coastalplainsnowman

I totally agree. I already mourn for when it will be over. Hands down, I'll take standing out there watching in 40s with rain and wind over 70s with blue skies but no more games left to watch..

I think the problem with April is that while warmer than March overall, our expectations are higher for April than for March. I also think that the earlier start to daylight savings puts us mentally in Spring mode sooner than we should be. Anyone with kids in outdoor sports knows that we all freeze our a**es off from March until some point in May, when suddenly a switch is flipped and it's tolerable for a week before oppressive heat kicks in that no one is prepared for.

Did you get that 'flash' that apparently sometimes happens just before totality, as the mountains areas on the moon's surface first obscure the sun? From some videos I caught today that looks awesome.

Oh yeah no doubt it was fun to see through the glasses. What's scary is that as the 2017 one was ending we were talking about this 2024 one and it feels like it got here in five minutes. Scary.

It's amazing that even with the sun blocked 89% here on LI, if no one told me there was an eclipse would I even notice? Maybe I might think things seemed a little off, but I doubt it. Hoping some of the folks who travelled to where there was totality will share some picks once all is said and done!

Yeah but Accuweather's 20,089-Day ForecastTM has my area at 80% cloud cover for the 2079 eclipse, so I'm definitely not missing today's event.

Thanks for checking. I just found this usgs link. It doesn't say too much on the specific topic, but it references other links that look interesting too that I'm going to check out. Sharing here in case of interest to anyone.. https://www.usgs.gov/index.php/faqs/how-do-you-determine-magnitude-earthquake-occurred-prior-creation-magnitude-scale

Thanks for this Don. When I first read this I thought how in the world can anything close to an estimation as precise as 5.2 be made for an earthquake which took place nearly 300 years ago. But then I was shocked to learn (yes, on Wikipedia) that the first seismograph/seismometer was made in the 2nd century. Don, just curious, would you happen to know if those magnitude numbers from the 1700s above are based on measurements from devices measuring wave amplitude? I get that Richter's scale came many years later, and I assume that if readings were actually taken at the time of the events, that they could be plugged into his formula later. But is that the case here or are these estimates from the 1700s arrived at by other means?

Halfway around the world in India, where I have some coworkers, they had a 5.3 90 minutes before ours. That seemed interesting, but I don't know if scientifically it really is interesting.

Honest question - is there anything in a meteorologist's training that would make them particularly knowledgable about earthquakes? I ask because most of the on air folks I'm watching today seem to be struggling. Granted, they're being asked to make a story out of something which, other than some shaking and the novelty of it, is a not much of a story, but some of it is frankly tough to watch.

This post reminds me of when I see the Yankees doing bad in the standings and am relieved to see the Redsox doing poorly too.

For a short time, definitely a teeny tiny frozen center in the precip pelting my windshield about 45 min ago.

Anyone have any idea why a map like this leaves out an area where 8.5 million people live (i.e. counties of Hudson, Richmond, Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk?)

Hi all - I'm usually in the NYC Metro boards watching for snow. I was hoping to please get some insights on something I read today. I read a tweet from someone named Chris Martz who stated the following: "In 2009, experts told CBS News that the Arctic will be ice-free within 10-years' time. As of yesterday, there is more sea ice in the Arctic than there was when this prediction was made, and it has been tracking higher than 2005 just about every day this year." It seems like I'm always hearing totally divergent things about the level of Arctic sea ice - that it's at record lows, that it's above normal, etc. The tweet above is just the latest example. Why is there always (or seems to be always) such a wide range of news regarding Arctic sea ice, and how does it actually look currently compared to say 10, 25, 50 years ago? Thanks in advance..

"And coming up next, the forecast where we put the maps in motion.." This brings me right back. The 90's maps were a slightly polished upgrade over the maps of the 80s.