Minnesota, but moreover the concentric pattern of the isobars.

And above we have the temperatures from/for the same times. Notice the bulgy, almost s-shaped pattern going from Nebraska or so into Minnesota. If you overlaid the two images, you would see the isotherms and isobars intersect eachother, as in below (from an earlier model run, courtesy of College of DuPage http://www.weather.cod.edu)

Watch chances for big snow on Thurday slip away

2008-12-16T11:56:00.007-06:00

Loop of 36-hour accumulated precipitation from four runs of the GFS model for the period ending 6 PM CST on Friday December 19. Source

New Argument: "I don't buy organic food because it's cheaper?!?"

2005-08-30T22:59:00.000-05:00

I work in a food co-op on weekends. This very part-time employment comes with one amazing fringe benefit: a 20% discount on pretty much everything except dairy. This discount, for those of you not familiar with organic food/co-op prices, means that I can shop there and spend about the same amount as I would at a convential grocery store. Again, if that doesn't mean anything to you, let me clarify.

Co-ops tend to stock "natural," especially organic foods.
Organic foods are grown without pesticides and commercial fertilizers

Pesticides are killers, period. There is no safe chemical pesticide; they're all neurotoxic at best, highly carcinogenic at worst.

Thus, organic food is unquestionably better for you. It is expensive, usually, because it requires more labor to plant and harvest a crop without "cheating." And pesticides and fertilizers have increased farm yields, which in turn, has driven down prices of conventional crops.

The huge price jump between conventional and organic food, is for some, prohibitive. The most frequently cited reason for not "buying organic" or joining a co-op, is that the costs are too high. I have generally believed this to be true; I see it play out whenever I am at work.

But last week, at a friend's house, I noticed a bag of Tostitos--a mainstream, conventional snack product if ever there was one. The price was stamped in ink, right on the bag, meaning you will find that price most anywhere, and you will only pay less if your supermarket is participiating in some sort of promotion or "cap" special.

Anyway, this price, for what I believe was a 13 oz. bag, was $3.69. I thought about this for a minute. Tostitos, made by Frito-Lay, pulls out all the stops to produce chips efficiently: they have enormous processing plants, they buy in massive quantities from equally massive agribusiness distributors and they increase shelf-life (and cut costs) by hydrogenating already relatively cheap oils, like canola. So why $3.69?

For less, at my admittedly high-priced co-op, we sell a larger bag of chips made with only organic ingredients. This bag of chips, if you are going to go the junk-food route, is the way to go: small farmers grow the corn, and a local milling company tortilla-izes the corn and makes chips using a non-hydrogenated, more costly oil, like safflower. This process is comparatively expensive, and we have felt it justifies us pricing the product at $3.59, which makes it our most expensive chip.

So how can it be, that a lovingly, painstakingly crafted snack food item, processed with the most expensive (read: organic) techniques around and sold at a place that generally has to mark items up to compensate for small distributors who charge more, winds up being cheaper than a mass-produced, genetically engineered, pesticide-sprayed, mechanically-induced item that has been processed using the cheapest methods around?

I think the answer is in the rhetoric. For years now, organic foods have been creeping into the mainstream, though they are still not there. This slow march forward has given the grocery industry plenty of time to craft a strategy. Consumers initially have seen the prices of organic foods and have been occasionally turned off. Now, like a reflex, one might say that organic food is of course, more expensive.

With the mindset already well-established, the large food corporations know that they have some patronage because of the lower costs. "If people believe something, they won't investigate it, so who's going to notice if we keep raising our prices, ten cents here, twenty there?"

Currently, co-op shoppers are still outpaying their conventional grocery counterparts, and I expect we will for some time yet. But look for a leveling of the field in the future, as organic production costs come down and as conventional producers realize they need to raise prices to compensate for the sales they are losing (to organic foods). In the meantime, keep your eyes open for conventional grocery products costing more than their organic counterparts, here and there, but not everywhere...not yet, that is.

Why Bother?

2005-05-24T22:51:00.000-05:00

Greetings, rare visitor. Hopefully you are wondering, "what will this blog offer me and why should I care?" I hope to clear those questions up.

I am quite new to blogging, and I am even a bit embarrassed about taking part in an activity that has such a stupid name. From my limited travels through cyberspace to various web logs (that feels so much better, don't you think?), I see that people blog about anything: dogs, religion, music, hiking, windows, mice. I think, however, most every blog is inspired by a desire to share.

So that is one reason I do this: I feel some of my thoughts, if structured properly, are worth sharing with others. You of course, may not agree. Maybe everything I write about bores you to tears, pisses you of, makes you sad--whatever. I don't expect that everyone will like this.

I also am doing this because I need to air out a bit. Much of my time is spent burning brain cells on scientific journal articles, and trying to understand exactly what my social scientist office mates/compadres mean when they argue that "space is socially constructed." I therefore have a strong urge to freewheel a bit, something academia does not allow.

As a climatologist who has a lifelong interest in the weather, I cannot even count the number of times I've plunked some meteorological bait into a converstaion, hoping someone would bite (I know it sounds pathetic, but especially in my early years, being a weather nut was a lonely experience). And what I've found is that many people--my brother, my closest childhood friends--do not care one bit. Yet other people--the guys guarding the keg at old high school parties; friends of my brother; friends of friends; random customers at any of the numerous degrading jobs I've had--are often fascinated. These are people for whom the explanations provided by local TV meteorologists are insufficient; people who like storms and inclement weather; people who want to know more about the atmosphere; and people who sometimes wished they had majored in meteorology instead of accounting.

I do not at all fancy myself a one-trick pony, so I will drop whatever moves me into a conversation. When the weather is dull or if I have already talked myself out about it, I may drop something political, cullinary, linguistic or etymological...something about parenting, or something about the guy I saw driving the other day who had his large golden retriever sitting on his lap. And generally, the same people who have wanted to talk weather have wanted in on these conversations too. But not always. Anyone familiar with Venn diagrams could picture a weather circle and a bullshit circle. There is quite a large area where these circles overlap each other. Where the circles overlap you have Weather and Bullshit. That junction is the focus--and hence the name--of this blog.

So why should you care? You shouldn't, unless the sorts of things I just described appeal to you. And if that's the case, then you have a cyber friend, or enemy, or whatever.

If I am way off on something factual, I want to hear about it. If you think I am way off on an opinion, you probably won't get very far with me (with exceptions for factual things that might sway my opinion). I suggest if you despise most things I say that you find a different site to visit or you start your own blog. My ideas and opinions generally won't be that radical anyway. Lastly, I will surge and sleep, surge and sleep. That's how I operate. You may get several posts from me at a time, followed by weeks with none. Don't come to expect something. Who am I kidding, anyway? I will have five visitors in the first year!