Quantcast

Kansas City is just not in the right spot?

Good morning bloggers,

Let’s imagine, just for a few seconds, that we actually live in Boston.  Can you believe the life long memory we would have from the storm they just experienced?  And, what about New Jersey? They continue to get blasted by these storm systems in this year’s weather pattern and another huge storm is possible within a week.   Here are the four bullet points of the weekend events:

  • A blizzard, being called the Blizzard of 2013, blasts the New England coast
  • A blizzard develops over the northern plains Sunday
  • An outbreak of severe weather occurs at the same time Sunday afternoon and evening across the deep south
  • Another storm is heading out into the plains and will likely produce snow just south of our viewing area

This picture, below, shows the February image of Superstorm Sandy (LRC cycle 3).  We will get a cycle 4 version in late March or early April:

Sandy 2 Sat

All of this is going on, and even though we have had some rain & thunderstorms, some light snow, and big temperature swings in the KC viewing area, we just are not in a good spot for exciting weather this season. This is really what we were expecting. But, it at times seems a bit ridiculous.

Last two weeks in Kansas City:

  • January 28th:  74° (76° downtown which would be the all time highest January temperature ever recorded in Kansas City)
  • January 29th:  Record shattering high temperature of 68° (breaks record by 5 degrees at 1 AM….ONE AM!) Thunderstorm at ONE AM, and then bands of rain!
  • January 30th:  Temperatures crash with dusting to 3 inches of SNOW
  • January 31st:  FIVE degrees by midnight with snow flurries
  • February 1st:  TWO degrees. It went from the all time January high to 2 degrees in five days, the lowest temperature in almost two full years
  • February 2nd: Ground hog somehow doesn’t see his shadow despite shadows seen all around him with the camera lights?
  • February 6th:  61 degrees
  • February 7th:  Thunderstorms and rain as storm develops. This is the storm that became the Blizzard of 2013
  • February 10th:  50 mph wind gusts around major storm that we had a few rain showers from early in the morning

I remember stating that it would be an active period between the end of January and around February 20th. Well, even with us being in “not the right spot”,  as the title of this blog states, it has been quite active. Events around the nation have been rather extreme.  Is this climate change?  I will have a special on Climate Change next Monday night!

The active weather pattern continues this week and we are about to just barely miss a smaller snowstorm that will track just south of our area.  This storm will then rip northeast and intensify near the New Jersey shore on Thursday as they don’t get any breaks at all. And, then an even larger storm system will likely develop by late in the weekend and the northeast will be bracing for another big weather event.  And, this weekend is when we may be setting up for a possible storm near Kansas City.

Before we get to the end of the week into next week storm systems we have one that we have to pay close attention to today.  Here is the 500 mb forecast map valid tomorrow evening. This shows an upper level storm tilted just enough to the right to keep us out of the snow. Just a slight shift to the north, or a stronger orientation of the vort has (the X), and we could see snow spreading our way. The chance of that happening is very low. This will most likely produce snow near the Oklahoma/Kansas border southward and also east across southern Missouri. In the last cycle, this part of the weather pattern did produce our first snow. But, this time it is likely tracking just south of us.

3

The overnight GFS model (06z model run) shows a major northeastern storm forming again this weekend:

1

We are in the Superstorm Sandy part of the weather pattern and even though the northeast coast is now dealing with the aftermath of the Blizzard of 2013, they may have to deal with one just as big if this forecast verifies.  And, then just a few days later, early next week, Kansas City may finally have a chance of a storm system, but again we have to remember that we are just not in the right spot for these storm systems. Here is a forecast map showing snow here just over a week from now.

2

So, the test is on for our area. Will one, two, or three of these storm systems bring us weather enthusiasts something to track in the next week?  Thank you for spending a few minutes reading the Action Weather Blog. We will go over all of these details and more on 41 Action News today and tonight.

Gary

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

60 comments to Kansas City is just not in the right spot?

  • McCabe58

    Hope we get some snow before time runs out!

