All Activity

I gotta move , lol my sister in Rayville,Md (northern Baltimore county)always gets a little more snow then me here in eastern Baltimore county . My jealousy will get me to move up there lol.. of course with my luck if I move up there then southern parts will get more lol

Ouch, definitely a slight northwest trend lately that is gradually eating away at what little snow 95 might get. Latest Euro is basically just a few flakes for many of us.

You flip like a European soccer player

Dude its like 15 miles and only .5 warmer. That is within error not fin cutting thru RI then 150 miles off the Cape

Just slide in dms

Facilities reach the end of their operable reliable lives, and then need to be updated at substantial cost to have additional service live. This is all straight forward. Some on here dont understand economics.

Will be NW of here to Sturbridge

Without doubt, fossil fuel interests and their allies reject the concept of implicit subsidies. Even as implicit subsidies are estimates, they are premised on the reality that that the burning of fossil fuels leads to an increase in particulate matter, dumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and drives changes in climate that have significant societal costs and even larger long-term costs associated with lost economic output, human health, climate change-enhanced disasters, etc. The question isn't whether such costs exist. They do. It isn't whether they are significant. They are. The only meaningful question concerns the exact magnitude of such costs. Estimating implicit subsidies is a far more realistic practice than relying exclusively on an explicit subsidies-only framework. An explicit subsidies-only framework rests on the fatally-flawed assumption that there are no costs from the burning of fossil fuels beyond those captured in explicit subsidies. Implicit subsidies provide a fuller and much more realistic picture. It's obviously a picture the fossil fuel interests seek to mask, much as the tobacco interests had done in the face of rising lung cancer cases and other smoking-related conditions decades earlier. It is also no less unethical than the deceptive practices deployed by the embattled tobacco industry at that time. Fossil fuel interests, who are largely responsible for the problem of anthropogenic climate change, want to dictate the rules by which society views energy in general and costs of energy in particular. They don't want society to accept that there are better, cleaner, less costly alternatives for a growing share of energy needs. The International Monetary Fund chooses to provide a fuller picture. It isn't perfect, but it is far more complete than one the fossil fuel interests seek to paint.The IMF's framework is far more accurate than any simplistic framework that treats the implicit subsidies associated with the burning of fossil fuels as $0.

Ill be in Maine too so fingers crossed.

The 18z Euro is starting to sniff out the CAD for Friday. Nice drop in temps from 12z.

Ijd to NW RI is northwest of you. You know the corridor Ashford Woodstock Foster cement

I like my map better lol

Leading up to storms like this I find myself going to the New England thread for updates. Where I live 50 miles north of the city has a lot more in common with SW interior NE weather than it does with NYC and points south and east.

Yup

WB 18Z EURO

He likes to attribute it to CC and west pacific warm pool and the pac jet being too strong, but while those things aren’t wrong, I attribute it to something much simpler - there is no blocking and no 50/50 low. Get those two in place, that high is staying put.

A 40 mile shift south would be sweet for many.

The 'implicit subsidies' are subjective non-quant unverifiable estimates, hardly the stuff of science. There is no attempt in the paper to quantify or account for any offsetting derived benefits of fossil fuel use. The paper isn't peer-reviewed scientific lit, in fact it's a working paper, ie purpose is to "...describ'e research in progress by the author(s) and... published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management." It's interesting to note (since you did not) that of the relatively tiny proportion of 'explicit subsidies' cited, the main source is China, hardly representative of the global subset of countries at large, followed by the Saudis, Russia, No Korea and Iran. The US accounts for little more than a few percent of the cited 'explicit subsidies' - good luck changing the industrial policies of the aforementioned chief 'offenders' of fossil fuel subsides who account for the the lion's share of 'explicit subsidies'. The authors of the paper (and you, using it as evidence) completely avoid dealing with the cost/benefit of direct, explicit subsidies to so-called 'clean energy'. A clearer example of a gaslighting post would be difficult to conjure. LOL

Looks like I double Kevin.

Euro Def edged north here. It’s a slow cave, so everyone can say how steadfast it was

If you make your way towards me there’s a great diner called New Freedom Family Diner just up into PA

I said 2 -3 days ago this would be the storm the GFS wins and the Euro caves. I had a bad feeling and unfortunately it was the right idea

IDK, thinking sloppy inch here then rain. Elevation to our North into in NW RI starts to accumulate

212 yds rushing for the Bills. Calling Todd Monken..Paying attention you dumb fuck?

I can vouch for this. Coming over the Catoctins from Smithsburg to Thurmont daily for work it's a different world above 1500. There's been rain on both sides of the mountain with several inches of accumulating snow in the Catoctins on many occasions over the years.