etudiant

Surely an electric heater would have served you better. Recommend the oil core heaters, gentle heat, no fire risk, keeps the room cozy without heating the whole house.

Is +1.4-1.8 really a Super El Nino? Or is there an accepted measure for the overall excess heat content of the tropical Pacific ocean? We do seem to be migrating towards a warm belt across the tropical Pacific, so less pressure differentials. Are there any accessible models for this?

Interesting that Antarctic sea ice is building up much more slowly than usual, to the point that global sea ice extent is at record lows for the date. https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

Aiui, the most comparable event to Sandy for NYC was the 1821 hurricane, so statistically we're ok this century.

Has to be just stunning burn area, we are at least 1000 miles away from the source of the smoke,

Thank you for posting this. We don't pay enough attention to these historical extremes of weather, so we get caught out when they happen again.

No need. Just wear a P100 mask, you'll at least breather easier. In these post Covid days, you'll simply appear prudent. No claims though that your eyes will be any less irritated.

They are also in a multi year dry spell so their reservoirs are seriously depleted. This is supposed to be their rainy season, so they face a difficult summer.

Why not, the interval was only 10 years '82 - '92. I see no reason why 8 years would not suffice, so help me understand please.

Why cooler? Hotter and more soggy seems equally likely?

How does that work given that he is on a pay for access site?

I remember a useful book 'How to lie with statistics', by Darrell Huff. I'm glad it is on the NY Central Park mandatory reading list.

Will await the results, but Bastardi did project exceptional weather for March a little while back. His forecast was held up to ridicule, perhaps prematurely?.

Thus far just very light snow in Manhattan, nothing sticking, too warm.

Is there any model which predicted the mild winter we are enjoying in NYC? What surprises me is that none of them appear to have adjusted to the reality of a really low snow environment. The Bastardi 'Hail Mary' March chill forecast is right in line with all the other models, just a bit more extreme in its focus on the model rather than what's actually happening. Qualitatively though they are all in the same boat, at least as far as I can tell. Maybe we need a new paradigm for modeling the seasonal forecasts.

I started following him because of Sandy, which he evaluated correctly, plus he held on to his stance despite extensive criticism. Don't follow him any longer, $270/yr is too rich for my blood, but I respect his insights. The concern is, as Don noted above, that his approach may be misleading him in the warming climate we are seeing.

Agree on the basic premise, think the problem is that it is a public service, so the political priority is for it to be 'lowest possible cost'. Gasoline of course can be taxed freely, while blaming the oil companies, but juice is from public utilities. They don't like to make waves.

Not enough, unfortunately. The actual baseline capacity of renewables is a fraction of their rating, so we need multiples of the rated levels to get reliable power from renewables. An effective system for energy storage is desperately needed to make renewables economically viable.

Weird, the GISS map shows the Lat Am west coast areas that have the most cooling for Bastardi and the most heating in the reanalysis to be essentially lukewarm. If we can't even get agreement on the historical record, it seems unlikely that there can be agreement as to the future outlook.

NYC looks poised to set a new all time record for consecutive days without snow, so it likely is an historic season, even if it does not meet our expectations.

Think it is actually a very major event, that the forecasting and modeling is good enough to project a season with some confidence. Thus far such forecasts have usually shown little skill, so a correct forecast made well in advance of the season end is significant imho.

Think positive, you'd love to be picking flowers in January. So bring it on!

California gets massive rains from atmospheric rivers periodically. When Leland Stamford was sworn in as Governor in 1862, Sacramento was so flooded he had to take a boat to his inaugural. William Brewer, hired by the State to survey the area, reported extensively on the event, which left the Central Valley under 30 feet of water. See his notes in 'Up and down California'. Imho, the interesting element is his offhand comment that the native Indians had all moved to higher ground before the event, so they knew what was coming, unlike the incoming settlers.

California has a record of really impressive rain events, presumably driven by atmospheric rivers. Case in point is the 1862 experience, which left the Central Valley flooded over 300 miles long, 20 miles wide and 30 feet deep for half a year. The event was carefully documented by William H Brewer, hired by the Legislature to perform the first botanical survey of the region. https://placesjournal.org/workshop-article/learning-from-1862-drought-and-deluge-in-californias-central-valley/?cn-reloaded=1 More recent studies suggest similar events would be capable of causing damage in the $1 trillion class. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/californias-superstorm-the-usgs-arkstorm-report-and-the-great-flood-.html The ray of light is that there has not been the kind of really extended drought that seems to prefigure the extreme rainfalls.

No precip in Manhattan UES and Central Park thus far, but feels like it is imminent. Regardless of the eventual totals, I'm impressed that the system was identified and called out at least a week ago, when all seemed serene. The meteorologists on this panel deserve to take a bow, imho.