  • nofluer

    Just to mention – Climate CHANGE is NOT “global warming”. The climate can CHANGE to become a new ice age, or it can shift taking wet conditions to currently dry areas and etc. My call is that we don’t have enough data to be able to tell if the climate is CHANGING. And remember too, that Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the Sahara used to be a jungle, and they used to call the central US “The Great American Desert.” So we have had quite a bit of climate change over the last 200 years or so that has benefited our ability to grow crops, but it could easily change back pretty quickly. (And given the lessons NOT learned during the 1930s…)

    As for rain – if you want to call that little heavy dew we had the other day – it rained just enough to get us wet while we “supervised” one of our Jersey heifers having her first calf. The gauge indicated about .005 +/-. Oh… it was a boy, and my daughter is tickled about it because we had another boy calf about two weeks ago, and as the kid says, “NOW we have a TEAM!” (She’s going to train them as draft animals – aka “oxen”. For pictures go to michaelepicray.com).

    • Fred Souder

      You just gave several examples of obvious climate change and then said that we don’t have enough data to be able to tell if it is changing. If the climate is not changing, it will be the first time in the last 11,000 years that this is true. In fact, the climate was pretty stable for nearly 200,000,000 yrs until india rammed into asia about 50 million years ago. Ever since then the climate has been ever so gradually getting more variable and colder.

      • nofluer

        Must draw a distinction between “climate” and “weather”. In my world short term change (measured in decades) is “weather”. Long term change is “climate.” (Unless you’re an AGW person. If you’re an AGW person, if it’s warmer today than yesterday, it’s global warming climate change, and if today is cooler than yesterday it’s just weather.)

      • nofluer

        Yes, Fred. I did give several examples of climate change. How astute of you to notice, since I labeled them as such. But the current perturbations cannot be labeled as “climate change” as they are short term in nature with no clear direction being evidenced that I can see. Thus I cited examples of historical climate change, as contrasted with current weather. I would submit that the climate has not been getting more “variable” because by the very nature of variance, the only clear pattern established would be NO pattern of change – ie no clear and consistent direction. Would you consider the “little ice age” to be climate change or weather? I’d consider it to be weather caused by variations/cycles in the solar effect on the planet, and especially since the weather has been trending toward warmer since the end of said little ice age. BUT you say it’s getting colder, so if there is climate change over the period, then it would have to be in the direction of COLDER, not warming, the increased temp averages over the last 200 +/- years notwithstanding.

        • Fred Souder

          That, then, is where we differ. I use the definition of climate as the 30 year average of weather. Thus, I would consider the LIA that ended the medieval warm period to be climate change. The warming that we have been in since the LIA would be climate change.
          The droughts that we are experiencing would be weather (they happen every 11-ish years).
          Before our current ice age, climate was very stable. There were no ice-caps and obviously no glaciation periods. Since then, the glaciations have been getting more pronounced, and the difference between the inter-glacials and the glaciation periods has been getting more variable. Colder means a greater temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, and thus more wind, more blocking, more variability, etc.
          Even on short term scales this is true. Just look at the weather patterns in europe during the LIA. Awful stuff to try and grow crops.

      • sedsinkc

        Plate tectonics has always been an important driver of climate. Other fairly recent (by geologic time standards) tectonic activity has greatly influenced climate, such as the rise of the Rocky Mountains around the same time India was colliding with Asia. There is also the southward drift of Antarctica over millions of years to center on the South Pole, with its cooling influence on the Southern Hemisphere, and the final development of the Central American isthmus around 3 to 4 million years ago which separated the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and altered ocean currents. This probably aided the initial development of the Pleistocene ice sheets across the Northern Hemisphere starting around 2.6 million years ago. There are also other factors, like solar output, intense volcanic activity, Milankovitch cycles concerning Earth’s orbit around the sun, and even Milky Way galaxy dust clouds to consider. There are other influences on Earth’s climate than man, but to deny that man has any influence is unwise.

        • Fred Souder

          Milky Way Dust Clouds? I am not familiar with that one. Do the dust clouds impact cosmic rays? I know some people theorize that different parts of the milky way have more cosmic rays washing through them which may modulate cloud formation.
          At any rate, the rockies don’t have near the impact that the Himalaya’s have. The Himalayas are close to the equator and have huge ice fields which raise the earth’s albedo… in other words, slightly lowering the total energy the earth receives from the sun, and thus gradually cooling things off.
          The antarctic ice mass might actually slow the rate at which Earth loses heat (seems counter-intuitive). The northern hemisphere sea ice (and expanding glaciers) greatly slows the rate at which the earth cools.

