All Activity

Well it was precipitating. The airport ASOS had a brief period of reported snow between the rain obs. The temp was around 37-38 at the time. My skepticism was whether or not it was actually snow of if was just cold rain and the instrumentation was reporting snow in error. Sometimes they do that with marginal temps and light precip. Vis only got down to 8-9 miles too.

Seven!

SPC is monitoring Day 4-8 Convective Outlook NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK 0347 AM CDT Thu Oct 16 2025 Valid 191200Z - 241200Z ...DISCUSSION... ...Sunday/Day 4 and Monday/Day 5... A large-scale mid-level trough and an associated cold front are forecast to move through the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys on Sunday. Thunderstorms will likely be ongoing across the central Gulf Coast states and Tennessee Valley at the start of the period. This convection should have a negative impact on instability across the much of the moist sector during the day. In areas that are not impacted, weak instability is forecast to develop ahead of the front from Georgia and the Carolinas into the central Appalachians. The instability combined with strong large-scale ascent and moderate to strong deep-layer shear will likely result in a severe threat. A potential for wind damage and a few tornadoes will be possible. At this time, uncertainty is substantial as to exactly where the greatest severe potential will occur. As new runs come in, an upgrade to Slight may be needed. A mid-level low is forecast to move across the Northeast on Monday, as the associated trough moves into the western Atlantic. Thunderstorms with an isolated severe threat will be possible in parts of southern New England during the late morning and early afternoon before the front moves offshore.

As I showed yesterday, seasons with no H hits on the Conus have shown no notable signal one way or the other for the subsequent winter temperatures. What about the other extreme, winters after seasons with 3+ Conus H hits since 1950? 17 winters: 2024-5, 2020-1, 2017-8, 2008-9, 2005-6, 2004-5, 1999-00, 1998-9, 1989-90, 1985-6, 1979-80, 1971-2, 1964-5, 1959-60, 1954-5, 1953-4, and 1950-1. Here’s their average using climo of 1951-2010: slightly mild but that’s likely a little too warm considering that 3 are post-2010 What about winters after seasons right at the 2 Conus H hit average since 1950? 13 winters: 2022-3, 2021-2, 2019-20, 2018-9, 2016-7, 2012-3, 2003-4, 1996-7, 1995-6, 1986-7, 1966-7, 1960-1, and 1955-6. Here’s their average using climo of 1981-2010: mainly slightly warm to near normal but I’d rather call it near normal overall considering that 1981-2010 climo is slightly too cool being that 6 of the 13 are post-2010 and only 3 are pre-1981 —————— Also, maps for winters following the 29 seasons with exactly one Conus H hit came out right at normal everywhere. ———————— So, to summarize the maps for winters following Conus H seasons with 3+, 2, 1, and 0, the differences are pretty small. Thus there’s little signal one way or the other for winter temperatures based on the # of US conus H hits of the prior season.

And sort of the opposite to a little dry air entrainment in a hurricane, one moist or liquid ppffffffffftttttttttttt can throw off the whole thing.

There are echoes overhead there, and it's at 47.3° lat. and 985' asl. Their average date for first flakes is probably about now. (Unfortunately, the airport apparently doesn't report snow.)

I can't reveal too much, as the final decisions lie with the national author. But from the state climate office side, we suggested mostly status quo (no change) this week, aside from removing some lingering D0 in eastern Ocean (warranted with the heavy rain from the nor'eater). They also eased up a bit in Bergen and eastern Passaic, which is fine too given the 1.50"-2.00" rainfall there, as we were on the fence about recommending improvement there or waiting. As for the areas of degradation in the western parts of the state, it's really just slight expansions of existing D0 (in Burlington) and D2 (in the far northwest), which we didn't explicitly suggest, but have no problem with given the continued dry conditions and relatively low totals from the weekend storm. Very minor changes overall. If you haven't yet, I'd recommend checking out the comparison slider, as it nicely shows the specific category changes from last week to this week. You can zoom into NJ: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/ComparisonSlider.aspx

Our 20-foot-tall sapling is mostly changed. The 90-foot by 24" specimen is just beginning to turn.

@chubbs Actually Charlie there is total agreement across the 3 stations for those 1948-1949 station moves. Like you said this is easy with the actual data to see the real impact of any station moves. Unlike what you said above we did not see cooling after the station move! The first full year (1949) after the Coatesville move away from what you think was a UHI location - actually saw Coatesville warm by 2.2 degrees and not cool when moving away from the "heat island". As you can see below red is warmer changes and blue is cooler changes in annual temperatures. Perfect agreement as all stations warmed in 1949 following the Coatesville station move and cooled in a similar rate in 1950.

