All Activity

I read an article recently that implied that they initially establish heavily in an area for a couple of years and then begin to die off.

Wow 5 degrees in NYC? Holy hell! The day after tomorrow is real!

El Nino summers tend to be pretty hot down here in the deep southwest. I am near Austin. It's been pretty hot, highs generally about 100 degrees, lows generally about 77-84 with dews staying about 66-73. Hopefully this autumn/winter then spring 2027 we will see some majorly beneficial rains. But a lot of that is probably gonnabe smacking down places like Georgia/Alabama, the deep south states and the general Southeast getting ridiculous amounts of rain. Also the Carolinas, Virginia, DC and Kentucky, Tennessee. Those places are going to be just piling on massive epic rain tallies because every system that hits the CONUS is gonna smash into them and the STJ is going to be SO roided up. The pac jet is going to be pure fire, bigger and far more epic than a Playboi Carti concert.

All this chat for 1 out of 3,144 counties btw

Mike, I'll take your four questions in order Q1 - yes. Raw records could potentially carry non-climatic biases that don't cancel but not always! Q3 - yes. Williams 2012, Venema 2012 and Killick 2022 are real, adversarial, and they show homogenisation reduces error if a station has proven data issues, I accept that and I'm not going to pretend the literature says otherwise. Q2 - one correction. You say breakpoint detection is "even unstable run-to-run (shown in this thread's own evidence)." It wasn't shown. I went looking for it: two pulls of the West Chester QCF taken a few years apart were identical across all 119 complete years, unadjusted series identical too. NCEI told me the output can change daily; I tested it and found none over that interval. That concession isn't mine to accept. Q4 is where we really differ, and it's about scope. My claim is narrower: the specific magnitudes applied to specific Chester County stations haven't been independently verified, and showing an event occurred doesn't verify the size of the correction attached to it. The benchmarks measure whether homogenisation moves a NETWORK closer to truth on average - the right quantity for a national series, and a different question from whether one station in one decade got the right number. Venema's own write-up notes it modelled small European networks at high station density without network-wide trend biases; Williams found improvement in the presence of widespread systematic errors. Both are aggregate statements under stated conditions. The conditions matter here. Before 1951 this county has three continuous stations. Menne and Williams say it themselves in the 2009 paper: false alarms at neighbouring stations reduce the number of homogeneous neighbours and thereby prevent the estimation of adjustments. That's the sparse-network failure mode described by the algorithm's own authors, in the era carrying the largest adjustments. On cherry-picking - you introduced Coatesville as the exemplar and called it two resounding yeses. If it's representative enough to validate, it's representative enough to examine. You asked for a case. Here's the beginning of one, and it's a magnitude test rather than an occurrence test. So I built a regional reference for Coatesville from the raw, unadjusted Chester County records only - leaving Coatesville 1SW out so that it never contributes to its own comparator, and no homogenised product anywhere in the calculation. Measured drift of Coatesville against those raw neighbours over 1895-1982 is -0.190 F/decade using every available station, or -0.113 F/decade using a fixed panel that can't change membership. The applied NCEI adjustment runs +0.303 F/decade, which implies a drift of -0.303. That value falls outside the 95% confidence interval of the measured drift under both reference constructions. The adjustment also tracks the drift year to year - r = -0.74 - so it's aimed at something real. It's the size I'm questioning, not the existence. What this is so far in all of my multiple years of review which has been my analytic goal of this process of reviewing the adjustment of raw data at one targeted station Coatesville 1SW is that the correction appears larger than the divergence it corrects, measured without using any homogenised data. If that's wrong I'd like to know how?? Paul

0Z UKMET: ends up N of PR as a TD moving WNW:NEW TROPICAL CYCLONE FORECAST TO DEVELOP AFTER 108 HOURSFORECAST POSITION AT T+108 : 17.1N 56.8WLEAD CENTRAL MAXIMUM WINDVERIFYING TIME TIME POSITION PRESSURE (MB) SPEED (KNOTS)-------------- ---- -------- ------------- -------------1200UTC 18.08.2026 108 17.1N 56.8W 1013 240000UTC 19.08.2026 120 18.4N 58.3W 1014 251200UTC 19.08.2026 132 19.2N 60.4W 1014 260000UTC 20.08.2026 144 20.0N 62.1W 1015 271200UTC 20.08.2026 156 20.6N 64.3W 1015 280000UTC 21.08.2026 168 21.4N 67.0W 1014 28

For an el nino summer, we've sure been cooking in the south lately, and it looks like a week or more of 100+ temps coming. Very unusual for el nino from my understanding...but I still think once we get more into fall the STJ will increase with angular momentum working north.

Fort Collins could have seen a lot of lightning bolts from this one

yeah you're in a great spot, looks like a nice light show if nothing else.

Yeah, been watching it from my back porch. It just started moving right. Wind here abruptly changed direction about 15 min ago like 180 degrees heading into that thing. Got my eyes on the one behind it. Its freaking juicy as hell out.

Today's Highs: PHL: 90 New Brnswck: 89 EWR: 88 JFK: 88 ACY: 88 BLM: 88 TEB: 86 LGA: 86 TTN: 86 NYC: 5 ISP: 85

things that make you go hmmmmm

Interesting, thank you. Definitely had that extra bite. I'm also happy the hail spared the gardens and plants for the most part.

convection blowing up over northern IL and IN again

Looks like I mis-timed our trip by a week to get some tropical action. Hopefully nothing too serious there for Alex.

Crushed. Both forks. Heard a lot of thunder in the middle of the night here, but zero rain.

This has been an impressively consistent stretch of humidity.

Yep! I’ve seen erupting a few years ago when the lava was flowing into the ocean - cool, but this was another level

Big boy wind. You can see what a mess wind like this going through a forest would make when trying to figure out if it is tornadic or not. On the velocity front, keep in mind that it is radial velocity, so some component of that wind was not being sampled since it was not directly parallel to the radial. I would say 60 mph would be the lower bound of the estimated wind.