          • sedsinkc

            The sun is not stationary within the Milky Way galaxy. It moves among the stars and its position relative to the galaxy’s spiral arms changes over many millions of years. All the stars move relative to one another. I believe it is thought our sun orbits the galactic center once every 250 million years. The spiral arms of the galaxy contain lanes of dust clouds. The thinking is that over many millions of years it is possible that our solar system could traverse a spiral arm and pass through dust clouds that exist there and this could cause climate change. There is no direct evidence this has happened, it’s only a hypothesis that it could have happened, based on astronomers’ understanding of how the sun moves within the galaxy. The Earth constantly receives cosmic dust from space today, though we are not passing thru a galactic “dust cloud” at this time. There are studies being done to try to assess the effect of cosmic dust on climate: “http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/04/codita-measuring-the-cosmic-dust-swept-up-by-the-earth.html”

          • sedsinkc

            Fred, I had no knowledge of the cosmic ray theory so I did some online research. Perhaps the cosmic dust theory I mentioned was modified into the cosmic ray theory as more was learned? The mechanism, as being driven by the solar system moving in and out of the galaxy’s spiral arms over many millions of years, is similar. I read or heard about the cosmic dust cloud hypothesis many years ago, perhaps from Carl Sagan. Are you familiar with this article from physicsworld.com about the cosmic ray hypothesis? It’s from 2009. “http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jun/25/galactic-link-to-climate-change-in-doubt”

            • Fred Souder

              I am very familiar with the cosmic ray theory. There has been some cloud experiments done at CERN that have validated the cloud seeding aspect of cosmic rays, but the jury is still out (in my mind) as to how much this affects cloud formation. I wonder how much particulate matter and ions are normally available for droplets to condense on and form clouds. How much more does the ions from cosmic rays generate? I think that this is the big question that Svensmark and those guys are trying to answer.

              • nofluer

                The formation of clouds is a direct result NOT of cosmic rays or dust (shades of Buck Rogers!!!) but of the water cycle. Period. All these far out, and I mean FAR out, “theories” are just so much piffle as the ONLY meaningful driver of both weather and climate on the Earth is the Sun and its cycles. End of story.

                When I read the early IPCC reports and commentary on them, I was HIGHLY amused about their “scientific” methodology. It seems that in the beginning they “estimated” Solar forcing at 50% of any heat rise. But when they looked at the results of that, they decided that they’d lower their “estimate” to 25%. Get the highly scientific processes they went through? “Estimated”. “Decided”. No mention anywhere of a verifiable/testable scientific methodology.

                And the principle effect of the Himalayas on both weather and climate is not from the glaciers – but from their altitude, which diverts winds – and moisture – channeling the monsoon winds to the Indian sub-continent and Indo-China instead of Northward into China.

                The glaciers are there because the mountains are so HIGH – it gets really cold up there! That’s my take on it…

                • Fred Souder

                  I still have some questions about the solar influences. The relationship between, say, sunspots and temperature is not that great. I also have questions about the cosmic ray theory. They still have yet to prove a link between clouds and CR’s. However, I am not discounting it as garbage as it passes the sniff test of physics and thermo.
                  As for the Himalayas, they are in fact the primary reason that the earth is now in an ice age and gradually getting cooler. It has to do with their ice reflecting incoming solar radiation. To be sure, they do have a massive effect on local climates. But, for the last 50 million years they have been reflecting a portion of the sunlight that strikes them back into space instead of absorbing it and transferring it into the atmosphere/oceans. Before the Himalayas rose we were in a stable warm “normal” period with no large equatorial mountain ranges. Now we have cooled into an unstable climate that shifts between glaciation regimes and short warm-ups, with both gradually trending toward the colder.

                • Fred Souder

                  Oh, and you are correct. The leaked IPCC report has some laughable science in it, but also some that is getting better than the last IPCC reports.

