"Taking moments around the point on the wall find the tension in the cable Tc 32.81 x 9.8 x 4 x 2 = 4 x Tc sin Ø Tc = 643.1/sin Ø N"
I get the stuff... except with this part: Why do they multiply by 2 on the left side? There is the mass of the beam and g, and multiplying them together gives weight. Then you multiply by 4 to get the moment. But what about the 2?
I was looking at the models this afternoon, and I noticed that there are a lot of little storms slated to hit our area later this week into next week. None of these storms look particularly strong. In some ways, they look kind of cute... in a nerdy meteorological way. If our rainstorm/windstorm last Monday was a bulldog, these storms would be adorable little pugs. Of course, I'd take a big bad storm any day over a cute one, but if I look at these storms from this perspective, maybe it'll tide me over until we get another fat cyclone headed our way.
Before I get any further, I'll show you the current 500mb chart over our area. Atmospheric scientists are obsessed with the 500mb level charts and use them all the time to determine upper-level flow patterns and the jet stream.
Valid 04:00 am PST Mon, 26 Nov 2012 - UW 12z WRF-GFS, 36 km 500mb absolute vorticity, heights
As you can see, there is currently a pretty sizable ridge over the West Coast from California to Alaska and a big ol' trough around 150 west. This ridge has been giving us the sunny weather with rather cool nights we have seen of late. I'm trying to go to 2013 without wearing long pants (apart from special occasions like weddings and stuff), but I was pretty darn chilly this morning in my gym shorts.
Over the next few days, this trough will drift on in to our region and we will start to feel its effects.
Valid 10:00 am PST Thu, 29 Nov 2012 - 78hr Fcst - UW 12z WRF-GFS, 36 km 500mb absolute vorticity, heights
The ridge has fallen off the wayside and we have a broad and modest (with respect to wind velocity) jet stream over the Pacific Northwest. The main upper level low around 140 west and 50 north will act as a chauffeur, escorting a variety of classy, well-mannered storms into our area.
The first of these storms will arrive Thursday. It could bring 2-3 inches of rain to the Olympics, which just might be enough rain to push the Skokomish River over flood stage. But this front will sag south over northern California and deliver copious amounts of moisture to the area via an atmospheric river. Take a look at the picture below!
Valid 04:00 am PST Sat, 01 Dec 2012 - 120hr Fcst - UW 12z WRF-GFS, 12 km 48 hour precip, wind vectors
The WRF is forecasting 10-20 inches of rain in some regions, and it has been pretty consistent with this feature. Northern California should take action and prepare for river flooding.
After that, the details get really mushy as far as storms go. The good news is that I am fairly certain that the mountains will pick up some decent snow amounts with this pattern. The snow level looks like it will be all the way up to 8,000 feet early in the week and gradually settle down to around 5,000 feet by Friday. After Friday though, models show the snow level dropping below 3,000 feet, which means Snoqualmie Pass will get some snow and will probably open soon.
Valid 04:00 pm PST Mon, 03 Dec 2012 - 180hr Fcst - UW 12z WRF-GFS, 12 km 24-hour snowfall
Yesterday, I thought I had found true love. Sitting in math class, I occasionally took a few peeks out the window, yearning for the spiritual and enlightening connection I have been striving for my whole life. And every time I turned, I experienced a feeling so tender, so loving. I had no time for surface integrals. Instead, I bathed myself with the soft, silky touch of euphoric love.
And then just like she came into my life, she left for good. I would sacrifice my belongings and crucify my every societal standing just to get one more exalting smile and feel the that incredible, exciting, soothing empathy radiating through my every cell of my body.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to date a midlatitude cyclone.
When the Pacific storm train really gets ramped up, you are transfixed in a conveyor belt of shimmering beauty delivering gorgeous storms to your doorstep. But when the conveyor belt ends, I would do anything to bring it back.
Long story short: this was the last irresistible storm we'll see for a while. It's never the right time to say goodbye. Farewell, my one and only true love.
I'm happy. You know why I'm happy? Because we will finally see a string of strong storms that will streak from ocean to peak through next week. Now that was clever.
Let's look at the timeline for our storms.
Our first storm comes in on Saturday morning. This one looks pretty impressive in the model, but the front will stretch out and weaken before it hits the Western Washington lowlands. It won't be a notable storm, but it will open the door for the other storms to follow.
Valid 07:00 am PST Sat, 17 Nov 2012 - 27hr Fcst - UW 12km 12z WRF-GFS 3 hour precip
It will also bring some solid wind to some areas, mainly the coast. The map below shows the surface temperature, and more importantly, the isobars over the region at the given time. It also shows wind barbs, but unless you have the eyesight of a Peregrine Falcon, they are hard to see. It looks like there will be gale-force winds off our coast, though.
We'll get another storm Sunday night. This one will be significantly wetter but probably won't be as windy. Look at the three-hour precipitation map below, and you'll get an idea of the front of this storm.
But the main thing that the meteorological community is looking at right now is a storm slated for Monday night. This storm will bring heavy rainfall totals here and massive amounts of rain in southern Oregon. It also has the potential to bring high winds to the area. Let's take a look.
