LibertyBell

the subsidization of the fossil fuel industry needs to come to an end and (in a larger issue that also covers the chemical industry and the dangerous additives and pesticides we are exposed to and in our food that are banned by the EU), we need to get dark money out of politics altogether.

The problem is unregulated capitalism which results in oligarchs. The fossil fuel industry is a cartel run by oligarchs. This excellent book by Rachel Maddow outlines the connections between Putin and the fossil fuel industry. You might find this book interesting in how it ties everything together. I'm considering making it the subject of a future podcast. An eye-opening book (Blow Out) was written by Rachel Maddow which shows some of these connections as well as the connection between Russia and the fossil fuel industry. It all makes sense when you consider how lenient Trump has been with the fossil fuel industry and his cozy relationship with Trump. It also makes sense when you think of Russian interference and how Facebook looked the other way when they were being paid in rubles for ads on their site. Companies like Facebook and Google greatly contribute to the problems of dark money in politics- that's why they are allowed to get away with so much invasive behavior (for which they get fined for in the billions by the EU.) https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766374077/it-all-ties-rachel-maddow-says-of-oil-and-gas-russia-and-democracy-in-blowout https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/magazine/rachel-maddow-trump.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-root-of-all-evils-the-fossil-fuel-industry-says-rachel-maddow/2019/10/03/14273cd6-de1a-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html And since this ties in with Russian oligarchs, this is a worthy read too. https://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research/ https://bulletin.represent.us/american-government-isnt-democracy/

well astronauts can definitely see the effects of climate change, Mark Kelly talked about how he's seen the planet turning brown because of deforestation, and where is all that burning carbon going? the sky

MSNBC has a great series on the climate catastrophe. They interviewed a scientist who used to work for the USDA, who has since left to work for Columbia university because the administration wouldn't let him publish his research. He showed that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually changes plant metabolism and makes our crops less nutritious, with lower levels of zinc and iron. They also sent people down to Guatemala to show how climate change is causing the mass migration of people from Central America, because they cant grow their crops down there anymore and are starving. The administration's own people told them this a year ago but they chose not to disclose it.

sounds like what a fossil fuel industry person would say. I can guarantee you that other industries, including the automobile industry, see the light and are getting out of the dirty fossil fuel business. The fossil fuel industry has cost us trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.

exactly- we're seeing the rise of tropical diseases already as well as much higher asthma rates and air pollution from fossil fuel emissions. The central of the country is getting hit with much more flooding and loses numbering billions of dollars per year and trillions per decade. corporations are now divesting themselves from the fossil fuel industry- they all know the cost of not doing anything is far greater.

Even John Kerry said that the Paris accord didn't go far enough- we need to reach net Carbon zero by 2050. I think the car companies may get there, they are making far more electric vehicles now and may well reach the goal of two thirds by 2030. The red states are suffering from climate change too, with farms in the nations heartland underwater. We've ceased all new gas and oil installations in NY and I see they've done the same in FL, which is a red state.

Dec 1992 caused a lot more damage because it lasted for 3 days. March 2010 had stronger winds here, but was of much shorter duration.

and we haven't since, that thing lasted for 3 days!

On this solemn day, one of my early weather memories was the extreme heat on 9/11/83..... I think JFK hit 100 that day? Was that their latest 100 on record? NYC hit 99, and I think that was their latest 99?

JFK's only 90 degree day in August- and the last for the year? That doesn't even begin to cover how humid it's been and the humidity is definitely way worse than the heat!

Got to 100 here on the south shore, might not happen again this year

99 here on the south shore too! Going for 100 today and think we'll make it with a downslope wind! BTW MJX hit 100 yesterday I think we should start measuring total heat using the heat index, since our humidity has been on the rise, total heat content needs to factor that in. A "hot" day should be a day with a HI of 90, an extremely hot day a day with a HI of 110. Tony is there any way to find out how many days we've had with a HI that high so far?

Glad we hit 90, 89 degree days are really annoying, if it's going to be hot it might as well hit 90

JFK must have felt a lot hotter than either LGA or the Park since the DP was near 80 there!

Thanks, it makes me wonder how many storms and canes we actually had in 1933, the record which was overtaken by 2005. It's possible that 1933 had more if the records from back then are that incomplete! About the AMO, I wonder if that cycle is of variable length, it seems like the earlier periods of the warm phase were somewhat dissimilar from each other (1950s-1960s), (1990s-2000s), etc.

