WolfStock1

1 hour ago, Chinook said:

double the speed, 4x the kinetic energy and also 4x the drag force on objects.

Wouldn't area also be a factor?   E.g. reduced area during EWRC could theoretically result in increased wind speed while keeping kinetic energy the same right?    (or vice versa - total kinetic energy could be increasing while wind speed remains about the same?)

On 10/22/2025 at 12:50 PM, donsutherland1 said:

The op-ed aims to use selective statistics stripped of context to make the reader question the seriousness of climate change. The author claims that “climate-related deaths from floods, droughts, storms and wildfires... have declined by an astonishing 98%.” This statement is presented as a fact-based contrast to what he calls “alarmist narratives” about the climate. By highlighting this statistic, the author suggests that while the planet might be warming, it hasn’t made life more dangerous.

This strategy of "implied argument" is intended to lead the reader to infer that the impacts of climate change are exaggerated. It is a dishonest tactic. That tactic is based on material omission of the very reason climate-related deaths has fallen, which has nothing to do with the author's thesis that the climate change threat is overstated.

So - nowhere do you explain why it's a dishonest "tactic" though.   Are the facts incorrect there?   Given that they seem to be correct, then yes, that does mean that the climate change threat is, in fact, overstated.    It proves that yes - even though the planet may be warming, it in fact has not made life more dangerous.   It may in the future, but per the data it has not at this point.

Your case is a circular argument.   You're saying that what he says isn't true because... what he says isn't true.   That's not a valid argument.

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is a patently misleading piece. While it correctly observes that “climate-related deaths… have declined by 98%,” it omits the critical context that renders the statistic meaningful. These deaths have not fallen because the climate has become more stable or benign. They have fallen because humanity has vastly improved its capacity to anticipate and withstand disasters through through advances in forecasting, infrastructure, public health, and global wealth. Without these four variables, the claim would be indefensible.

I don't see anywhere it saying that deaths have declined because of the climate becoming more stable - if you do please show it.

"Benign" however is another matter.    Yes part of the reason at least that deaths have decreased is in fact because it has become more benign.   This is not due to the climate changing, but rather our ability to deal with climate-caused problems, like flooding, hurricanes, etc. has increased many-fold over the last 150 or so years.   So in that sense yes - the climate has become more benign, and yes that has resulted in fewer deaths than otherwise.   And yes - that is due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels - e.g. machinery in construction of dams to control flooding, construction of better buildings to withstand hurricanes, etc.    It's due to better weather prediction capabilities due to satellites that are put into orbit by fossil-fuel-burning rockets.    

In short - greater prosperity brings less deaths, and the burning of fossil fuels has brought about greater prosperity.    That is the point.   You say "without these four variables the claim would be indefensible" - but you can't just remove variables that are key  parts of the interconnected system like that!

On 10/17/2025 at 12:55 PM, MillvilleWx said:

 

Thanks for tagging me @WxWatcher007!! I’ll gladly help provide some insight. 
 

First, congratulations to your son opting to go for meteorology! It is a rigorous subject to study and master, but when you truly love something, you will give it your all to succeed and I have no doubt he will do that! No matter the case, if he ever has questions, creating an account here and chiming in on the Banter page will certainly help alert us and we can answer any questions! 
 

As for school choice, that is a big life decision and as you mentioned has multi-faceted criteria for picking what is best. Since you are in Virginia, HIGHLY recommend staying in-state with the current state of school cost. Unless there is a well planned and funded secondary source (509’s, inheritance, etc.) which is none of my business and what you can manage… I do recommend staying in your state of residence for lower cost burden. VA has multiple schools for Meteorology and the Virginia Tech program already has a history of putting out grads into the Weather Service and private enterprise. I actually now a few myself, and they are excellent meteorologists. It’s a great program, but does lack a Grad program, as previously mentioned. Having said that, the curriculum is still very respected and the masters programs, if you son is interested, can be accessed at other schools, including the ability to do it virtually!! Millersville University of Pennsylvania (My Alma Matter) has two online Masters programs geared towards Emergency Management or GIS. Mississippi State has an excellent program, as well as Western Kentucky University, University of Oklahoma, and others. The accessibility to have a Masters education is now easier than before, and each school has its niches to help wherever a grad student wants to move towards.
 

