All Activity

voted btw

I had around 40? in the 2015 blizzard, which was drifted 8' against my front door of house. It was almost impossible to measure properly beyond the 30" range but L.E. was around 3.6" iirc

@GaWx made a poll

title lads

OI LAZ @GaWx You said this Does this mean we could see a shite Gabrielle then the others after that explode? The Euro Weeklies show significant ACE from the second half of sep onwards Possibly an ACE hogger or two

nothing historic for hill /lower mountain towns, and of course populations didn't see much.

March 2023 here

strange content going on there. my fault for watching, ofc :/

6 seconds in and already rubbing the north pole https://x.com/i/status/1959377950404465146

We had a 100% chance of rain today and I didnt see a drop

If one ever needed additional demonstration that some of the loudest social media influencers who deny climate change lack critical reasoning skills, below is one example: Look closely at the Time story's date: August 18, 2025. Now look closely at the influencer's counterargument: "Banana production reached an all-time record high in 2023." Yes, he's arguing that because banana production hit a record some two years earlier, there could not possibly be a shortage today. In other words, the situation could not have changed. There is nothing to support the assumption at the heart of his flawed conclusion. Let's take a look at how flawed this reasoning actually is using a weather example. In spring 1985, New York City was in the midst of a drought emergency. Applying the same logic, the social media influencer would have declared, 'I cannot spot a drought. Can you? Precipitation reached an all-time record high in 1983." 1983 Rainfall: 80.56" 1985: Drought Emergency As noted previously, social media influencers are bad sources of weather or climate information. In fact, in many cases, they are bad sources of information (no attributive nouns required). In this particular example, one can see how a lack of critical reasoning capacity impairs the social media influencer's ability to reach a sound judgment regarding bananas. The social media influencer is blind to the reality that dramatic changes can occur over even short periods of time rendering past data irrelevant to a current situation. Indeed, I suspect that it is often that inability to reason critically coupled with cognitive biases (with or without motivated reasoning) that plays a crucial role in making it impossible for social media influencers and many others who deny climate change to reach sound conclusions based on the evidence. Hence, there is no level of sufficient evidence that can alter their positions. They will reject the evidence that diverges from their preferred position regardless of how overwhelming it is. On the other hand, they will eagerly embrace conspiracy theories e.g., claims of data manipulation, that support their positions. One saw an example of this in furious efforts among climate change denial circles to discredit Phoenix's 118° August monthly record high that was set earlier this month. Back to the Time article, it does not say that there is an immediate shortage. It is forward looking (which also makes 2023 data irrelevant to the future scenario covered in the article; critical reasoning empowers individuals to distinguish essential data from distractions, filtering out irrelevant details and concentrating on the information that directly shapes and influences the issue at hand). The article states: Affordable and nutritious, bananas have long been a supermarket staple for consumers around the globe. But that could soon change, as climate change is contributing to a global shortage of the world’s most consumed fruit... Two known diseases, Black Sigatoka and Tropical Race 4, are already present in key growing regions around the world, including Colombia and Peru, and experts expect that further spread of disease will have a large impact on supply over time.

The subsurface accumulation of warmth is really off the charts. During the winter there was a trough east of Japan. But the SSTs weren’t able to cool much with so much heat below the surface. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.pdf

Yeah it’s fuels both hurricanes and the temperature differences that power nor’easters. Without the Gulf Stream the weather in the northeast would be much more mundane.

I’m not sure we crack 80 today. Got up to 79.4 but have fallen about a degree since. Been pretty lockstep with RDU but I think they hit 80.1 last hour

This actually got me thinking a bit, I was reading an interesting article recently talking about how the Gulf Stream helps keep Europe warm and highlighting concerns about a weakening Gulf Stream. Conversely, I assume that if the Gulf Stream weakened significantly and ocean temperature were not made hotter as a result of other climatological changes, that this would actually reduce the number of very powerful storms hitting North America? Is the logic sound here? .

Going to be a pretty one - enjoy. I will if UT wins, if not it'll suck ha

Besides the south shore blizzard, what memorable storms? mild winters, heat and drought have been headlines.

This is a pretty incredible story. The wx out west is nothing to play with. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/08/27/weather/lake-tahoe-storm.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hk8.AL5L.IIiQurcDmo5X&smid=url-share

no bias at all with that guy.

Happy long Labor Day weekend all. Chat next week.

Where's the love button....... Don't answer that

Markymark trying to take the last remaining scraps of Scoot’s degree away from him

Global Warming.

Forecast to be a terrible day of rain and cold temps (16C/61F), it just rained in the morning then the sun started coming out around noon slowly. Blew right past peg high and flirts with 21C/70F! Pavement even dried up.