vortex95

Nothing wrong or invalid in saying that. Mainstream narratives vary all the time, what is "in" and "out" changes, including in the sciences. Narratives for science issues are often dictated by non-science-based factors, no? Recency bias is a big one -- what is occurring now or in the recent past, is how it is and will be going forward (and the negative bias is huge). The more one looks at logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and how they influence us all and are used manipulate the population, one see things for what they really are. Also, science evolves. What is said or known now is going to change over time at various levels. There is societal arrogance that exists that we know best in the here and now and everything is figured out b/c things have come so far. That's not what history has shown. There is still a lot we do not know.

Thanks. I figured that. Heat index as a mainstream wx parameter is a relatively new (last 30 yr or so). They never talked about "feels like" temp much at all through the 1980s, local news or the NWS. We just heard, "it's not the heat, it the HUMIDITY!" Which is wrong factually. It's the "DEW POINT!" Period of record (POR) is paramount when talking wx records and historical context, something that often get ignored b/c it deflates the preferred narrative. Let me give an example. Last year, I saw a post one day something like 30 sites in TX set their all-time record high monthly temp (can't recall which month it was). In a vacuum, that was true. What they left out is since 2001, TX has added well over 100 AWOS METAR sites at airports across the state, and continues to add several each year. And many mesonet sites during this time as well, esp. in the TX PH and West TX. See the problem here? Period of record for many sites is very short, but they leave that detail out! Omission of facts is no different that lying IMHO.

Oh, I am not triggered at all. I know the main clowns on YouTube and other social media. Still, practice in calling them out w/ their methods can be a entertaining at times. Also, just sharing some critical thinking skills on "how to spot pseudoscience" and the like has value for ppl on the forum,

Again, it is about balance and handling skepticism in the proper way. It can get out of control very quickly, as you noted mentioning conspiracies. As for the media, scaring ppl into watching I find unethical and counterproductive in the end. That's what it is -- all about for profit. It wasn't always this way. And just b/c "that's the way it is" does not mean you just accept it and act like everything is ok and will be fine. So many being put into a semi-permanent state of fear or "flight or flee" mode is not healthy. I purposely over time has cut back (de-expose) myself to the MSM, b/c even if you are resilient, confident, and understand why things the way they are, the relentless negativity and hype is distracting and will test those even those w/ the strongest mettle. Being reminded constantly of all the problems/issues in the world, how is that good? And communicating this to others who may have trouble handling it all, that is a good thing b/c understanding it at least will help to assuage stress/anxiety.

Blame the wildfire smoke as to why BDL did not hit 103!

"Zygote?" LOL.

That's a good point, but the door swings both ways here. Repeating lies or gross exaggerations enough, people will start believing it. This results in the bandwagon fallacy (everyone is saying it, so it *must* be true!). Being skeptical is an invaluable tool. Not enough ppl IMHO use it, or more specifically, apply/handle it in the best (most balanced) way. So we often end up w/ the false dichotomy logical fallacy, believe everything or don't believe anything. Neither is good. How one presents data is paramount. Just posting random tidbits lacking detail or sources that more and more have AI-generated slop are rife these days and deserve to be called out. If one can recognize crap/nonsense/slop better, one will make better decisions and avoid being duped/scammed/brainwashed. There is one constant and fundamental issue that that makes the warming issue very enticing politically, socially, and economically. Touting the end of the world or civilization as we know it -- can you think of anything else more urgent and absolute than that to society? So riding that narrative sells easily and instills deep psychological fear in the population. In such a state, they can be molded/manipulated better. Claims the world is going to end due to AGW fits this category, and is why high skepticism and push back exists, b/c it is not so much about the science anymore, it is more about ideology/agenda/control. Having problems in general sense, real or imagined, unfortunately has been realized and abused in recent decades that there is enormous power and profit having such. Hence, where we are today. Nothing is scaled or put into proper context/perspective anymore. It's always "the worst ever" or "it was never like this before" or some variant.

Fuzzy anvils = bad sign for storm!

They largely do not/can not or ignore it. Why let something like that interfere w/ a particular narrative or ideology? And actually accounting for it is practically impossible. Sites move, land and water areas near and around sites change, and so does equipment type, and every location has its own unique changes over time. Given only about 2% of globally land is urbanized, and there is a distinct bias having GHCN stations near or in urban areas, well, it's not rocket science to see the problem here. Here's another thing that is not generally known or mentioned. Digital thermometers run warm. This is b/c they can record instantaneous temps well, unlike analog/glass thermometers of the past. Yes, ASOS is designed to take an avg of the temp for the last 5 min, but this is not standardized w/ all sensors/sites globally. And some agencies will take instantaneous temp spikes from artificial heat sources, and call that a max temp for a day or a record if applicable, even when it is obvious something is off. Or just use a site's 1-min temp data in calculations for mean temps. This falls along the lines of "how to lie w/ statistics." There are many, many way to crunch and manipulate data, let alone pick and chose data sources, that validate this statement.

The running joke back in the day was if you want hot, look at the bank thermometer! Pre-Internet all you had was the wx radio and the local news, so *any* other thing you could find that gave you wx was big!

How about this? The temp sensor at Logan in the late 1970s was moved from near the NWS building area to the center of the runways. This is why you see many 100 F+ readings up to July 21, 1977 and then not another 100 F reading until July 14, 1995. The UHI increase took 18 years to build enough to push temps to 100 again in the runway area that is surrounded by water on 3 sides.

Classic vague tease. "Get ready" For what? Makes one click! And the arrow points to northern Mexico? And it is totally unclear what the color shading is depicting, but as long as it is bright and flashy, who cares!

