All Activity

Around .3 in Charlottesville. Pretty bad model miss on the overnight-afternoon period today as most CAMs showed rotating bands of showers/storms embedded in a steady rain shield. Only drizzle since the overnight period, but they show overnight tonight as the new rainy period.

Wtf, did it show up at DCL this morning? Temp on the game cam seems too warm but it certainly looks like snow on the ground.

Margusiry gets it

Look at the loop here that shows the evolution before and after the time of the image you showed. https://rammb-data.cira.colostate.edu/tc_realtime/loop.asp?product=4kmirimg&storm_identifier=al062026&starting_image=2026al06_4kmirimg_202609201250.gif&ending_image=2026al06_4kmirimg_202609202220.gif That's not a real eye, just a residual dry slot that happen to look like one. You can see the continuous dry slot poke in towards the center before the feature forms, end then that feature goes away almost immediately. You have to be careful taking single images in such a case when TCs are developing and dry air is in proximity.

Happy first day of Fall! 59F/DP 57F (40s tonight)

1.04/1.66 day/event

are we a rain town now?

Anxiously awaiting the ICON

As boring as the last several years have been we are long overdue for a widespread infrastructural kind of big boy storm. Fingers crossed this is finally it.

….we’ll see where we are come Thursday.

NAMMY trying to go wild

Regardless of the inadequacies of insurance policy, Sandy transitioned prior to landfall, and this was even confirmed in post-analysis. The mets at the NHC aren't going to get involved in politics, and they do not undermine their scientific work for the benefit of the private sector despite any conspiracies to the contrary. Granted, you didn't present this as your own opinion, but that of some others, but let us squash that discussion before it begins. NHC has at times. The Perfect Storm in Oct-Nov 1991. That clearly transitioned to a hurricane and they actually had a recon in it and confirmed it was a hurricane. Yet they did not declare it operationally. Yes, in post-season analysis they did, but was clear what it was operationally, and they did not declare/name it. That's being unscientific and not meteorologically objective. Call a system for what it is. If one doesn't, that suggests other factors outside the met science. I can give other examples less obvious but still suspect. This doesn't mean they are "bad" or otherwise, just it is the reality of things. Not all decisions in wx are made independent of external non-scientific factors.

We’ve been trying to tell them . Hopefully they start listening to the seriousness of this

i am pretty sure that DIT has no idea how to stay conservative.

you are all free to tell me why this isn't likely to be a warmer version of 1998

Highs in the 60s, lows in the 40s the past several nights. Seasonal change is upon us.

Yes, one of many things that can be different, depending on the state or county, and unquestionably this has been a factor at times. Sandy's classification at landfall I think was political/economic. The decisions not to go w/ tropical watches/warnings N of ORF was ridiculous given what the models were showing, and when it actually went more tropical that day of landfall, they still did not back off. Also, tropical storm force winds occurred on the coast before it was declared PT, so there you go. It was still solid warm cold up to 200 mb at landfall, Looking at the AMSU polar pass show this clearly. Hurricanes don't just go PT/ET in an instant, It is gradual process most of the time. It like when JTWC says in their advisories "becoming extratropical." Sandy's inner core was weakening at landfall, but it had not dissipated completely. Pressure was up only 6 mb at landfall from the 940 mb peak. And the argument that fronts has made its to the center is weak. We have seen a number of times NHC declare a system that has fronts a TC when it was clear from satellite it still had fronts attached to the center. And we've seen systems that looked far less tropical that Sandy at landfall and they are called/declared TCs. So they are not always consistent/meteorologically objective. I recall a NWS tropical met from a WFO in the Northeast at a conference some time ago. He thought Sandy was still a hurricane at landfall and just in transition phase, like almost all hurricanes that hit New England. You don't see them stop being called hurricanes just before landfall.

Interesting timing of the release date on this new study since we could at least see our first monthly global temperatures near +2°C. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10237-9 nature articles article Article Open access Published: 25 March 2026 Moderate global warming does not rule out extreme global climate outcomes Effectively communicating worst-case projections of global future climate—hereinafter referred to as worst-case climate outcomes—is essential for risk assessment and developing robust adaptation strategies to global warming1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Yet, current approaches for identifying spatially consistent climate outcomes are limited, with worst-case global climates typically communicated via the average of climate model projections at high global warming levels, such as 3 °C or 4 °C above the preindustrial era8,9. Here we show that extreme global climate outcomes may occur even under moderate 2 °C warming for several sectors. For droughts in global key breadbasket regions, precipitation extremes over highly populated areas and fire weather extremes across forests, global climatic impact-drivers at 2 °C of global warming may turn out to be much more extreme than model-averaged projections at 3 °C or 4 °C warming. We derive these results by identifying sector-specific, spatially consistent potential high- and low-impact global climate outcomes through spatially averaging projected sector-relevant climatic impact-drivers across key global regions. Our approach can easily be adapted to a wide range of sectors to support the improvement of sector-specific climate risk assessment and to inform climate policy. As global warming approaches 1.5 °C (ref. 10), these findings underscore the urgency of rapid mitigation to limit warming well below 2 °C, as even a 2 °C world may entail severe impacts.

Not around here but what a monster storm Polo turned into and insanely fast

Wait, in the desert?

Oof, yeah that would be a problem.

Frederick, MoCo, Loudoun, Fairfax, DC bullseye on 3k NAM. A lot more to go. Hrrr quite a bit drier but still respectable.

Whereas historical stats certainly agree that La Niña is quite possible in ‘27-‘28, that same history says that there’s actually a decent chance for either neutral or, believe it or not, even El Niño in ‘27-‘28. Here’s why: El Niños peaking at +1.4+ occurred in the following 19 fall/winters and were followed by these: +1.4+ Nino: subsequent fall/winter ENSO 1877-8: cold neutral 1888-9: strong Nina 1896-7: cold neutral 1899-1900: warm neutral 1902-3: moderate Nina 1905-6: weak Nina 1918-9: weak Nino 1930-1: cold neutral 1940-1: moderate Nino 1957-8: weak Nino 1965-6: cold neutral 1972-3: strong Nina 1982-3: moderate Nina 1986-7: moderate Nino 1991-2: weak Nino 1997-8: strong Nina 2009-10: strong Nina 2015-6: moderate Nina 2023-4: moderate Nina ————————— So, these 19 +1.4+ El Niños were followed by these: Strong Niña: 4 (21%) Moderate Nina: 4 (21%) Weak Nina: 1 (5%) Cold neutral: 4 (21%) Warm neutral: 1 (5%) Weak Nino: 3 (16%) Moderate Nino: 2 (11%) ————————— Tally: 47% Nina 26% neutral 26% El Nino ——————— Conclusion: La Nina is the best single possibility for ‘27-‘28 due to its large plurality (being at 47%), but neutral or even El Niño are obviously each quite possible as the two of them, combined, actually occurred about as often as La Nina after these strongest 19 El Niños on record. https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni/

That’s funny you posted that. In between bands it definitely seemed more mixed.