Some Universities also have ties together due to professor influences (Millersville had connections to North Dakota University, Wisconsin-Madison, and Wyoming), and others do as well. There’s so many options at the end of the Undergraduate tunnel. My recommendation is staying in-state to save cost (VERY HELPFUL for the future for debt) and go from there. Virginia Tech is a great program and probably a top choice for VA, but UVA I believe also has a program and is also well respected! I hope this helps and good luck to your son and family choice on the next step!!   

Thanks a ton!   Great tips.

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

You wrote this, "Even if CO2 increase was stopped today and reversed - we would all still be doomed.   Thus - why bother?   Unless perhaps you think we have the ability to stop continental drift (?)" I didn't.

(facepalm)

You have got to be kidding me.

You left out the context qualifier:

"If the whole world was experiencing what Delos is experiencing"

which was specifically done as an absurdity said to point out the absurdity of YOUR claims.

Look - just nevermind.   You obviously just can't follow discussions and logic.   So - just nevermind.   

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is getting to absurd "twilight zone" alternate reality territory. Wild claims are made. No scientific literature is cited to support the thesis of doom.

Exactly, which is why we are criticizing your thesis of doom in your post the other day.

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Comparing CO2 mitigation to “stopping continental drift” is rhetorically clever but scientifically irrelevant. Continental drift operates over tens of millions of years, not the decades/centuries/millennia under discussion with climate change and the responses to changes in forcing. 

Continental drift is constant.  It operates over tens of millions of years, but it also operates over tens of seconds.   As such it is very much not scientifically irrelevant.   In this case specifically it is operating faster than climate change, with regards to how it is affecting the land/sea level relationship at this one location.   Why are you ignoring that simple fact?   You can't just ignore it away.  

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It’s incorrect to suggest that halting or reversing CO2 rise would have no effect. If CO2 concentrations stabilize or decline, global temperatures would likely follow over decades to centuries, as radiative forcing equilibrates (equilibrium climate sensitivity). The system’s inertia is large but not infinite. "Doomed no matter what” has little or no scientific support. It is nothing more than a rallying cry to stick with an unsustainable status quo.

I have made no such suggestion.

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Mitigation can reduce the extent of warming. Society is not helpless. The problem is largely not technical or technological. It's largely political.

It's not "political" - it's economic.   It's about the welfare of society.    Reducing the extent of warming will be *hugely* expensive and painful.    It's not just a matter of people arguing in a room somewhere - it's about the prosperity of the world.   Including, BTW: lives.   Yes - it will certainly cause greater loss of life to reduce CO2 to a level that you're wishing for, than not.

Just look at the life expectancy rates of developed countries vs undeveloped countries.   What's one key component of that?   Reliable electricity and transportation.   What's a the primary input to reliable electricity and transportation?   Fossil fuels.    What's a key attribute of poverty?   They tend to have *much* higher pollution - including many still using wood and charcoal for most cooking (look it up - Africa and India especially).   This causes health problems, including premature death due to lung conditions.   This is in part because they don't have fossil-fuel-driven electrical power plants.  

Yes there a couple of notable small exceptions - e.g. Norway gets almost all of of its electricity from hydro and not fossil; they won the topography lottery.   But the rest of the 99% of the world relies on fossil fuels for their prosperity.   Even Norway does for transportation; despite winning the electricity lottery.

Yes this can, and will, change slowly over time.    It has to, because fossil fuels are limited.   But it will be painful, because of physics.    And it will take hundreds of years - not dozens.   Trying to push the changes by policy mandates, rather than letting them happen organically as technology evolves just increases the pain and reduces prosperity.

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Your claim misses the larger point of my examples. It does not matter whether the sea rises or the land subsides. The result is the same. The water line advances relative to human settlements and ecosystems. 

Sorry but think about this statement.   Yes the "result is the same" but ONLY FOR DELOS.   (that place where only 25 people live, and that at the current rate will be fully underwater in about 120,000 years.)

For the vast majority of the world the result is NOT the same.

Not only that but the policy implications are completely different.

