All Activity

oops! DCA: -0.6 NYC: -0.4 BOS: +0.2 ORD: -0.7 ATL: -0.5 IAH: +0.6 DEN: +1.1 PHX: +1.4 SEA: +0.8

DCA _ NYC _ BOS _ ORD _ ATL _ IAH _ DEN _ PHX _ SEA +0.7 +0.7 +0.5 +0.9 +0.9 +1.1 +2.5 +1.8 +1.5

Follow-up: As expected based on the model consensus having significantly warmer 2m maps on Sep 30th vs Sep 29th at 80N+, the DMI warmed notably yesterday (>1C) vs Sep 29th as it rose to the blue line (normal for 1958-2002). It should warm further tomorrow:

Speaking of Mike Tomlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h_pQ1-5iQg

I received 1.49" today. My September total is a whopping 10.73".

Everyone knows Carville's "It's the economy, stupid". When the economy,inflation,cost of living etc are hitting Americans hard, it usually doesn't bode well for the party in power.

Yankees actually playing smart baseball. Hmm...

Nebraska has managed to steal much of the moisture. Some communities up there have gotten 6-8 inches of south central Texan rainfall. Give us back our rightful rain. We want our rain back, NOW!

4.65" on the month.

Yes, but 500mb, temps and precip look ok. Check the winter thread in your forum.

1.53" today. Will finish close to 9.5" for September.

CANSIPS OCTOBER UPDATE DEC JAN FEB

6.9 or dare, I say, 7 on the [insert combat club] scale for foilage this season. this season will not be a 5/7.

Hard to say… I mean the signal before was pretty significant so coming back to neutral signifies collapse so to speak, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a warmer than normal pattern. At the moment the look resembles a 36 hour cool followed by 36 hour warm transitory

That looks best in December and gets progressively worse.

Adding the obvious… When the climate is rising(falling) along a non-linear curve any fixed period of linear average thus becomes a false reference

Pretty much. Filling up your tank for 4.50 a gallon or heating oil over $6 surely won’t negatively influence anybody on the way to the polls!

If the 850 is NOT -20 C and below and 500 heights below 500 dm, @CoastalWxdoes not want to hear it! You'd be surprised what shallow "fake" low-level cold can do, so don't diss it!

Good point about 30-year "normals." That period is arbitrary and we just decided to pick that as a base b/c it fits w/ human lifetimes as to a "long time," and the ever present recency bias, meaning what is going on now and recent *is* how it always has and will be. From a long-term climate and geological POV, that is nothing and not representative at all. Proverbial drop in the bucket. For instance, a full AMO cycle when it comes to Atlantic TC activity (up and down) is 50-90 years based on TC activity going back to the mid-19th century, so 30-year normals fall flat here. How about base conditions when it comes to ENSO? In the last 30 years, the base state of ENSO has become more La Nina (see RONI graph attached). Before that (going back to 1950), it was more El Nino base, but given we do not have enough or accurate measurements overall prior to this period to fully quantify ENSO states, we do not know the full cycle here, let alone if there is coherent one. So again, 30-year normals fall flat. Also, when calculating changes over time, I have seen some manipulation to give desired results. For instance, I saw a current temp anomaly plot for Australia from the BoM, and it said using normals 1961-1990. Well, you see the issue here, given mean warming since 1850, using normals farther back will give you greater temps anomalies to current. So what is the "correct" base reference here as to what 30-year normal period to use historically? Why not a 40-year, 50?, 100? And using the Industrial Revolution as a start point as if this point is what is "normal" for the globe overall? That is ridiculous and cherry-picking given the geological record. There are not only Milankovitch cycles, which work in the 10,000s of years, but also there are shorter solar cycles w/ the Sun -- Bray (~2500 yr cycle) and Eddy (~1000 yr cycle). So again what is "normal" can not be determined in just 30 years. It is square pegs round holes. And yet another factor, how standards/practices/technology change over time. One of the most obvious in wx? What we call a TC now vs. decades ago, which makes it looks like the numbers of named storms is steadily increasing. And not to exclude snow weenies, how about this? https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history For temp, it used to be glass bulb thermometers, now it is largely digital. One thing about digital is that is can record continuous temps, and thus you can start doing calculations in many, many time periods. It used to be hourly for a day, but now you can go down to the min or even more. When calculating avgs now, you can pick and chose and each one can give different results. Also, digital can record instantaneous spikes in temp. Yes, ASOS uses a 5-min temp avg, but not all temp sensors out there do this. So more absolute extremes in temp are recorded, and this influence record temps for a given location, and sometimes are used new records when it is local artificial heat source contamination.