  • The real issue is. Is man changing the climate? We already spend THOUSANDS of dollars yearly, each person in this country, EACH OF US, in increased cost of energy, food, cars, and other products, and the derivative snowball costs energy has on each of those. Al Gore is a billionaire, and sold out to a big oil company owner of Al Jazeera. How embarrassing to all of the fools that bought into his hoax! How sad that in this horrid economy, where jobs are scarce, and gas has been at or above $3 for many years, and rampant inflation is forecast soon. We use many different fuel blends, for this perceived “climate change”, and drive up the cost for that. The EPA has rolled out dozens of MORE regulations that WE ALL will be feeling at the pump and stores soon. In fact, I think some of this is already happening, yet the media is blaming it on the attack several weeks ago in Algeria?? Why??? I have no doubt that man is changing the climate to a small degree. But just the sheer number of human body’s radiating 98.6 degrees could account for “some” change. So could the sq miles of asphalt, concrete, and shingle roofs! But how much are we willing to spend, how vulnerable do we want to make or hurting economy, over this perceived theory??? We already know, much, or all of the gloom and doom predictions DID NOT come true, but some were found to be outright LIES. In the 70’s the big crisis was global cooling, then warming, now they just say change… Of course it is changing. It always has, WAY before man, way before fossil fuels… We do know that world food production is much better in a slightly warmer climate. I really hope someone with common sense steps in before we go too far.

  • Emaw

    1. “Cold blast” = a couple days of near average temps. 2. It’s not going to snow next Tuesday. 3. Man made “global warming” is BS. 4. Ku fans are out on the ledge. (Don’t jump it’s not worth it) 5. I’m now taking cover!

    • Dobber

      I hope your wrong about next Tuesday!

    • AFPILOTWXJUNKIE

      1. I agree..Cold blast is just colder than it has been. This winter has been punctuated cold/warm/cold/warm. 2. “http://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/showmap-conussfc.php?run=2013021106&time=INSTANT&var=SRATEI&hour=192″ The 6 z GFS looks promising, but we have been promised before only to have it fall apart. Fingers crossed for maybe one last chance. 3. I agree 4. KU will probably win, KSU should win.
      5. Incoming….

  • weather

    I would guess that we are not going to be in a spot for severe weather this spring according to the almighty LRC. Wouldn’t the hot spots for the winter forecast be the same for the spring?

    You guys any closer to hireing another met?

    Gary is trying to start a fight and a riot on the blog today by mentioning the “C” word. Let the war begin!

    KU and MU stink! KU’s loosing is great for the local economy as the liquor stores are raking in the cash! I hear sales are up 500%.

    I would think that the Hatiisburg tornado will come in at a EF 3 or 4. Pretty impresive video’s of that tornado.

  • mowermike

    Winter will likely end with a bang. The pattern is setting up nicely for some real snows to happen very soon. Feb. should end white and somewhat cold compared to averages. Winter 2012-2013 will find us before spring shows up. Wait and see!!

    KU stinks??? 8 straight league titles, made it to the NCAA championship game last year and won the whole thing back in 08. Stink, just not an accurate statement. However, they have struggled of late and have an uphill battle to win this year’s league title. KU will win tonight without a doubt.(BTW, K-state will likely be ranked higher then KU when the polls come out today)(can’t remember the last time that happened)

    Drought update:(go to “http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/”)

    Check the archive and go back to August 14th of 2012. Check out where the drought was east of here back in August and then check the current one for Feb. 2013. Major improvement in MO. on east of there. Some parts that were in an extreme to exceptional drought now have zero drought headlines.

    Now, can we get it to keep pushing further west or will the exceptional drought conditions west of here take back over???

    My bet, we’ll be just fine this spring.

    • sedsinkc

      I’m fine with some late winter snow since we’ve had next to nothing again this winter. Late winter/early spring snow is easy to take because the higher sun angle and longer days means quicker melting on secondary roads that are not well treated. I live among such roads and my neighborhood in some winters has been a nightmare to traverse to get to the main road.

    • sedsinkc

      The sun at noon today is 9.7 arc degrees higher in the sky than it was on December 21, an increase of 0.3 arc degrees since yesterday. :)

    • sedsinkc

      For reference, the angular size of the sun’s disk in Earth’s sky is just a hair greater than 0.5 arc degrees. Technically, it varies between 31.6 and 32.7 arc minutes, depending on how far away the sun is. Right now it would be closer to 32.7 arc minutes, since Earth is at its closest to the sun in early January.