Very interesting, so there hasn't been some sort of cyclic or pattern change that would cause this! How far back would you say that the HURDAT2 list is reasonably accurate, both on quantity and intensity?

Right. But from a climatological and historical perspective, the SSTs of the northern gulf shelf by Sept-Oct have generally cooled below what is required to support a rapidly deepening Cat 5. Sure, the central, southern GOM and Bay of Campeche would continue supporting Cat 5 intensity through October, but those storms tend to weaken drastically if steered into the N. GOM. Major hurricane Opal being a prime example. October of 2018 hopefully remains anomalous in its mutliple contributing factors that lead to Michael, as generally multiple cold fronts have swept through the northern gulf by mid-to-late September and subsequent dry continental air plus radiational cooling has brought down mean heat content by 3-4°C. Again, it's one thing to consider a rare Category 5 threat in July, August, perhaps still even September, but October? Michael is hopefully the rarest of generational occurrences. Yes, we dont need to have another one of these supercanes. Going by purely statistical records, we seem to get a Cat 5 landfalling cane in the US about every 30 years or so and this is the first one that's happened in October. August into early September is when the others have occurred. The question I have besides this is a general one about the Atlantic basin- has there been some change in the general circulation pattern to increase the number of high intensity hurricanes in October across the totality of the Atlantic basin? I know we have a secondary peak in average activity in October, but it seems like over the past number of years we've seen more major hurricanes in October.

Reading back through this thread, I was dead wrong in one point while trying to discredit preconceptons or misconceptions about landfalling Cat 5s along the N. GOM coast, including rapid intensification over its shallow shelf. I never once imagined that scenario being possible in the month of October. Then having that play out approximately one year later? Crazy! Some of the strongest 'canes have occurred in October though- it seems to be the new peak month for the strongest 'canes.

Going to give credit to Chris (Blue Wave) for pointing this out, but have you noticed the sharp SOI drops we have had the last three Februarys?

The outrageous number of 10+ events in back to back winters, 2009-10 and 2010-11 (even including the near miss) will probably not be repeated for a long time. But I also said that after 1995-96, yet the back to back combo of 2009-10 and 2010-11 was probably a more rare occurrence.

It's amazing how the first several decades that NYC measured snowfall all had averages of higher than 30"

Thanks for this! Can I get the data for the 80s and early 90s from that link too? I averaged it out to 66 over 15 decades so just over 4 per decade so a bit less than 50% odds of having a 10" storm per winter. It was only 46 through 12 decades though if you just go up through the 80s so just less than 4 per decade at that point, so less than 40% odds per winter. And just 13 over 4 decades or about 30% per winter if you go from the 50s through the 80s. No decade in recorded history had more than 6 or a 60% chance in any given year in that decade, until the 2000s that is lol. The 2010s have a decent chance to be the first decade in recorded history to have double digit 10"+ events and average one per year for the whole decade, and already have 9 if you include the December 2009 event as part of this decade. *actually if you consider 2001 as the start of the 2000 decade, that decade had 9 of them (90% odds in that decade to have one per year- and 100%-110% odds if you include Dec 2000 or Jan 2011 which makes for 10 or 11 in that decade!) while the 2010s would only have 4 so far if the latter is included in the previous decade. This is because of the amazing 3 we had in the 2009-10 winter (and would have easily had 4 if we didn't just miss out on the early Feb 2010 event) and 2 in the 2010-11 winter (which was almost 3, since NYC had just over 9 inches in the storm in between)! So 5-7 of them over two years! Based on that no decade had more than 5 or 50% odds per year in that decade aside from the very first one and the last three!

The other thing is how some decades really sucked- the 1880s were horrible outside of the Blizzard of 1888- much like how the 1980s were horrible outside of Feb 1983 and April 1982. April 1982 doesn't even make the list because it was just under 10"! So both the 1880s and 1980s only had one storm of 10" or more for the entire decade and both were historic ones.

Two things I was hoping you could help me with...... Do you have a list anywhere of all 10+" snowfalls at NYC and JFK? I wanted to average out the numbers of such events per decade. Also, do you have a list of all accumulated snowfalls 0.1" and higher at NYC and JFK between the winters of 1979-80 and 1995-96? I wanted to match up data with my memories.