If the whole world was experiencing what Delos is experiencing - faster water level rise due mostly to tectonic-movement-driven subduction - then any attempts to halt sea level rise via CO2 reduction are simply pointless.    Even if CO2 increase was stopped today and reversed - we would all still be doomed.   Thus - why bother?   Unless perhaps you think we have the ability to stop continental drift (?)

You really need to consider your stance here - you're sounding quite foolish IMO.

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

He's wrong. The paper documents sea-level rise that began some 6,000 years ago. 

??

No no - you just erected a complete strawman.   I made no claim that sea level hasn't been rising at Delos over any period of time.   If you think I did - please show me where.   Otherwise - you need to retract that.

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I hyperlinked the paper regarding sea level rise at Delos. A key chart:

 

There was more to the story than war. Moreover, the historic site continues to be reclaimed by the sea.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/12/6/870

In short, I made sure that the information was verifiable.

Yes - and?   You didn't read what I wrote.   I'm not doubting that the level is rising relative to the the land at Delos.   However the point is that it's not that the water is rising fast there - it's that the land is sinking.   That shows for instance a delta of about 80cm in the last 134 years.   But that's far faster than the general rate of sea level rise over that same period which is roughly estimated to be 20cm.    So the Delos case doesn't extend to the rest of the world.

The population of Delos is about 25 people, in case you're wondering.   Even in their extreme case of "sea level rise" (which is mostly land sinking) I seriously doubt they're standing and watching with horror as their homes are consumed by the sea at a rate of less than a centimeter a year.   Likewise it's ludicrous to propose that the rise (or sinking, rather) of 5 meters over the course of 5000 years was a crisis.

I'm not doubting whether your information is verifiable - I'm saying that it's not applicable.

On 10/15/2025 at 11:17 AM, donsutherland1 said:

This caricature is the kind of narrative the climate change denial movement is pushing, with some success, due to the very limitations of human nature a number of us have discussed. This rhetorical move of labeling climate science as a “scary religion” and its communication as “fear mongering,” diverts attention away from measurable changes in temperature, sea level, atmospheric composition, and the role of human-induced greenhouse gas pollution in driving those changes. It reframes the issue as a matter of emotion or ideology, not science.

By characterizing concern about climate change as exaggerated and predictions as “crying wolf,” it normalizes passivity and delays collective response. The premise of its strategy is to convince the public that the threat of climate change is overblown, if it exists at all. After all, if a threat is overblown or non-existent, then no change is necessary. Put another way, humanity can continue, even expand, its ongoing greenhouse gas-driven geoengineering project.

Yet, sea level rise is not imaginary. Sea level rise is real. The notion that a reduction in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will result in no sea level rise whatsoever is fiction. The description of what sea level rise might look like can call attention to what will become a big problem in the future. Further, sea level rise and human futility in holding it back is not without historical precedent.

Along the ancient seafront of Delos, generations of builders struggled to hold back the advancing sea. Beginning in the Classical era, they constructed an immense granite breakwater to protect the harbor from waves and erosion. Over the centuries, as the shoreline crept inland, new defenses were added: rockfills, seawalls, and massive boulders aligned along the coast. Each layer of construction, which now lies at depths of 3 to 4 meters below the modern sea, marks an episode of retreat and rebuilding, a record of determination in the face of encroaching waters. Roads and docks that once thrived with merchants and pilgrims were gradually overtaken by the rising tide.

Today, the remains of these ancient defenses lie submerged beneath the Aegean Sea, preserved in successive bands of beachrock. Divers can trace their contours like pages in a drowned chronicle that bears the testimony to centuries of futile struggle against a force that could not be contained. The harborworks of Delos, once symbols of resilience and prosperity, now rest silent beneath the waves, their stones bearing witness to the city’s slow surrender to the rise of the sea.

Doggerland, which now lies beneath the waters of the North Sea, provides another example of land that was reclaimed by a rising sea. 