    • nofluer

      Snow is good, as long as it’s measured out over time. Snow brings nitrogen to the fields…

      Best sports team in the country? The LSU Tigers. Why? Because unlike the rest of the nation, they get to spell it “Geaux Tigers!!!” Uber cool! ;-D

  • sedsinkc

    For anyone who wonders what Milankovitch cycles are, here is a brief discussion about them. “http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/milankovitchcycles.html”

  • forrestkc

    First off, Anthropogenic Global Warming is not some idea started by Al Gore, it is the dominant theory explaining the observed and projected warming for our climate, and it is the consensus view of the vast majority of climatologists as well as being accepted by every single major scientific society in the industrialized world. Secondly, its patently absurd to think that we could have 7 billion people in this world and have developed 40% of the world’s land surface without having an effect on the earth’s climate. Moreover, yes, the earth’s climate has changed in the past. However, it doesn’t just happen. There is always a forcing agent whether its orbital variations / solar cycles, volcanic activity, and so on. This argument that the earth’s climate has changed before, thus we can’t change it, is like saying that forest fires naturally occur, thus man cannot start a forest fire. That all things being equal – If greenhouse gases are increased in the atmosphere due to human activity, then the earth’s climate will warm – is established science. Now, whether we can actually do anything about it actually is debatable. KC’s climate today is basically what Tulsa’s was 30 years ago. At the rate we are going, in another 30 years our local climate will be more like what the climate of Dallas is today.

    • Dobber

      Are you an expert on this? Our climate is the same today as Tulsas 30 years ago? I doubt Tulsa has ever had winters like Kc “generally” has

      • forrestkc

        In 1980, Tulsa was in USDA Climate Zone 6a, Dallas was in USDA Climate Zone 7b, and Kansas City was in Climate Zone 5b. We are now in climate zone 6. Tulsa is not in zone 7, and Dallas is solidly in zone 8.

        http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/26/3394678/welcome-to-the-warmer-zone-kc.html

        This is not the urban heat island effect either, the entire area has moved into a warmer zone. Think about it, 30 years ago do you remember many Magnolias in KC? Now they do well here. Do you remember crepe myrtles here? Those do well here now as well. I grew up down in south central Arkansas, and the climate has warmed so much over the last 30 years now that people are using cold hardy palms in their landscaping down there now. I would bet a dollar that in 30 years few homes will still have bluegrass lawns and instead most everyone will have Bermuda, Zoysia, and Centipede like people have in the Southeast.

        • Dobber

          The quad cities in Iowa/ Illinois, is loaded with magnolias. Has been for 30 years. As far as the “zones”, people change stuff like that all the time. Look at how they rate tornados now vs 30 years ago!

        • Fred Souder

          forrest,
          you are correct.
          Also, during the medieval warm period they grew grapes in scottland and england. Vikings were able to grow crops and raise sheep on arable ground in greenland. Those places are too cold now.
          Also, recent global warming has shrunk the glaciers in places in Scandanavia and the alps so much that some buried settlements from the MWP are now becoming uncovered. Think about that for a minute…

          • forrestkc

            The Medival Warm Period was a regional warming that impacted the North Atlantic region as well as parts of Central Asia. We know from proxy reconstructions as well as glacial evidence from mountain ranges around the world, that the medieval warm period was not as warm globally as we are today. In fact, glacial evidence and proxies indicate that we are warmer today than in the last 12,000 years or so at least.

            Also, in regards to Dobber’s comment on climatic zones, we haven’t changed how the USDA determines climate zones. We simply don’t get as cold as we used to. Anyone can look at the decline of the forests in the mountain west, the spread of fire ants ever northward, the decline of maples forests in the upper midwest, changes in migration patterns, loss of permafrost, and thousands of others data points in nature (nevermind the instrument and satellite record), and easily see that the world’s climate has rapidly warmed over the past few decades, especially over land, and especially over the mid to upper latitudes.

    • Fred Souder

      Good Forrest. Everything you said is good up until the point where you said man made green house gasses. Since you are interested, go look up how much CO2 will warm the earth if we continue to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Look up how much CO2 changed earth’s temp in the past. You will find that it is not so simple as what is being claimed.
      Also, AGW from greenhouse gasses being the “main” driver of temp is absolutely not accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. There are a number of people out there who trot out this claim but it has been completely debunked.

