Cobalt

This is simply not true. ChatGPT is a far worse science communicator than many out there. Its writing habits are also quite predictable, to a point where a still-substantial portion of the general public can sense that the vibes are “off” and stop interfacing with the posts entirely. My suggestion would be to narrow the scope of your content and try writing headlines more gripping and information-rich than what ChatGPT can do. It is very much possible, and the reward is that, with enough effort, your unique posts have potential to reach further than 4x the amount of derivative AI posts would be capable of. I guarantee it.

You are very committed to discussing all facets of climate change, and I admire your effort. However, would you possibly be up for moving away from AI usage in your posts? I can't help but see all the hallmarks of it throughout your Twitter page. A lot of it undermines your overall message, and I'm not talking from the energy consumption standpoint, but instead just the overall strength of the rhetoric you and consequently ChatGPT use.

but it is the only 46 years of data we have for this beautiful region of The Great Lakes....so we analyze!!!

It doesn't matter if it's 134 years of climate data from Gibson County, Indiana. It is just one of the 3143 counties in the United States that you are trying to use as the lens from which to view global climate change from. You don't get the right to say that I'm cherrypicking when that is the flimsy pedestal you're standing on.

Do you really want to talk about small sample sizes? Your entire existence on this global climate change board is substantiated by a thread where you talk solely about your county’s climate data. Like, are we being for real?

lol okay so a 12 month sample makes you question "why such a small sample size?" But a 52 day sample size is clearly good enough for you to post Explain this to me. Why is a 52 day data set better than a 12 month one?

lol your talking points ran in a circle and immediately go back to my entire point of that whole post.

Lol remember this. I wonder what's happened with the national temperatures since this poi- Oh, the warmest such 12 months on record for the CONUS. So the 58th coldest Jan-Feb on record (what Chesco so happily posted last year with his above chart) got pretty gleeful coverage from him, but the warmest 12 month stretch for the US gets nothing. I wonder why?

Lol the tried and tested method of taking non-scientist rhetoric and making it seem like the consensus. Oh well, that line of thinking will die out with your generation. For now, we live in a world where that kind of distortion doesn't change reality.

Not the chart (which you already reposted with a Tweet 2 posts before this one btw), but the entire content of the tweet leading up to it Every line containing the hallmarks of AI, completely synthetic fluff packaged into a tweet format. I sincerely hope you don't follow this guy and just found them by searching up keywords like "Super El Nino", but I also wouldn't put it past you.

That second post is entirely generated by AI. Cool to know that you’re fine with posting slop so long as it hits all of the Paul Roundy super El Niño talking points.

You have to be playing a persona, right? Because you can't just go on to say this and then go on to IMMEDIATELY post this it is beyond parody.

Unironically posting a graph like that should get you banned from any scientific community ever. The absolute failure of even Stats 101-level thinking is abhorrent to a degree where it feels like Chesco is playing a persona.

Must’ve been 1992, the year after Pinatubo? My Oceanography professor recalled frost on his car in Harrisonburg in June of that year.

There's a whole laundry list of "winter's over" posts from December-January by all of the usual suspects. We know they'll make similar calls this next winter or the next and will be spot on, but it's not exactly bold to be in the warm & snowless camp when that feels like an increasing majority of our winters. It's like going all in on bonds and saying I told you so when they return 4% after a year lol

I'm more-so in awe at the bold call at play. So you don't think the anafront snow will stick in mid 30s daytime March temperatures following an 85 degree day? Simply brazen prediction.

You only stop by this subforum when there's bad news to dump on our heads so you haven't had a chance to look around and realize that the vast majority of us are in Spring mode. We're semi-checked out. Every single one of us knows those maps won't verify. So why post them? Because it's fun. Because it passes the time until tomorrow when non-accumulating slush balls fall out of the sky. Nobody is attaching the enjoyment of their Thursday and beyond to if the GFS is correctly predicting the biggest March storm in a decade. And almost certainly, nobody here was waiting for the guy who predicted torch Winter 25-26 to tell us the GFS might be a bit off with its snowfall amounts.

It took me 2 minutes to backread and find a post that you should've been five-posted for. Don't come around here talking about dwindling snow prospects when you're batting .150 at a time when it is BY FAR THE EASIEST to predict warm snowless winters and be right. Nobody's gonna call you an oracle when you're saying snow won't stick the day after it hits 85 degrees.

Yeah, I agree. What’s the RGEM show??

The audacity of "Weather Decision Solutions" trying to plop their copyright onto an AI-Generated graphic is laughable.

Back to back posts. Just lol

The one time I need DCA to put up a pitiful early March daytime measurement..

Guaranteeing something that will probably happen

Coldest winter since 2002-03, and likewise with the coldest period since August 1st.

Very surprised at these record lows coming at the tail end of two absolutely torcherrific months.