SHELEG

1 hour ago, the_other_guy said:

I drove down that morning. I had snow up here and frankly, I’m more suspicious about LaGuardia reporting any measurable snow than central park reporting none.

I was in Brooklyn and we had clearly had measurable snow. I would bet CPK did as well

The possibility on Dec 7th or 8th has my attention.

1 minute ago, snowman19 said:

Out of curiosity why do you think it’s nice to get freezing rain and sleet? Serious question 

Many people have the same question about you liking  snowstorms. I like freezing rain and Sleet weather you understand it or not.

GFS has something for Monday the 24th.

CMC delivers the goods.!

5 hours ago, Jt17 said:

Looks like 20+ hours of snow 

And now it’s gone

No snow here yet. all surfaces covered with a coating of salt.

1 minute ago, SHELEG said:

With all that in mind it’s a great stretch to to say that last nights airmass would have produced single digits in NYC 25 years ago. as in 1997 no way.

7 minutes ago, nycwinter said:

well central park had no snow and even without snow with this air mass would have been in the single digits 25 years ago..

No. It would not have. Absolute BS

What are the sky conditions looking like for Thursday morning solar eclipse?

16 minutes ago, Snow88 said:

And your point?

You  must be new if you dont  think the models will change.

yeah latest GFS now has a High in south East Canada

Just now, WestBabylonWeather said:

as much as I want snow tomorrow, I hope its tame enough to where bobs furniture doesn't cancel my delivery because then I may never like snow again

Most of us hope it’s so bad they cancel the deliver 

25 minutes ago, NYCweatherNOW said:

You’re wrong, It shows snows this weekend 

What is he wrong about?

12 minutes ago, wishcast_hater said:

What happens when entities as NOAA and NASA  screw with the data to bolster their agenda? Many scientists have looked at the raw data and caught them lying. It’s not an open and shut case. Science doesn’t lie but scientists do. Merry Christmas. 

Couldn’t have said it better.  Many scientists think they are virtues for distorting data. Because they want to save us.

3 hours ago, psv88 said:

So your motivation is to protect those people who are concerned from themselves?

Motivation can be a double edge sword some climate change enthusiasts are Motivated to have people protect them selves that they feel it’s OK to distort data such as with the famous polar bear picture.

It amazes me how people who follow the weather, understand somewhat of the complexities of the atmosphere and understand how many dozens of factors need to be taken into account to Just to have a general winter forecast for a general area.Yet these people still believe that the global climate For the next 50 or 100 years is all related to one factor greenhouse gases.There’s certain that there are hundreds of other factors that can mitigate whatever affect greenhouse gases have.

2 minutes ago, psv88 said:

So your motivation is to protect those people who are concerned from themselves?

Hey what would you say To someone preparing for a blizzard based off 380 hour GFS run

4 minutes ago, psv88 said:

We do have proof because its happening now. Each year is warmer than the last (essentially). 

I will be direct. Why deny? What is the motivation? Is it simply because it is a cause supported by liberals? Is there something else? I really dont understand why people deny, unless they work for the fossil fuel industry. 

It’s important to know because global warming is causing people to become hysterical like believe and  believe that they shouldn’t have children.

17 minutes ago, psv88 said:

 

It is not a theory that greenhouse gases prevent heat from escaping the earth, this is law. It is also not a theory that greenhouse gases have increased rapidly for the past century due to industrialization. These are facts. It is also fact that temps have increased rapidly over the past century, confirming the above...the science is settled.

This is incorrect. Yes we know greenhouse gases cause the earth to retain its heat in a controlled environment but we have no proof to how the atmosphere would respond on a global scale.In fact there have been centuries which had more CO2 in the environment than we have now with less warming

2 hours ago, sussexcountyobs said:

I do not call science a hoax. Don't twist words. I called man made climate change a hoax. And again, 113 yrs is a very , very short time period to talk about global temperatures. 100, or 1,000 yrs is a blip on the Earth's clock.

Climate change is a scientific theory. Not a proven fact.  denying climate does not = calling science a hoax.

5 hours ago, Snow88 said:

Juno redux and march 2001

Nice Rain Storm on the 18Z

6 minutes ago, USCG RS said:

It is possible, considering the direction of the wind and the proximity of the airports to the water

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

They corrected it now to 37

Euro is East again