All Activity

October is one of our fastest warming months for all the stations in our climate division since 1981. Our area has been warming at 1.1° per decade in October along with January. May and November are the slowest warming months at 0.4° and 0.3° per decade.

Is it similar to how snowfall amounts sometimes get adjusted after the fact, sometimes even months later?

I wonder if the added cost with extreme weather will influence them or will they blame that on something else? I thought October would be warming faster than it is, especially after October last year.

Our climate is warming very quickly across all the seasons. But it’s an uneven process so that some months are warming faster than others. Most people that don’t follow the weather and climate as closely as we do tend to normalize the warmer climate and more extreme weather in only 2-7 years.

Here's something I found. Unfortunately, it's a general overview of the process. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Documentation_Daily_Gridded_Normals V1.0.pdf

We bust balls about the long growing season and fake cold… in the end none of it really matters until the snow flies. ULL around that early Nov period on the models occasionally, maybe you can thread the needle for birthday flakes.

February 13, 2014: 9.5"; PNA: -1.097

It's kind of crazy that they don't explain exactly why and how the numbers were adjusted per station.

I felt they were great last winter as far as seeing the pattern 10 plus days out. The prior winter as well as 22-23 they were very bad.

This was the strongest North Pacific Jet on record for a 7 year period from 2019 to 2025. You can see how much stronger it was than earlier defined intervals. Very extensive area from Asia to North America from 30N to 75N.

I'm trying to figure out what 9.5 or so event is at -1.2...probably one of the 2010-2011 events. Dec 84 and Dec 90 clearly present there as the 6 and 7 inch events.

lol JFK is off by 0.6

wow Oct 1979 had snow earlier in the month didn't it, Tony? from snow to upper 80s?

Bravo! an excellent post! Too often folks bring in politics where it has nothing to do with the political whims of a democratic society like here in the US. Thank you!!

For all you southern Maryland folks. @wxmeddler and I did a thing today!

This winter or leading into at least has alot of characteristics of 2024,ENO,PDO,etc., yeah some teleconnections wont match up mainly the QBO.Be interesting to see how this winter spawns out,seems more than likely a weak PV unlike last winter with a westerly QBO almost into COD sort of speaking Seems to me we probably see a wavy pattern this year with no great analog years.Even the MJO this time of year is similar to last or even possibly into the next few weeks,dunno,we'll see.But the ENSO is quite similar right now. The MJO pic is from last year

low of 43 at 6:13am.

Bridgeport: Raw: 56.0; Normal: 56.4 Islip: Raw: 55.7; Normal: 55.7 JFK: Raw: 57.8; Normal: 57.2 LGA: Raw: 59.3; Normal: 59.6 Newark: Raw: 57.8; Normal: 57.5

I was in Stowe town on main road on way to an 8:00 meeting in Morristown this morning. It was 35 at my hotel in South Burlington and dropped to 31 in the lower spots on 89 South . Was 29-30 all the way from Stowe to Morristown / Lamoille …. Heavy frost . Still some leaves up there on some trees but many bare . Come home and picking veggies in garden . Just different worlds . I wish it would get cold but there’s none in sight

Meanwhile I hit 30° twice this month

That’s insane to me.

I wonder if you did that same exercise for other stations what it would show

If nobody beats me to it I’ll make it on December 1st.

I take it Sunday and Monday are nonevents now?

Exactly, which is why we are criticizing your thesis of doom in your post the other day. Continental drift is constant. It operates over tens of millions of years, but it also operates over tens of seconds. As such it is very much not scientifically irrelevant. In this case specifically it is operating faster than climate change, with regards to how it is affecting the land/sea level relationship at this one location. Why are you ignoring that simple fact? You can't just ignore it away. I have made no such suggestion. It's not "political" - it's economic. It's about the welfare of society. Reducing the extent of warming will be *hugely* expensive and painful. It's not just a matter of people arguing in a room somewhere - it's about the prosperity of the world. Including, BTW: lives. Yes - it will certainly cause greater loss of life to reduce CO2 to a level that you're wishing for, than not. Just look at the life expectancy rates of developed countries vs undeveloped countries. What's one key component of that? Reliable electricity and transportation. What's a the primary input to reliable electricity and transportation? Fossil fuels. What's a key attribute of poverty? They tend to have *much* higher pollution - including many still using wood and charcoal for most cooking (look it up - Africa and India especially). This causes health problems, including premature death due to lung conditions. This is in part because they don't have fossil-fuel-driven electrical power plants. Yes there a couple of notable small exceptions - e.g. Norway gets almost all of of its electricity from hydro and not fossil; they won the topography lottery. But the rest of the 99% of the world relies on fossil fuels for their prosperity. Even Norway does for transportation; despite winning the electricity lottery. Yes this can, and will, change slowly over time. It has to, because fossil fuels are limited. But it will be painful, because of physics. And it will take hundreds of years - not dozens. Trying to push the changes by policy mandates, rather than letting them happen organically as technology evolves just increases the pain and reduces prosperity.