etudiant

Do they agree?

You grade tough! Not Verdi or Rossini? Respighi maybe?

Is that perhaps a record for rapid intensification? It does underscore how primed the area is for a storm, just waiting for a trigger event.

It seems some essential piece of understanding is missing. Based on the results thus far this year and the ongoing discussions, no one has a solid handle on hurricane formation. Are there any research papers that might help improve our understanding and skill?

The radar picture of this system was for pockets of much heavier precipitation in a broader area of light rain. The widely different rainfall totals reported verify this was not an artifact. Can anyone explain what causes this kind of scattered areas of heavier precipitation, sort of like raisins in apudding?

Nothing as yet here in Manhattan UES as of 10 PM. The radar suggests the precipitation belt is north of the city.

Is not the issue mostly that the professional consensus forecast for a well above normal season appears to be mistaken? All the various indicators such as SST are positive, yet the result is not. It would be helpful to learn what is being missed.

They are smart animals, they wait till you're about to harvest the crop. Did that to my corn too, when I lived in CT.

Two brief thundershower interludes here om the Manhattan UES. Would guess maybe 0.1" of rain, just a brief burst, but surely welcome.

Same here, although in fairness I found the discussions much more worthwhile than the specific forecasts. If they offered a discounted 'discussions only' rate, I'd be tempted to resubscribe. That said, I've nothing but respect for JB, he called Sandy correctly in the face of much disparagement. I know forecasts are really hard, we can't even get the five day call reasonably correct, so I admire anyone who sometimes is blessed with understanding.

Sure looks that way to me as well.

Your charts do indeed tell a clear story. Would it help to widen the comparisons to include a couple of other Manhattan stations, the AMNH perhaps or the Greenwich Village station. That would neutralize the claim that EWR and LGA are reflecting increased heat island effects from airport expansion. Idk whether any other station has a comparably long history, but the results since 1980 should provide pretty clear indications of Up or Down.

Like hell they are, blood thirsty little nest raiding varmints. They just look cute.

It may be just me, but I find that stunning. Calibrating a thermometer is not rocket science. For an official instrument to be several degrees in error is just gross. The response, that the NWS is investigating the situation is not helpful. The errors simply perpetuate unless real action is taken. In a busy organization with lots of immediate responsibilities, it is understandable that no line person has time to troubleshoot the issue and fix it. So the buck stops with the NWS branch which has responsibility for the selection, placement and maintenance of the instrumentation. Is there such a branch or is this a local responsibility?

Have to agree wholeheartedly, it is a significant difference, very probably caused by the unchecked tree and shrubbery growth around the CP site. I'd thought that site alterations would be addressed by the NWS quality control, but clearly that is not the case. Yet this seems to show a rather larger impact than the widely discussed Time of Observation bias. Does it just get treated as a local issue without broader significance?

Problem with nuclear is that only the Chinese seem to be able to build these plants reliably on schedule, no one has done so in Europe or the US. That makes nuclear impossible to plan around.

It might be worth checking what the pattern is for the west coast to tease out the differential impact. California is in a prolonged drought, despite the increase in SST. Are they also getting mostly increases in their night time lows?

I hope your happy vision comes about, but don't see how it can without much pain. Wind and solar are intermittent, they need backup, which implies massive capacity(expensive) on standby, in addition to the green energy conversion costs. Simultaneously, cutting Russian oil really squeezes global fuel production, implying shortages, which generate higher prices. So the consumer gets hit with higher priced gas and more costly electricity during the transition, which can't be quick. If nuclear were not such a swamp of massive delays and cost overruns, this could be its moment to shine, but the still available workforce that is qualified for these projects is small and mostly old, so not a plausible option.

The volume of nuclear waste is tiny and easily managed, unlike the cubic miles of coal ash and scrubber residues, which are themselves quite unpleasant wit heavy metals that have infinite half life, they stay toxic forever. That said, the inability of the nuclear industry to build on a reliable schedule and at a reasonable price is far more damaging to its prospects than the objections of anti nuclear activists.

Maybe Snowman19 is just trying to keep things honest. Lord knows that there have been plenty of surprises already this winter, temps bouncing up and down, so recognize that longer range forecasts are pretty iffy at best. Even the groundhogs don't seem to agree on the six week outlook. That said, Red wing Blackbirds are back in Central Park, so spring is definitely imminent here in NYC.

Sadly still short of the mark, energy output half of input. That said, there is steady progress and we are getting closer. The emergence of a number of well funded private efforts is perhaps another indicator that we are getting closer. The main problem though is that the device has to be cheap enough to build, else the interest expenses will swamp the low power production costs. Most of the designs to date ignore that problem.

Help me understand. I've seen zero evidence that any kind of climate change has impacted the formation of contrails. We do have a lot more jets flying around, dumping lots of CO2 and water vapor from their engines. So there are many more contrails, but does climate change affects that?

Afaik, the polar ice, including the multi year ice, gradually rotates around the pole following the ocean currents. There are exit paths from the Arctic Ocean, such as the Fram Straits, through which masses of even multi year ice can be lost. The Titanic was a casualty of one such large outflow event. It suggests that changes in ocean flows are a substantial factor in determining the durability and extent of Arctic multi year ice, possibly amplifying the effects of temperature.

Thank you ! Very nice.

Very clever, teach the kids early that they should not rely on the parent for answers to their problems. Well done!