Climate science has done its part. No one can even plausibly argue that "they didn't know," much less claim that the events projected by the science (more frequent heatwaves, more intense precipitation events, melting glaciers/ice sheets, rising sea levels) were matters beyond human control. Those outcomes will be a matter of choice, namely the choice to set aside the laws of physics, to continue to inject vast sums of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

Re: Delos - 

Well except for one thing - Delos demise wasn't because of sea level rise - it was because it was destroyed by attacks and looting, and also due to much of the island sinking due to tectonic plate movement, which is *much* faster (~2.5cm per year) than the sea level rise (~2.8mm per year).   Delos is right on the Hellenic Arc - the main border of the African and Eurasian plates, where there is significant subduction happening.

You might want to check facts like that before you post things like you did.   While I think ChescoWx is wrong with much of his positions here - he's right about the climate change scare being discredited by playing loose with facts and principles in scaremongering.   He's right about the terminology you've been using in your post.   You present as if there is some sort existential crisis happening, when there very much isn't.

Yes it's a slow motion problem - but it's a *lot* slower than you present.   In general societal infrastructure - houses, businesses, roads, etc. - are re-built due to simply aging out *much* faster than they will be threatened by rising sea levels; every century or so for most things.    So the solution is simply - when something gets torn down and rebuilt, due to being very old (say 100 years or 200 years) - simply build the replacement a bit higher - either inland or by literally adding new land (it's quite easy actually - e.g. ask the Emirates, Dutch, Bostonians, Manhattanites, etc.).

Yes there may be some additional expense (beyond the normal expense of rebuild).   But IMO it will be *far* less expensive than trying to actually prevent sea level rise; especially since such prevention is most likely futile.

IMO this poll is meaningless without a timeframe.

Are we talking 2-4 over the course of 30 years?  300 years?   3,000 years?  30,000 years?

It matters because the impacts for each would be vastly different, including the level of danger.

When it comes to climate change I like to use the analogy of an airplane's altitude.   What matters isn't so much how *far* the airplane changes altitude - but how *fast* it changes altitude.   Dropping 1,000 ft in two minutes generally isn't a problem.   Dropping 1,000 ft in two seconds is generally a big problem.    Same thing for nominal altitude.   Being at 0 ft Above Ground Level (AGL) is not a problem if that's where you were a few minutes ago, but it's a big problem if you were at 1,000ft AGL a couple seconds ago.   Thus why the whole "the earth has been at temperature X before" is a foolish and meaningless position w/regards to CC.

The poll is also meaningless without supplying additional conditions.   Is this all-else-being-equal?   Presumably so, but it would be nice to state as such.

21 hours ago, MN Transplant said:

VT is a relatively small program compared to the others that you've listed, but that isn't necessarily a problem.  I don't feel like meteorology has the same "ranking" hierarchy like law schools or business schools do.  It is more about what skills you can develop.  One thing to recognize is that meteorology has a very high "quit" ratio.  A lot of students are attracted to it for all the same reasons why we are on this board, but the math and physics weeds out a lot of them, so it is always good to keep your options open.  And with the job market the way it is and AI looming, the best candidates for jobs in the future in meteorology are probably going to be people that have diversified in some way.  So, things like computing/AI, emergency management, energy, transportation, etc.  The days of just getting a standard meteorology Bachelor's degree and then getting hired right away by the NWS or media is not dead, but a dwindling path.  

Thanks.

Yes definitely seems like having a "big picture" education is important.   It is interesting the variety of companies that hire meteorologists.   

Hi all - got a couple of questions if I may.   I tried posting this one thing in the Meteorology 101 section but it seems like no one pays attention there, so figured I'd try here.

My son's looking to go into meteorology, and I was wondering about a couple of things.   

First - since we live in VA, he was looking to most likely do the program at VT for meteorology.   What are folks' thoughts on that program vs other ones around the east?   It seems pretty good (we just visited), but it sounds like there are other ones around that may be as good or better - e.g. PSU, UMd, FSU.   Rankings are all over the place, so not reliable at all.  

One disadvantage is that the VT program is only undergrad.   We were wondering how much that might matter though - if desired he could do undergrad at VT and graduate school at one of the others.   Also it seems like most meteorology careers don't require graduate degree - fair to say?

Cost of course is a consideration, and a big driver towards VT - getting in-state tuition.

Other question I had in the other thread is about AI and about the impact of NOAA cuts.   Thoughts?

