wokeupthisam

Yeah we had several families from MA here today getting their tree and the kids leaped out of the cars and practically dove in the snow, parents just looked at me smiling and said, "they were hoping all the way that there would be snow when we got here". I may have to convert to a disc golf course...

5.0" final. Beautiful morning out there for clearing driveway and pathways, frozen ground and fluffy snow ftw

Very weird. Been 'snowing' since 7am, looking at 2-2.5" so far. 24° very light snow continues

Yup 22.3F and a dusting of steady SN-

All this, or... 'they' simply call out gaslighting posts with one-sided 'analyses' for the empty harangues that they are. LOL

it's worth noting that none of the explicit and implicit benefits of fossil fuel use to societies, not to mention the variances of those among countries with greatly differing economies, are computed in order to arrive at a true estimate of the overall picture. Ignoring that entire side of the market equation is illegitimate.

The 'implicit subsidies' are subjective non-quant unverifiable estimates, hardly the stuff of science. There is no attempt in the paper to quantify or account for any offsetting derived benefits of fossil fuel use. The paper isn't peer-reviewed scientific lit, in fact it's a working paper, ie purpose is to "...describ'e research in progress by the author(s) and... published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management." It's interesting to note (since you did not) that of the relatively tiny proportion of 'explicit subsidies' cited, the main source is China, hardly representative of the global subset of countries at large, followed by the Saudis, Russia, No Korea and Iran. The US accounts for little more than a few percent of the cited 'explicit subsidies' - good luck changing the industrial policies of the aforementioned chief 'offenders' of fossil fuel subsides who account for the the lion's share of 'explicit subsidies'. The authors of the paper (and you, using it as evidence) completely avoid dealing with the cost/benefit of direct, explicit subsidies to so-called 'clean energy'. A clearer example of a gaslighting post would be difficult to conjure. LOL

Yeah it's a lot of work / $$ keeping the old ones going but I'm amazed by the work that went into building back in the day without all the modern tools and machinery. The sill beams on the farmhouse are roughly 12"x8" and 38ft long, laid on leveled granite foundation blocks some refrigerator-size, and the sills are still mostly level after 200+ years. I struggle to keep a small patio paver project level...

This. Just a pixel in a tapestry, this far out only looking at trends toward a consensus, if one even ever emerges before Monday lol

The bolded is what I'm most hoping for. Early Dec snow threat tracking is fun and while reading the daily ups/downs in here, I'm always keeping one eye on that Christmas -New Year timeframe. This despite the evil grinch poking a sharp stick in that watchful eye most years, but every year I fall for it again like Charlie Brown and the football. "Maybe this year"...

Choose and cut Christmas tree farm

Hope so! Festive mood flakes are great for business

This is amazing. Even putting the titles on each storm reference represents a lot of work, and is super helpful. High regards to all involved - great job!

Music to the ears, that was a good look and result, pic was 12/22/2007: