WidreMann

Looks like it will still have issues with being too cold and snowy in the medium-range.

Nino failed to really materialize and MJO screwed us. All of these things were sort of options on the table, not great indicators. It all comes down to good blocking around Greenland, -EPO and an active southern stream. Everything else is just proxies on that and not at all guaranteed.

Y'all, that's the difference from previous forecast, not a forecast of +3 to +4.

It's dead, Jim.

It is funny, though, how a massive outbreak has now turned into basically a day of seasonably cold weather.

My amateur experience is that the FV3 is worse than the GFS. They said it has a cold bias, and that's very clear in comparing the charts. It needs to bake more.

Tuesday snow chances are dwindling for central NC. And then a mild start to February. Only model still showing cold February is the CFS. See y'all next winter!

NAM moves the precip through before the cold air really arrives. Shows a small band north of the Triangle into southern VA, but that's less pronounced than at 18z.

You need to use the Kuchera maps, because it will not involve high ratios.

The mountains will block that.

Very few people are likely to see snow east of the mountains with this. Let's be honest.

A lot of the big mets were betting on a big pattern change too. It's not just the weenies. The MJO collapsed along with El Nino and the SSW failed to propagate downward much. A bunch of maybes turned into nos.

Every job and field on the planet involves the exact same dynamics. You're writing about this as if climate science is uniquely susceptible to the corrupting influence of...people needing jobs or something. If that's true of climate science, then it's at least equally true of deniers as well, and I can certainly think of additional motives on the denier side that are lacking on the climate scientist side.

I feel like we had something like that back in 2000.

People who have never been in academia and don't know how it or science works are appalled to find out that, like any other human endeavour, there are little turf wars and fights and disagreements over all manner of things. This doesn't discredit the field at all. It's entirely irrelevant. There is simply no evidence whatsoever of a large-scale, coordinated effort to manufacture evidence and scientific models on the level needed to perpetrate a hoax like this, with the amount of openness present in modern science, and the degree of decentralization. It's hard enough to get politicians to agree with each other and their party sometimes, and there's a lot of money and votes and power involved. How do you think some unnamed shadowy cabal has managed to hoodwink hundreds and thousands of scientists, technicians, administrators and the like, working at hundreds of institutions across the globe? You all need to seriously think about the work it would take to do that, and to what end? If the goal is to change capitalism, there are far more direct and effective ways of doing so. The only side that has a direct and obvious monetary and political self-interest is the corporate denier side. The scientists have basically nothing to gain. If climate change is wrong, then they'll research something else. There's plenty interesting out there. It's not like academia is this lucrative, illustrious career. It's generally pretty terrible and it requires passionate people who do it in spite of the lack of money and toxic work environments, not because of that. The incentives simply do not align with a hoax of this magnitude. Sorry.