Schumacher actually has much of the area in 15% for Sunday. https://schumacher.atmos.colostate.edu/hilla/csu_mlp/csu_severe.php?date=20251016&version=2021&day=4&product=severe_ml_day4_gefso&day_str=1020&init=00

Overcast this morning with mid level stratus. Looking forward for some rain today. Been a lean month so far.

I've got my eyes on Dec & Feb for potentially being on the colder side.

Highs next week in the low to mid 50s. I am not ready for sweatpants and hoodie season.

Literally

I expect near normal winter temps interspersed with significant Arctic blasts. Overall dry but with wet spells when the PNA trends more neutral. Hopefully we can get a couple -EPO/=PNA pairings through the winter.

At the end of the day I think my peak season forecast will be ok, but some underperformances really hurt me near the end. That’s how it goes. It’s still disappointing. Was surprised there was no major threat. If not for Humberto, Imelda would’ve been a hit in the Carolinas. Yes, SSTs and OHC are only part of the equation.

At least we finally got rid of Franklin. I was rooting for them to lose so this would happen. I stopped even rooting for them recently. I can't waste my time supporting something doomed to fail in the end. And I couldn't stomach the weak pathetic loser alumni attitude anymore, where they were content and happy just to go 10-3 every season and enjoy some trip to the "Who gives a flying F bowl" each year. PSU doesn't have the recruiting classes of Alabama, Georgia or Ohio State, no one should expect them to be competing for a national championship every season like those programs do. But I compare it to Auburn and LSU, two programs who do have similar recruiting rankings as PSU, who have won championships in the last 20 years. They both also have more losing seasons that PSU under Franklin, but who cares. No one remembers that LSU sucked the year after their last championship, no one cares. There is one winner and everyone else is some degree of loser. This just have a winning season loser BS is sickening and I couldn't stand it. I hope now they get a coach that gives them a chance to upset some of the big schools and have at least a prayer of winning a title one year. Yes, playing a more aggressive style can also lead to losses and ads more variance but I was not content to just beat up on the pathetic schools on our schedule every year and lose every time we play a top 10 team.

Because summer is really over

I have considered 2021-2022 as a mismatch season. Yes, the PNA will be lower than last season, which isn't saying much...it was very high. I definitely see similarities to 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.

As an outsider who follows the Raves but with no rooting interest one way or another I rate the coaching in between most others. I was never as high on it a few years ago when almost everyone considered the Ravens staff one of the very best in the NFL, and I am not as down on it now. The team is devastated by injuries in key spots. I'm not sure anyone could overcome that, especially in a league that features as much parity as the NFL does, when a few key players separate the best and worst teams. Look at the Eagles...they got hit by some injuries to weak spots in their roster and they suddenly look like crap the last couple of weeks. Take away 3 or 4 key players and they aren't nearly as good a team anymore. The Ravens have been hit even worse! My opinion of the inability of the team to win a super bowl with their recent stacked roster is its 90% on the QB. Lamar has been perhaps the best regular season QB in NFL history. But his playoff performance has been below average. Last year he was better, but before last year his playoff QB rating was BELOW 80!!! You can't win with that. That is below even a "game manager" QB level of competency. One season he was injured in the playoffs and that had nothing to do with him. And last year he was better and perhaps in another parrallell reality they do win the SB last year...but the receiver drops that easy catch at the end...and who knows. He played well enough to win and that one time someone else let him down...and maybe the Ravens don't have the same mental block the Bills do against KC and they don't fail to convert a 3rd or 4th and 1 like 27 times and they win the AFC championship last year. Dunno about beating the Eagles...they were a freaking freight train at the end of last season...but who knows. But that was one game...if Lamar played like he does in the regular season in the playoffs across the board the last 7 years...they probably would have won a super bowl and that has nothing to do with coaching.

What adds more interest to this IMO is it seems a lot of "correlations" we had been very familiar with have diminished over the past decade-plus as well. Now, the easy answer here is that is just a product of increasing our sample size (data set). This is likely certainly a factor, but how strong of a factor? But I suspect something else is going on too...and the way to come to that conclusion is when you break everything down into how we understand things and basic principles and you're getting results that don't make sense. also, if I understand correctly, the correlation is geared more towards the evolution of the AO? Lots of influences on the state and evolution of the AO, especially stratospheric processes.

Absolutely...I equate it to squats in weightlifting.....it's the goliath of lifts, but it's so dependent upon balance, stability and mobility....all of these minute details that are requisite for the unleashing of such fury.

Hurricanes for being so powerful, are so prone to small factors that influence their intensity. Fascinating when you think of it.