And the media mode skews perception big time. It makes things appear a lot worse than they actually are. The relentless nature of it wears on ppl psychologically, to the point ppl start believing it merely b/c it is repeated so many times. That's more in line of propaganda, rather that proof/fact. The most overused wx buzz word or phrase these days is "we're tracking!" Why wouldn't they be tracking? That's would be like saying, "we're forecasting! Superfluous and fluff language to make things sound more important than they actually are.

Earlier this decade for a significant period, EWR was clearly 2 F too warm. Every month, it would be +2 higher than all the other CLI sties in the OKX CWA. The issue go beyond just UHI and asphalt runways nearby. New constriction causes artificial heat issues as well. BWI has this issue, but only when the wind blows a certain direction. This is why one can't smooth out or "THREADEX" warm biases over time b/c each CLI location has different issues over time. Probably the worst sited CLI site, at least at an airport, is PHX. Right downtown and given the massive growth of the city in the last 70 years alone?

NW Pac is typically very active in strong El Nino years, and so far that is the case. Most standard parameters (NS, NSD, ACE, etc.) are running about 200% of avg season-to-date, and TY Bavi will add to ACE big time in the next week.

18z GFS has a 5" max right near DC ending 12z Tue. We sure need it! ECMWF likes PHL-NYC for the big QPF max. Either way, should be a solid 3 day active period Sat-Mon.

Yes it does. Look at the 390M+ ppl that live in the Middle East. Heat index gets over 140 routinely this time of year, and they do just fine overall. Have so for 1000s of years.

Not questioning it is nasty for heat index, just let's not get carried away. When big wx is going on, all too often some just deliberately "pile on" the negative b/c they know many are already in a vulnerable state of alert, fear, or anxious. Actually, these days it does not even had to be "big wx" going for this nonsense. "Run-of-the mill wx" does just "fine."

Saw this post today (screenshot attached). Posts like this allow us to call out nonsense or hype, or at least question content. This is a good thing b/c the amount of bad or misleading info out there is high. So just take 133 heat index reading "as is" -- no critical thinking or independent thought? 133 does not fit surrounding sites. We all too often assume what all wx sites report are correct. Untrue, and some networks are worse than others. You have so many out there, some just use personal wx stations (PWSs), and you know not all of them are sited or calibrated properly. This same problem exists for some official wx sites as well. And where did this individual get the information for the record of heat index values in NJ? Is there even such a list officially? Also, look carefully. No info on what this network this is, the name of the location, or what time it is at. It also does not give any information on where or when the previous heat index record occurred. This is often done to make it harder to check/validate claims. In addition, it is mentions the highest actual temp recorded in NJ, yet talks about heat index. Inconsistent comparison and irrelevant in this case. And it claims that "much higher humidity" for the heatwave today (compared to the 1936 heat). Is that really true? Ppl just say things for a narrative or hype arbitrarily so much on posts like these w/ no hard evidence to support. Be vague and generic, and hope ppl don't bother checking. Classic clickbait and hype tactic. And when doing posts like this, I always take a screenshot and block out the poster's or site's name. Do not want to make it available for more clicks/likes. Which brings me to another point. Some post bad, incorrect, or exaggerated info on purpose b/c it will get more clicks/likes. It's all about content, facts and accuracy be damned.

Saw this post today (screenshot attached). Posts like this allow us to call out nonsense or hype, or at least question content. This is a good thing b/c the amount of bad or misleading info out there is high. So just take 133 heat index reading "as is" -- no critical thinking or independent thought? 133 does not fit surrounding sites. We all too often assume what all wx sites report are correct. Untrue, and some networks are worse than others. You have so many out there, some just use personal wx stations (PWSs), and you know not all of them are sited or calibrated properly. This same problem exists for some official wx sites as well. And where did this individual get the information for the record of heat index values in NJ? Is there even such a list officially? Also, look carefully. No info on what this network this is, the name of the location, or what time it is at. It also does not give any information on where or when the previous heat index record occurred. This is often done to make it harder to check/validate claims. In addition, it is mentions the highest actual temp recorded in NJ, yet talks about heat index. Inconsistent comparison and irrelevant in this case. And it claimed that "much higher humidity" for the heatwave today (compared to the 1936 heat). Is that really true? Ppl just say things for a narrative or hype arbitrarily so much on posts like these w/ no hard evidence to support. Be vague and generic, and hope ppl don't bother checking. Classic clickbait and hype tactic. And when doing posts like this, I always take a screenshot and block out the poster's or site's name. Do not want to make it available for more clicks/likes. Which brings me to another point. Some post bad, incorrect, or exaggerated info on purpose b/c it will get more clicks/likes. It's all about content, facts and accuracy be damned.

Despite the MRGL/SLGHT risk SPC has for the region Fri, it still looks to me too warm aloft and capped for any significant storms most of the region. Still +12 C at 700 most of the day. The ridging aloft starts to break down by late aftn, but models show very limited storm coverage. Isolated storms at best. Best chance the PA border and SW VA/parts of WV. Looks good for considerable tstm activity Sat-Mon. GFS and ECMWF quite wet for the region in the next week.

Said CoastalWx...that was an isolated supercell, so of course better.

And CoastalWx is downplaying it as MEH b/c he has 6/1/11. Never underestimate the power of EML nocturnal convection Storm chasing in the Plains a lot. it never ceases to amazed me. WzWiz upset it fired just to the E of HFD?

Consistent for ring of fire events w/ very high 1000-500 thk.

"And I still will have a Bruins playoff game get together at my house when I know will likely lose power..." said Scott the morning of 6/1/11!