    • Facts are, the GW side has been busted how many times now? Emails proving falsifying data. Non existent temperature sensors, sensors placed in proximity to air conditioner coils, on roofs, near blacktop… Retracted sea level reports.. It goes on and on. And then the ol “peer reviewed” statement. Of course the “methods” pass peer review.. But the reviewers didn’t know somebody was cooking the books. It seems that the ones that have the biggest chip in the game, ie their work relies on GW, climate change, what have you. Those who would be out of a job if it didn’t exist, or lose government grants and funding, are the most exuberant in proving this at no cost. Follow the money. We all know the earths climate is changing. But it was changing before we burned fossil fuels. CO2 levels are down to 20 year lows now, although we were warned it would take a CENTURY for them to come down… I’m just fed up with this BS. Our energy costs are going through the roof! The cost of EVERYTHING is tied to this, and we cannot afford it right now as a nation.

      • nofluer

        Ummm… the AGW “theory” was created by a professor of Al Gores back when he was going to college, and said professor has since decided that it was incorrect – but Al won’t tell you that. It has been kept VEWWWWY Quiet!!!

        What is the principle “greenhouse gas”? Co2? Nope. Water vapor – which IIRC is about 97% of it. And not only do you have CO2, you also have methane and other gasses. Oh… and remember the ozone hole over the S pole? It’s mostly closed now. (Can’t credit the banning of fluorocarbons either since they are still heavily used around the world.) So we lost a shuttle crew for nothing.

        When the AGW stuff was first preached by the IPCC, they created computer models to “prove” their position. But a question of methodology and accuracy arises when a computer model of Earth’s climate leaves out 70% of the Earth’s surface (the seas).

        My favorite AGW temperature report was the “reading” (that was “averaged into the day’s totals) at 600 degrees F at Egg Harbor, WI. Now THAT’s a heat wave!!! ROTFLMBO (And NOAA refused to correct the bad data for a long time – I’m not sure they have corrected it yet.)

        And one of the best articles to appear recently was the one that reported that East Anglia now admits that they’ve been wrong about the supposedly rising temps, and that said global temps have NOT risen for about 16 years. (And the same day that news came out someone was still flogging the “we’re all going to DIE from AGW!” meme.) ;-D

  • weather

    forrestkc… good points. People who say that we haven’t contributed to the warming of th eplanet just hve their heads in the sand like Dobber does. I would say that 95% of scientist and climatologist agree that we the people have had an impact on our planet. The proof is there and it’s pretty black and white in my opinion.

    Mike KU will always stink as well as MU. As a Wildcat there is no other view lol.

  • Jerry

    Seriously – a climate change ‘special’? I can’t imagine it’ll do anything other than trot out the same tired over-simplified, dubmed-down explanations for the changing climate accompanied by photos from blizzards, forest fires, hurricanes, and then make statements like “Did Climate Change cause Hurricane Sandy? No one can really say…how about the Blizzard? No one can really say… but climate change will make extreme weather more likely!”

    I wonder if your partners at the Weather Channel (you’re all owned by the same company, if I remember right) get a commission each time they use the term “extreme weather”?

    • sedsinkc

      This climate change “special” has to be a ploy to drum up ratings, since Feb. is a “sweeps” month. It seems almost everyone has some opinion on the subject and some interest in it, for one reason or another. But the subject is way too complicated and emotional for a “special,” which you know will be sensationalized.

  • sedsinkc

    Whew, Michael Vick is staying in Philly. Didn’t want that PO$ in KC. He’d probably have flashbacks to his Leavenworth days if he was here. Sorry for the sports post.

  • Theo

    Looking forward to the groundwater, that is east of the Mississippi River, creeping west and alleviating our drought.

    We are 16.62 inches below normal precipitation from Jan. 1, 2012 to Jan. 31, 2013 (KCI) and 14.27 inches below normal (JOCO same period). During that same period, KCI had 11 of the 13 months below average precipitation and JOCO had 10 out of 13 below average precipitation.

    How exactly will we be fine this spring? Please share. Is there a 200 inch snowstorm or hurricane that is going to dump a foot of rain here by the end of March?

    It will require prolonged, above-average precipitation to break the drought. We have been in prolonged drought with no end in sight. Whether you believe in the LRC or not, there has been no pattern change to speak of. The drought will continue.

