etudiant

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.

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.