Saturday, January 24, 2026

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 7

"It can happen"
In a discussion with the Google AI, I stated "The high pressure 'H' on the weather maps yesterday was 1056. One of the meteorologists said that he had never seen one that high ..." The AI entity posted 'Thinking' ... then replied:

"A reading of 1056 mbar (approximately 31.18 inches of mercury) is exceptionally rare and would indeed be a career-first for many meteorologists. In the context of Winter Storm Fern (January 2026), this massive Arctic high-pressure cell is currently dominating the U.S. and is classified as "near record-breaking" for the lower 48 states.

Historical Context of a 1056 mbar High

To understand why your meteorologist was surprised, compare 1056 mbar to historical extremes:

Contiguous U.S. Record: The highest pressure ever recorded in the "Lower 48" is 1064 mbar, set in Miles City, Montana, in December 1983.

North American Record: Alaska holds the continent's record with 1078.6 mbar (Northway, 1989), recorded during an extreme cold wave where temperatures dropped to -62°F.

"Strong" Highs: Most powerful winter Arctic highs range between 1040 and 1050 mbar. Crossing the 1050 mbar threshold puts a system in the top 0.1% of intensity for most locations.

Why 1056 mbar Matters for Winter Storm Fern

While we often focus on low pressure for storms, this 1056 mbar high is the "engine" behind Winter Storm Fern:

Instrument Calibration: Pressures this high can actually exceed the display range of some home barometers and have historically required adjustment for aircraft altimeters to function properly.

The "Push" Factor: The intensity of this high creates a steep "pressure gradient." It acts like a massive plunger, forcing the frigid Arctic air deep into the Southern U.S., where it clashes with moisture to create the current ice and snow conditions.

Physical Effects: At 1056 mbar, the air is 4.2% denser than standard air. This extreme density is a hallmark of the "Polar Vortex" disruption that sent this air mass so far south."

(See Watching The Arctic Die - 7). I am wondering what a change in the mix of gases in the atmosphere at a particular Layer and Zone would have on that area's atmosphere.

I have been perusing the Lundstad et al. datasets, and putting them to the test in this series.

Today's graphs have been passed though the TEOS-10 SIA software I am converting from Fortran to C++.

After diagnosing the Lundstad dataset I ran it through some dry air functions in that library.

One of those functions is the "air_density_si (a_si, t_si, p_si)" in the "Air_3b" module.

Let's look at some Lundstad dataset graphs after passing that data through that function which takes "a_si, t_si, and p_si" as parameters.

I used the temperature etc. sections of the dataset that were graphed previously in this series (see previous graphs).

The "Combined" graph below details the flow when all of the data in the individual zones are combined and averaged.

The graphs below the combined graph are individual layers in individual graphs.

Some layers are missing because some of the Lundstad data failed to make it through the allowable value checks.

But the clear message being shown is that the atmosphere is impacted not only by temperature, but also by the mixture of gases.

This is the description of the function that generated the data for the graphs:

=============================================
function air_density_si (a_si, t_si, p_si) =============================================
This function returns HUMID-AIR DENSITY as a function of AIR FRACTION, TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE from numerical iteration of the HELMHOLTZ FUNCTION DERIVATIVE ... OUTPUT: ... [density of humid air in kg/m3]

In other words more or less of gas X in the mixture causes one density phenomenon while others mixtures cause other density phenomenon.

I thing Dr. James Hansen has been criticized unfairly for his focus on the impact that the mixture quantities of aerosols changes atmospheric dynamics depending on the gases and their quantities in that mixture.

I am continuing research on this, but remember that adding more pollution by adding other gasses to the atmosphere is not an acceptable answer.

The answer is removing pollution from the atmosphere.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here



Combined

Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 4

Layer 5

Layer 6

Layer 7

Layer 12

Thursday, January 22, 2026

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 6

Temperature Measurement Zones

In today's post we take a first look at the atmospheric temperatures in the scientific work of Lundstad et al.

Previously we looked at the pressures in that same work.

The graphic to the left was also presented as a way of quickly determining the general location where measurement gathering took place.

In today's version both layer and zone are specified, and the zone locations are marked by red rectangles around their latitude and longitude boundaries.

This gives us an idea of how sparse or to the contrary closely covered the measurements are.

Satellites do not have thermometer characteristics however they cover a much wider area than thermometers do, so the two together can give reasonable information (NASA; Evidence). 

The next episode of this series will deal with the TEOS-10 SIA processing of this data.

But I digress.

The following graphs detail the annual average temperature measurements (note that "Layer" and "Zone" refer to the layers (0-17) and zone numbers within those layers shown on the graphic above.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
















Wednesday, January 21, 2026

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 5

WOD Layers & Zones

 

In the previous post I mentioned a source of information associated with a paper in a scientific journal (Lundstad, Elin; Brugnara, Yuri; Brönnimann, Stefan (2022): Early instrumental time series of global measurements of monthly precipitation between 1677-2021, part 1 [dataset]. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.941263In: Lundstad, E et al. (2022): Global Early Instrumental Monthly Meteorological Multivariable Database (HCLIM) [dataset bundled publication]. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.940724).

I have graphed the "pressure" data (called "d_si" in the previous post's graphs.

The difference in "d_si" in the previous graphs and in today's graphs is simply that the previous graphs used data generated by values calculated using anomaly values (anomalies are values that vary from values within a specified span of time).

The graphs today are generated using the values in the aforesaid Lundstad et al. dataset. 

I used only values from 1850 on so as to make it easier to compare with the previous post's graphs which began in 1850. 

Today's Lundstad graphs use "Layer" and "Zone" terms to describe the locations from which the d_si (pressure) values originated.

A "Layer" in this context is a Latitude band as shown in the graphic at the top of the page, and a zone is a rectangular area bounded by longitude lines.

One thing which I noticed that seems to validate some of the Lundstad data ("Climate change caused by human activities is influencing atmospheric pressure, according to a new study. The research, published in this week’s Nature, is the first report of a human-induced effect on global climate that does not rely on measurements of temperature." - see previous post in this series) is that pressure does vary for various reasons.

Anyway, more to come after I process the Lundstad temperature data. 

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 9
Layer 10
Layer 12
Layer 13