All Activity

We have the good karma going this year, I predict this one doesn't crap until MI

Yesterday's record snow for the date from 1971 when it used to snow more than a half inch. 16.3 inches. YESTERDAY 0.0 16.3 1971 0.0

What for weather stations are most of you running? Ambient weather stations, Davis? Thinking after the first of the year upgrading my weather station. 30 degrees and snow flurries.

They’re fun to bike and hike, though.

Maybe for Australia. JB gets excited about whatever will get him more clicks and subscriptions. JB could craft a post about how a family skunks spraying a dog in Colorado will translate to EC cyclogenesis and he'll gain 300 followers and re-posted information all over social media

JB gets excited about the SOI. He has always said that watch out when the SOI tanks. Active weather will be on the way.

Oh how we pray that something akin to the 6z OP GFS pans out in the 12/15-12/21 timeframe.

decent trends on this one, these nw flow waves can flip flop either way so it's nice to see this one picking up some steam again looks like 2-3 more in the pipeline, so any overlap areas could add nicely to their totals before temps look to become more problematic mid month

12k is noticeably drier this run for dc. This storm is fizzling on approach.

Yeah, I don't trust any model at this point. Glad I don't have to put out a product tonight to the public! This is one of those which could bust either way.

I also hate the mountains.

Jax, looks like basically a reload. Lots of conflicting signals there. Great share.

I’m like Griswold’s boss on the phone right now. “just give me something….anything!!”

I think there is a pretty solid consensus right now that DC is about the northern extent of an inch. Further south - and you don't have to go too much further south - 1-3" seems right down to RIC. A casual 50mi shift north would help many of us, but some minor accumulations would be sweet.

I'm in my office in Waterbury today. When I got here at 7:30 it was clear and 28° on my car thermo. I looked out the window an hour later and we were in the middle of a full blown squall. Not sure about any temp drop yet.

Thanks. Will be interesting to see if it impacts morning rush and schools. .

Looking quickly, after peaking mid-November, the SOI seems to have been on a rapid decline but this could also be due to local weather patterns and system influencing Tahiti and Australia. But let's say that is not the case...based on SSTA trends, an argument could be made the La Nina has already peaked (at least for this season). But this is just a very quick, basic assessment. but not sure what point he was trying to make posting a daily contribution to the SOI value

Earlier. Like 4-5 am.

With any luck, a bit of "phasing"...and subsequent propagation.

most modeling seems to be thinking that DC is the dividing line for an inch.

That’s my shred of optimism as well. I just don’t see how low 50s are doable with this cloud deck moving in.

What time does it start in dc? 8am or so? .

Looks like Richmond will have more snow season to date than Methuen MA. by later tomorrow.

I still have heavy frost and it's only 32.6 with clouds taking over. May not get much above 40 today unless we get more filtered sun.

Thought this bit was kind of odd: "The revised analysis shows economic damages from climate change till mid-century are substantial and outweigh the costs of mitigation" It seems the relationship of the costs shouldn't necessarily be 1:1 or anything like that. Every dollar spent on mitigation doesn't lessen the costs of CC by a dollar - it may be much less or it may be much more; and you may actually want one or the other. E.g. say the costs due to CC (generally storms - wind and flooding) end up being $500 billion in a given area over the next 25 years, if no mitigation was done. You could spend say twice that - say $1 trillion - on sea walls, stricter building codes, river flood mitigation (drainage and walls), and lessen the resulting damage costs from $500B to say $300B. Was it bad to spend the $1 trillion, since the net loss is $700B? Maybe, but maybe not if you consider that there are also lives involved; presumably less lives lost in the do-mitigate case. Looking from a strictly financial standpoint - it seems like you generally would *want* your mitigation costs to be less than the damage costs, right? This is due to the unpredictable nature of storms. If you spend more money to mitigate then the delta between the two is by definition wasted money - generally. That said - there's probably some low-hanging fruit that is worthwhile. E.g. the US built a series of flood-control dams after the big Ohio river flood in 1937; this likely ended up saving money in the long run, so that might be a case where the cost of mitigation reduced the likely cost of non-mitigation damages. Same is true for flood walls in various places - usually it's money well spent. But it's rarely a 1:1 tradeoff though; so comparing the two sets of figures seems odd.