    • Jerry

      We don’t need 16″ of rain to be “fine” — it would actually only take a few inches up front, followed by a more average rainfall from here on out to suffice for most needs.

    • mowermike

      “Looking forward to the groundwater, that is east of the Mississippi River, creeping west and alleviating our drought”

      Can you have a professional conversation and leave the BS remarks aside.

      I meant the trend has been good to our east, remember, those same exceptional dry grounds some how produced an abundance of moisture for the atmosphere and ended the drought according the the NWS. Which would argue against your statement that dry soils=less moisture in the atmosphere=less precip. from storms. You still stand by that argument of yours when the facts state otherwise.(rainfall patterns, those east of here have come out of the drought while we continue to be in one. We have just been in the wrong spot of late. I believe we will be singing a different tune come June)

  • mowermike

    Jerry,

    Very true.

    Theo,

    We don’t need to make up 16 inches of rain, we need average/above precip. for the next several months. to ease the soil conditions. Not to mention the low rivers and ponds.

    Now, I’m not saying that the drought will be over. I’m just saying that I think this pattern has potential in the spring to be very wet at times. Look at all the near misses we have had here in KC this winter. Southern and eastern Mo. have seen plentiful rainfall in the last 3 months.(we finally got in on the action of late)

    Doesn’t the storm track move north in the Spring. I would think that the heavy rainfall pattern that is currently east of here will push further west with time. That’s why I think we will have a much better spring this year then last. Matter of fact, would not be surprised to be above average.

    We have had a lot of air mass changes. Warm fronts/cold fronts/stationary boundaries this winter, one would think that given warmer temps this spring, we would have the potential of heavy rain set-ups.)(overriding)

    We shall see. I was just stating that I like the trends to our east and I’m thinking we will get better as we move through spring and into summer.

  • Emaw

    Scott, I wholeheartedly agree!

  • Kole Christian

    Nofluer,

    If you started a bandwagon, I would jump on it. In the seventies scientist thought that by now we would be in a full blown ice age. I am more of the believe that there are large pattern shifts and it changes about every 30 years. I do not beleive humans are making a large difference in the climate at this juncture. I am not concerned as to the polar ice caps melting because the northpole is a frozen ocean, not landmass with ice on top. That being said, the oceans will not therefore rise that much at all. Any increased precipation from melting icecaps would just proceed to help cool the earth down.

    • nofluer

      Ooo! Another data point! While some island natives are complaining about rising sea levels, others are complaining about FALLING sea levels. An increase in liquid water is not the only way that the seas can “rise”. Ever hear of the “rebound effect”? (Sometimes called “glacial isostatic adjustment”)

      Personally I wouldn’t mind if the sea levels rise 25 or 30 feet. Look at what would happen to the coastal cities! They’d mostly be submerged – and the people could move inland/upland and rebuild – so you get a brand new shiny city instead of the ratty old dirty one that the water ate! And it has happened many times in the past. Check out the “Seven Pagodas of Mahabalipuram! (In Southern India -Six of them are “missing” ;-D)

  • kellyinkc

    Speaking of climate change:
    Did anyone see what this CNN’s Deb Feyerick said?
    Quote:
    ““Talk about something else that’s falling from the sky and that is an asteroid. What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?”
    Not sure if that is funny or sad.

    • nofluer

      ROTFLMBO!!! Obviously a product of America’s Public School systems…

      Ummmm… Gary? Do you have a publicly available book or monolog on LRC?

  • kellyinkc

    Yeah, she was speaking to Bill Nye, The Science Guy. BTW he is a Mechanical Engineer not a scientist.

  • Bytor

    I have read this blog for sometime because I have always been a weather fanatic, especially winter weather. I decided to post today as I read the comments about climate change. All I can say is it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if you spew millions of tons of poisons into the atmosphere over a 150 years it can’t be a good thing.

  • cornstalk

    We don’t have to make up the rainfall deficit to end the drought. We could go from drought to flooding in a week without coming close to making up the 12 month deficit. BYW I am above rainfall here for the year.

  • KUweatherman

    I’m so sick of that phrase. “it’s 5° above normal today. Must be climate change. Tornado in February? Must be climate change” Get off it already…