(below is link to the thread)

Thanks!

Been wanting rain for weeks - got a bit Thursday at least.   Was out at Staunton area all weekend - rained all day Saturday.  Great!  Except weather station back home shows exactly zero.  What the?   Then I see this:

Nice to be in that hole of zero rain west of DC.

(facepalm)

Is anyone besides me having problems accessing a few weather sites all of the sudden?

Specifically:

 - the NOAA river gauge site: https://water.weather.gov/

 - Mike's weather page:https://www.spaghettimodels.com/

Mike's seems to be really spotty the last several days, for me at least (it's down right now).   Wondering if it's just me.

Thanks

Edit: I guess they moved the NOAA site - it's now https://water.noaa.gov/

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

18Z Euro: hits near NC/SC border:

Sorry but that's a hilarious picture.   Looks like some kind of stoned cookie monster or something.

17 hours ago, Scott747 said:

Fwiw -

That's houses and the rebuilt elementary and middle school (Crenshaw) in Crystal Beach after Ike.

All of that construction had nothing to do with Harvey and was done due to Ike.

Why does it matter?    People don't build homes etc. "due to" a hurricane.   Many of these places - including Crenshaw - survived Harvey just fine, and many of these places have been built since Harvey and are thus counted towards the stats in that article.    The Houston area didn't get completely destroyed and have to be rebuilt from nothing after Harvey.

The point is - most homes and businesses are being built much better to withstand flooding these days, thus it's not as foolish as it's made out to be.

IMO the key is - people need to know that there are risks, be wiling to accept them (including insurance), and IMO the government should not subsidize the risk like it often does.

20 hours ago, Seminole said:

Interesting article about housing construction since Hurricane Harvey. Apparently that biblical flooding event changed nothing.  

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/projects/2025/houston-metro-floodplain-construction/?noapp=true&utm_content=img&sid=6899cebb64b7fc37ca04ba24&ss=P&st_rid=null&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Business&utm_campaign=hcrn | editorial features

 

FWIW - lots of those houses are being built on quite-high stilts now, e.g. here's a neighborhood and a school in Port Bolivar:

Everything has to be about 15' above ground level now - above BFE (Base Flood Elevation - 100-year flood plain).   So these generally aren't your grandparents homes.

7 hours ago, Coach McGuirk said:

I'm surprised this coastal low off NC coast isn't going tropical. 

This is showing winds of 66 kph - so it's fast enough.

13 hours ago, wxmeddler said:

It's not technically tropical because it's not a "warm core" system. It's attached to a frontal boundary and has characteristics of a mid-latitude cyclone. Regardless, the impacts on the beaches will be the same as a weak tropical storm. Erosion/Overwash in the normal places is likely in the OBX.

Interesting.   

Well, I know it's not tropical, but it is now showing winds up to 66 kph:

Surprised the system right off NC isn't showing up on anyone's radar.   It seems to be quite close to tropical storm level, with winds about 55 kph.

Can't believe drought monitor only shows D0:

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

Seems a few days behind though.   

On 8/22/2025 at 3:09 PM, astarck said:

I posted this in the obs thread but DCA has a good chance at having the driest August on record.

No rain predicted through the end of the month, so guessing it'll set that record.

This is killing me.   I've got some bare spots on the lawn that I'm trying to seed by taking advantage of the cooler weather - but having to sprinkle like crazy to get it to germinate.   No rain in sight - hope the well doesn't run dry.

Third year in a row we've had drought conditions during the fall overseed season.

With regards to AI -  I guess one question I would have for those who work in the field - do you find that you're using AI some, and if so in what capacity?

E.g. in software field I know sometimes an experienced person will ask ChatGPT "write me a program to do xxxx"; wondering if this kind of thing is being seen in meteorology; e.g. is AI doing some model analysis tasks that used to be done by a person?  

Hi all,

Posted this on the 101 forum, but figured I'd ask about it here since I'm sure there's more traffic here.   I'm wondering about career prospects for meteorology, and in particular what people's thoughts are on the impacts of AI, and on the political churn going on right now.   Any input is appreciated.

(Son is looking into the program at VT)