eduggs

I think there's an issue regarding how "major flooding" is defined. If a road is inundated that doesn't normally flood, it's hard not to describe that as major flooding. But that doesn't necessarily match up with USGS statistical data and graphics. Although I'm not sure how minor, moderate, and major coastal flooding are defined.

From what I can see from the hydrological stations in and around new york harbor, this afternoon's high tide has crested slightly below yesterday's predictions. That's a good thing for people on the immediate shoreline, but there's still widespread minor to isolated moderate coastal flooding ongoing.

This storm unfortunately didn't quite bust the drought west of 287. The surface is moist from days of drizzle, but the (subsurface) soil moisture is still low.

The precipitation gradient or "cut-off" is oriented almost perfectly north to south across our area. It's a little more common to have more of a southwest to northeast orientation to the gradient.

That buoy is like 50 miles offshore.

Injecting aerosol into the atmosphere on a large scale would be extremely risky. We don't know exactly what the impact would be and at the level that would be required to have a meaningful impact, the potential consequences to water resources (irrigation, drinking water, drought), farming (food production), and general weather patterns could be quite severe. This would seemingly also require international large-scale cooperation to avoid regional or global conflict. This type of technology might be worth investigating or attempting, but it is unlikely to be a magic fix... certainly not without major societal costs and unintended consequences.

It is not correct that renewables cannot provide sufficient baseload. That classic argument about winds not blowing or the sun not shining is outdated ignorance. Hydro, geothermal, and a variety of wind/solar with battery are completely viable alternatives technically. The issue comes down to economic viability. Nuclear can and does provide an excellent and relatively affordable supply of baseload power. The issue with nuclear comes down to society's appetite for risk. Fukushima Daiichi was considered much safer than most currently operating nuclear power plants in the US. We cannot anticipate and mitigate all sources of risk. Even if the likelihood of catastrophe is very low, if the consequences of such an event is that a large area is rendered essentially permanently uninhabitable, the overall risk assessment might force us to turn elsewhere. Society still doesn't have a permanent solution for spent nuclear fuel, which presents a significant risk for potential accident or terrorist act.

Technically no energy source is completely renewable. Most of what we call renewable is directly or indirectly driven by the sun, which is very slowly exhausting its hydrogen fuel. Tidal energy is harnessed at the expense of a very minor deviation in the orbit of the moon. Eventually even these sources will be completely depleted. Obviously for our purposes they are infinitely renewable. A combination of solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and wave/ocean energy is entirely sufficient to fuel our energy needs. The huge expense associated with fully transitioning is the remaining obstacle. Continued advances in battery storage technology and transmission lines from isolated sources is needed in improve the economic viability of new projects. But we have long passed the time where the technological viability of 100% renewable is already there. Nuclear power can be a part of this solution/transition/process, but it's not needed. Fukushima Daiichi showed us once again that no technology is completely safe, and the consequences of a nuclear accident might be too severe to warrant the risk in some places or circumstances, particularly if other less dangerous energy sources are viable. China is the leading emitter of CO2 currently, but not per capita. And if you look back at the cumulative history of CO2 emissions, the US is far and away responsible for the most CO2 emissions. India is a growing emitter, but still lower down on the list, particularly per capita. Sure it's more effective to get all countries to work together, but certainly the US has a big responsibility to lead on this issue. The prudent thing to do is to implement everything at once - reduce GHG emissions, transition to renewable energy sources AND investigate strategies to reduce surface heating. The danger is that if we rely on unproven, futuristic technology to save us, that might lessen the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels. Venting a life-essential molecule out to space BTW is a terrible idea.

Tue-Wed is super amplified. Big phase, neg titled trof, big QPF, and strong SLP. So we shouldn't really say it can't happen.

All guidance actually shows a pretty decent phasing event on Tue - Wed of this upcoming week. Pretty classic phase with the trof taking on a negative tilt and a strong surface SLP. Should be a big QPF maker and significant snowstorm for deep interior Ontario.

12z ICON, CMC, GFS, UK, and ECM all have a distinct (trackable!) wintry threat for Sat 3/8. Nice to see a sudden move towards model consensus. Too bad it's still 7+ days out.

I honestly thought JB would be unemployed and homeless by now. Surprised to hear his name mentioned... It was obvious to everybody about 11 or 12 years ago that he is a garbage meteorologist, a fraud, and an idiot.

I'm confident (though not certain) that you know less about fire prevention than experts whose job it is to know. The issue is likely a lot more complex than you indicate.

The averaged anomaly charts have been looking interesting most of the winter. But the actual realization of shortwaves has continuously materialized as not interesting.

How about we average every hour of the day instead of just the high and low? Then we would have a much better index of the temperatures on a particular day.