The WRF-GFS brings a 982 mb low, deepens it to 979 mb, and brings it into southern Vancouver Island. This would certainly bring gales to the coast and would probably bring 25-35 mph sustained winds over Puget Sound, with gusts up to 50 in exposed regions, like Alki Point. Places. The pressure orientation isn't quite right for super high winds in the Puget Sound area, as there won't be a massive pressure gradient between Bellingham and Portland. In the 2006 Hanukkah Eve Storm, there was a pressure difference of over 22 mb between the two sites, and the current WRF-GFS shows a maximum pressure gradient of 9mb or so. It will still be our windiest storm of the season though, and it's a ways out. It bears watching
Valid 10:00 am PST Mon, 19 Nov 2012 - 78hr Fcst - UW 12km 12z WRF-GFS 10m wind, SLP
The bigger story with this storm will be the massive amounts of rain it will bring to the Pacific Northwest, especially southwest Oregon. In 48 hours, places like Brookings could see well over 10 inches of rain.
In fact, the Portland office for the National Weather Service has issued a hydrologic outlook for Kelso, WA to Eugene, OR. South of Eugene, the Medford office is in charge, and they haven't issued any hydrologic outlooks yet, but they are predicted to see even heavier rain.
Yesterday, in my WeatherOn long range blog, I mentioned that this would be a "Pineapple Express" type setup. Well, I read Cliff Mass' blog yesterday, and he had a better name for it: the "Teriyaki Express." He dubbed it as such because the moisture is originating from the higher latitudes closer to Asia than the subtropics from Hawaii. During true Pineapple Express events, the temperature can rise into the 60s. The warmest temperature recorded at Sea-Tac in December was 63 degrees and occurred during a Pineapple Express... at 2 A.M. in the morning! I'm only expecting highs into the mid 50s, which is still a bit milder than normal, but isn't too bad. The snow level will likely peak around 5,000 feet for the Monday storm. During a full-fledged Pineapple Express, the snow level can rise to 11,000 feet, meaning that it is raining in every single location in the state except the tops of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams.
One more thing... the track of the Monday storm is still pretty uncertain. It will be wet and windy, but it's hard to pin down the details at this point. As always, I'll keep you posted as the event comes closer.
So, I was thinking a lot about global warming today (like I always do), but I was struck by one thought. When I hear people talk about global warming, there seems to be a debate, even among scientists. Richard Lindzen, Joe Bastardi, and even our own George Taylor (Oregon State Climatologist) are all climate change skeptics or deniers. And in politics, it seems like it's almost a 50-50 debate, with most Democrats believing in climate change and most Republicans not believing it (that's a huge generalization, I know... it's just a trend I have observed).
I was disheartened by this article, where Peter Ferrara, for Forbes Magazine, said that the Earth is actually cooling, but he did something that caught my attention. Peter went to the "International Climate Change Conference," which is sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Check out this quote. The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interestedpolitical scienceyou hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches areonline. What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.
Well, my first thought was that this guy seems rather egotistical, but I love unbiased science, even if it goes against global warming. I went and checked out the International Climate Change Conference (ICCC), and much to my dismay, on their home page, there was a quote that said "The world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” — The Economist, May 26, 2012. This is the kind of stuff I hate because I don't like it when scientific organizations present only one view... that's not science, that's just cherry picking. That's like me saying that trail mix is unhealthy when I'm only cherry picking the M & Ms.
But anyway, I decided to check out some of these videos, because I wanted to see what these scientists thought. I checked out Bob Carter, Ph.D's video entitled "The Misrepresentation of Science in the Public Domain." Trust me, I was anxious to hear this one.
It actually started out well. He talked about the scientific method and Richard Feynman, and made the point that a hypothesis is wrong if it does not agree with the data. I was very happy to hear this! That is absolutely true.
Things started to get a little sketchy though when he pulled out a graphic showing the IPCC's (International Panel on Climate Change, which is the leading scientific organization on climate change, and is, at least to my knowledge, in no way affiliated with the ICCC) predicted temperature vs. the observed temperature. The evidence on the graph was clear. The predicted global temperature was below the IPCC's predictions. He then used this statement to prove that since the data and hypothesis didn't match up, global warming was a flawed theory. It sounds like it makes sense.
But the graph only showed ten years of data. It is well known by all climate scientists that the Earth has not significantly warmed since 2000, both those who believe in global warming and those who don't. His statement about global warming being false just by simply looking at one graph of the global temperature over the past ten years vs. the IPCC's prediction is the biggest oversimplication you could ever make. Just like that trail mix I was talking about. On a positive note, he had solid evidence... the bad part is that he focused on one piece of evidence when there are countless pieces of evidence to be observed.
But it went downhill from there. He cited a statement by the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia, which read "The world's climate scientists agree that the world is getting hotter," and he said that this is a completely false statement, and that the world's climate scientists do NOT agree on global warming and that there is a huge debate. He didn't have any evidence to back it up though.
So I did a Google search on the percentage of climate scientists that believe in global warming, and I found a statement that was backed up with sufficient evidence that, to say the least, disagreed with Carter's statement about the global warming debate among scientists.
I found an article written by James Powell, who is the Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium. He, like most other scientists, believes that global warming is real, and serious. He did a study where he looked at peer-reviewed climate articles online and calculated how many of then accepted global warming and how many of them rejected global warming. Of course, there are many shades of grey, but he did his best to put in in accept/reject categories. The methodology he used can be found here.
His scientific findings, as you can see, disagreed with Carter's statement, to say the least. Here's what Powell had to say.
"By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming."
That, my friends, shows Carter's hypocrisy. His "hypothesis" that there is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring does not match up with the data.
Oh yeah, his "International Climate Change Conference" video has 520 views. My video on Geoduck clamming has 576. It's my turn to be egotistical now. ;)
Bottom line: check your facts before making outlandish statements.
