TimB

I said it’s no more irrational to root for one vs. the other.

Who was praying for a destructive severe storm?

And that too. The original post was made tongue-in-cheek. For most places, 9 inches falling in one day could turn tragic, no matter the antecedent conditions.

Lol really?

I think the 128 is the hottest temperature ever recorded in AZ. (Though it has an outside chance of being matched this week.)

It was iffy, but looks like MSP kept their 90 streak alive at 9 days now. Tied for 3rd with 6 other years. None of the other streaks 9 days or longer were even in June, let alone in early June.

I just don’t think that’s going to be the case this summer. I see the heat in other parts of the country eventually getting blasted east.

And it’s one of those runs where the cold keeps coming back. The “for entertainment purposes only” portion of the run looks cooler this time, a far cry from the Excessive Heat Warning look it had on the 6z.

The models always surprise me, but I think the truly unseasonable cold next week might be dead. That said, a long, cool period with mostly low humidity is pretty ideal whether it comes with extreme anomalous cold for a day or not.

Makes sense, we’re generally a little colder than you out here (not today) and we only have one day in July/August that hasn’t reached 60 (7/5/72).

Wait, hold up a minute, did I actually just see lightning?!

This is exactly what I’m worried about when it comes to international travel. If we get a spike, I’m worried that other countries will go back to “nope, we’re not letting Americans in, even if you’re vaccinated, it’s too risky”.

Surprise surprise, your 8/21/18 redux has disappeared from the GFS.

Wow, that’s incredible stuff. Probably about as cold as it gets for mid-June. Thing is, all of the models support extreme anomalous cold aloft somewhere at that time, but that solution puts it closest to PA.

That’s the 540 line I see into far northern PA at 9z Wednesday.

Rumor has it this would bring an end to the drought for some.

I guess I shouldn’t say “significant”, but yes northern MN as well as the Twin Cities/Western WI. I recognize there’s much, much more to the Midwest than that area.

I didn’t get that one, but I got the one Monday. I’m 1/3 so far this week.

Well said. More people live in areas that are heavily affected by UHI than in areas that are not. As far as I’m concerned, UHI and AGW are almost two sides of the same coin: human activities making the earth warmer and less livable. By that token, it’s irrelevant to try to parse how much of these unprecedentedly hot spells are attributable to AGW vs. UHI, at least if one’s goal is to solve the problem rather than pretend it doesn’t exist. (Sorry if this is off-topic, but I would argue that it’s not off topic when a significant portion of this sub is currently, in June 2021, experiencing conditions that are way warmer than they have ever been this time of year, and it’s hard to argue that it’s not mostly attributable to AGW or UHI or both.)

Love how those storms break up as they enter the anti-storm force field that is Allegheny County. Such great climo here.

Although I agree that it probably won’t end well for the hospital because of its location, that would be the wrong outcome. I would guess there is a massive overlap of people who say employers shouldn’t be able to fire someone over covid vaccination status and people who believe that businesses should have the freedom to make their own personnel decisions for whatever reason they choose. That’s a pretty strong contradiction in beliefs, imo.

There is a lot of precip currently falling in western CTP, it appears. 5 SPS currently issued.

I would assume the same. I would imagine there are certainly times when one location in a county has a 40% chance of rain and another has 70%. They really can’t use a rigid definition of that formula for practical reasons.

I second Mount Joy’s explanation. I couldn’t have wordsmithed it that well. This is well articulated as to why this works. So by “the area” or “the forecast zone”, does the NWS view this as by county?

Yes, to get a 60% chance of rain by that formula, you’re implying that at least 60% of the area gets measurable precip.