LibertyBell

I have read elsewhere that la ninas and neutral phases need to be grouped together (for our weather purposes anyway)-- do you agree with this Don? The thinking is for winter weather purposes, it's either an el nino or not. If we do group la ninas and neutral phases together then winters like 2001-02 come into play-- that's the only one I can think of which has been like this. 1989-90 too if you take out the November storm though. What's your thinking on this, Don? Also, this Friday the 13th potential storm, is this a coastal storm if it does happen? Is it currently offshore on the models? Do we have a chance mainly because storms tend to move west and north with time? Another question is even if the storm takes a benchmark track would there even be enough cold air around to snow? Thanks!

I see the 12-24 range but I can only assume the higher ends of that range were well east of here. It wasn't anywhere close to 16 here let alone 20. This was a latitude and longitude storm where you had to be NE of the city to get the highest totals. Half of this storm was actually rain here. The February 2010 storm was far superior to this (the one at the end of February).

Something I did find interesting which they just said (don't laugh) was on the weather channel. "It's weird they're getting so much rain in California, you usually don't see this in a La Nina."

Right and this is the best way to cause sustainable change....you have to show people how it benefits them. It's the whole idea behind benefit corporations too (companies that seek to preserve the environment and help their communities in addition to increasing stock value.) You have to benefit them by giving them tax breaks and helping them out economically so they can benefit the rest of us.

Normal temps may be hard to come by especially when it's precipitating. If you've noticed highs in the 30s and lower seem to happening only when cold fronts push through and when we get a storm it's in the 40s or higher.

That map actually proves it was mostly a New England storm. Most of us in the light blue were in the 10-12 inch range. That's MECS.

I'm not sure about that. It was 10 inches or less from here and west of here. It was mostly a New England storm. MECS yes

We've seen this so many times I feel like it's a rerun. Did people really forget 1989-90, 1997-98, 2001-02 and 2011-2012 so quickly lol.

Let's be honest that was a great storm for a small area it wasn't some HECS.

You need to have cold air on this side of the globe to tap into it.

Absolutely. I think that's another side benefit of education and more opportunities. Also, Ehrlich was off because of modern technology and farming techniques, but the main concern now is different (deforestation, pesticide use, etc.) Hopefully we can control that too. I saw one of the bright spots of the interview was they were paying farmers not to chop down trees. And it wasn't even that much they had to pay them-- something like 1000 dollars per year per farmer (which added up to 1.5 million per year overall which was funded entirely by donations) and that's more than they make by chopping them down.

Ehrlich was off because of modern technology and farming techniques, but the main concern now is different (deforestation, pesticide use, etc.) Hopefully we can control that too. I saw one of the bright spots of the interview was they were paying farmers not to chop down trees. And it wasn't even that much they had to pay them-- something like 1000 dollars per year per farmer (which added up to 1.5 million per year overall which was funded entirely by donations) and that's more than they make by chopping them down.

I know and it's to their credit they mentioned that but they also talked to other scientists in the video piece and it's basically a case of "delayed not denied" I posted this in our subforum too, and it's food for thought. I know what he said was delayed (and they covered that too) but the main reason why it's inevitable is we have a physical limit and that's the surface area of the planet (of which only 30% is land.) There's also the fact that we're chopping down all the forests-- which is part of what is driving the current mass extinction. On top of that there's heavy pesticide use, which is causing the destruction of pollinators. The 70% of all species going extinct since 1970 is pretty alarming and that will be up to 95% by 2100. We'll conserve a few sure, but a lot are going extinct-- many already have. I don't believe in depopulation either, but I do believe in maintaining a balanced birth vs death rate, which is 2 children per family. I think we'll get there (we already are starting to because male infertility is rising, even in developing countries)-- so it seems like Nature has its own way of doing things to keep humanity in balance with other species. That's actually a part of the discussion they didn't cover and it's fascinating to see how the planet regulates itself. The thing I agree with that they said the most is-- the planet will be fine, even after we're gone.

I know what he said was delayed (and they covered that too) but the main reason why it's inevitable is we have a physical limit and that's the surface area of the planet (of which only 30% is land.) There's also the fact that we're chopping down all the forests-- which is part of what is driving the current mass extinction. On top of that there's heavy pesticide use, which is causing the destruction of pollinators. The 70% of all species going extinct since 1970 is pretty alarming and that will be up to 95% by 2100. We'll conserve a few sure, but a lot are going extinct-- many already have. I don't believe in depopulation either, but I do believe in maintaining a balanced birth vs death rate, which is 2 children per family. I think we'll get there (we already are starting to because male infertility is rising, even in developing countries)-- so it seems like Nature has its own way of doing things to keep humanity in balance with other species. That's actually a part of the discussion they didn't cover and it's fascinating to see how the planet regulates itself. The thing I agree with that they said the most is-- the planet will be fine, even after we're gone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-mass-extinction-60-minutes-2023-01-01/ So eyeopening-- even though some of us knew about this already-- it's still sobering to see it and read it-- especially on New Years Day!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-mass-extinction-60-minutes-2023-01-01/ So eyeopening-- even though some of us knew about this already-- it's still sobering to see it and read it-- especially on New Years Day!

Right if we don't get anything by the end of January we won't even make 20 inches for the season.

So it looks like January 1977 is the only one where JFK really fits my requirement of a single digit high and below zero low.

I'm surprised JFK missed the record high of 62 by one degree from 1950 and yet Islip hit 65. We also got to 65 here in Nassau County....JFK must have had less sun than we did.

Thanks Chris! What are the records for the earliest the models have picked up on big noreasters? Would it be either February 1978 or March 1993 (or both)? I think they picked up on February 1983, January 1996 and PD2 early too, but we were in the suppression zone originally for those storms.

Thanks Don and did all three have lows of -1 or -2 at JFK?

Why can't we ever be flooded with COLD Pacific air lol. It seems to produce snow just fine in the West.....

Is Allsnow19 playing the role of Snowman19 this year lol?

anything that screws over the fossil fuel companies makes me happy

I love that! May we all get what we want in 2023. Lots of snow and everything else!