All Activity

Did you happen to arrive to this stance on happen by happenstance?

55F fan-fantastic feeling outside

We can't get Oisst and Coral Reefs to agree on SST/SSTA's on current conditions NOW, and we're supposed to believe numbers from 100+ years ago? They're just salesmen.

56°/54° coolest start in a while. Fine looking day ahead.

There are things to like for Sunday for sure, but a morning MCS appears fairly likely, which would wreck afternoon chances, except perhaps for southern areas. Probably more of a heavy rain event for most of us, unless the MCS is fake or delayed.

It can go both ways. What we think could have been a monster Nino in 1789 might not have even been stronger than 2015-2016. That would make the current Nino even more impressive.

That hail was wicked in parts of Charlottesville. Sorry about your Jeep!

Yeah same. West River went from flooding to I could see the rocky bottom Sent from my SM-S176V using Tapatalk

Possibly severe weather coming.

I don't think Albernaz is SO bad that he deserves to be canned after his rookie season like some fans want. Now am I convinced by him as a manager yet? No. But think about it...your rookie year as manager, all the introduction and such...and then you already get canned? Nah--unless they are just toxic and things get worse under them...that doesn't seem right to me. Seems more fair to at least give him next year to see if he grows and improved. And if (hopefully when) Elias goes and they hire a new GM, I'd bet ownership would make the decision to keep Alby. Because again...one year, lol

Haha isn’t the lowest at ORH 21.4”? If so I could see a record low in the next 20 years, but not sub 10”. That’d probably mean goose eggs for most of SNE lol.

Naming a TC after a teletubby?

That’s where the great and long SOI monthly records can be useful. There’s a good -correlation between SOI and 3.4 SSTa. SOI goes way back to 1876.

We were supposed to be in Volcano tonight, but the forecast there is for 15+ inches of rain plus the wind, and the town doesn’t have a particularly strong infrastructure so we rented a home in Kona instead up on the hill. ChatGPT says this should be the most sheltered spot on the island. As an added bonus it has a good 180 view to the West so it should be a fun spot to watch the hurricane from. Hopefully not too many issues. A bit bummed that I don’t get to spend any time in Volcano, I love spending time in the rainforest there, but with 2 kids in tow and the possibility of being without power, water or even road access for days didn’t seem wise. But hey, it’ll be a trip of firsts: first lava fountain, first actual hurricane (assuming it does become a hurricane).

Hrmm...

So let's address Charlie @chubbs post above Charlie, of course no dispute that Phoenixville stepped down at the 1948 move. But you've written the very objection into your own post: "Not surprising because the bias adjustments are calculated from the raw data." Charlie, your test is pairwise comparison of a target against raw neighbors across a break date. But so is the PHA! You've actually hand-implemented the method NCEI automates. Agreement demonstrates reproducibility, but of clearly not correctness as you are simpling showing us the same method, same data. It's the same issue as Berkeley and NCEI agreeing being offered as independent confirmation - they are of course not! On your "bullet proof" claim - the four available estimates of this one documented move: Berkeley -1.23 F / yours vs Coatesville -1.49 F NOAA -1.88 F / yours vs West Chester -2.03 F Four pairwise estimates of the same event spanning 0.80 F; the largest is 65% bigger than the smallest. Same sign and rough scale but the real question here as always has been the magnitude is what's in dispute here, and that spread isn't what bullet proof looks like!!. Also, your 2 references disagree by 0.54 F. If both were stable through 1947-50 they should agree on that Phoenixville's step. They don't, so they moved relative to each other in your window - and you date West Chester to 1970 and Coatesville to 1946, before your "before" period even opens. So you also say "all of the major county COOP stations moved in the same direction and roughly the same magnitude after the war". If so, doesn't that actually represent a real problem for the method, not support for it??. Pairwise comparison sees only RELATIVE change - a shift common to the whole network differences out and is invisible by construction. The more synchronised those moves were, the less your test and the PHA can detect, in exactly the era carrying the county's largest adjustments. So Charlie while none of this says your step estimate wrong. It means the method you are using is simply being validated against itself, the spread across implementations exceeds the confidence claimed, and the scenario you offer as clinching is the one the method handles worst.!! Paul