February 2026 Medium/ Long Range Discussion: 150K Salary Needed to Post

[Miss Pixee]

Back to our regularly scheduled program...

 

[stormy]

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

Except you didn’t provide the relevant data. How warm it was the day before doesn’t matter. How warm was it while it snowed?  Did the temp drop to 27?  If so 2f wouldn’t have mattered and that’s still a snowstorm now. But if it was 32 during the snow, I got bad news for you regarding what math says the +2f would mean 

 

You are hilarious!!    Do you need help??   I am very concerned about your mental stability.    

I'm guessing the temperature was below 50 at 9 pm.    Below 33 at 2 am And below 32 at 5 am.   

[midatlanticweather]

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

This is true of the cause of the warming. But a discussion of the effects of the warming on snowfall does not have to include that unless someone just wants to be belligerent.  
 

it’s ~2f warmer now than 1970.  3f since 1950.  Those are facts.  We don’t need to bring what’s causing it into it.  A discussion regarding how it’s impacting our snow doesn’t require us to agree on why it’s warmer just the reality that it is.  And anyone who is going to be belligerent enough to deny it’s warmer, as if thermometers are subjective, well if someone came in here and said we can’t discuss precipitation because liquid isn’t real we wouldn’t listen or let them alter our behavior.  I choose to treat anyone who wants to act crazy and pretend it’s not warmer the same way.  I don’t alter my behavior to placate crazy people.   Again this isn’t about why it’s warmer.  Snowstorms don’t care why!  This is just about the effects of that undeniable factual warming!  

 

Yes.. Agree. Causation is where we get off the rails... There is a place to discuss that and I am good with keeping that separate. I also agree with you on the implementationa of warming here. 

[psuhoffman]

47 minutes ago, Stradivarious said:

ah, and i highly respect you… Psuhoffman,but a lot of people are not aware of the immense natural swings in climate.

What i am pointing out is that the debate, world wide, treats the warming that has happened in the last 100 years, like it had never happened before. that the global warming is a crises, and the world will not survive…people are literally not having kids because the world will not support life in 30 years..they think.  

 

To me its like arguing over a cup of sand on the ocean city maryland beach. It’s not gaslighting at all. you would have a point about that if there was no beach. All i am saying is people need to step back once in a while and put that cup of sand at the beach in its proper perspective. i don’t see that happen anywhere, Except me…i’m not baiting… not into politics. i am into geology though.. and all sciences.

i have done my part, back to lurking, and thank you for your insights over the last few decades.

Except it’s been made very clear to us that the larger discussion about cyclical v man made and all that is strictly off limits for political reasons. That’s why you don’t hear people commenting on it. It’s off limits.  The fact it’s warmer now than 30/50/100 year ago is just a fact and how it affects our snow climo v 30/50/100 years ago isn’t political. 

[psuhoffman]

41 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

Can we stop the CC discussion now?

For the record I am not talking about human AGW I am simply discussing how our snow climo is changing and I am not taking the bait to engage in the causation AGW debate 

[WxUSAF]

This always goes the exact same way. Not the first rodeo

[psuhoffman]

37 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

This! @psuhoffman Not sure if your sae my other post, but I was asking about the samw thing: If we're headed for Raleigh climo then suppression would not longer be an issue, right? If the boundary is going further and further north...we should end up getting more southern sliders to hit us, right? Dec 2018 oughta be a hit in that scenario, lol

 

32 minutes ago, Fozz said:

Raleigh averages 4.5”. BWI averages 17”.

Any southern sliders that hit Raleigh are few and far between. And they know that.

This. I’ve told you and others this before. Places south of us are not getting more snow than us. I showed you the snowfall the last 10 years in a ton of random southern cities and none have more snow than Baltimore over the last 10 years. Not one. Some had more snow one single season. Others more a different year. This is perception bias. You don’t pay attention to exactly where the storms missing to our south hit. Or the frequency. Yea New Orleans got that big snow last year. But that’s the only damn big snow they got in the last 10 years!  Charlotte got one a couple weeks ago. But they’ve only had a few storms over 10 years!  Same with Raleigh, Nashville, Dallas, Little Rock, find me one city south of us that actually has more snow.  Do some research before you make a declarative theory or statement. Don’t go on perception.  
 

Yes we will be like Raleigh and get some southern sliders. So every 3 years we will get one damn snowstorm. But hey we will get that storm that used to go south of us. Winning!!! 

[psuhoffman]

5 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

This always goes the exact same way. Not the first rodeo

Because someone always baits us into that AGW to shit it down. As long as no one takes the bait…

[psuhoffman]

21 minutes ago, stormy said:

You are hilarious!!    Do you need help??   I am very concerned about your mental stability.    

I'm guessing the temperature was below 50 at 9 pm.    Below 33 at 2 am And below 32 at 5 am.   

You guess?  What’s your point?  There is no way to know whether that storm would still be snow now without knowing what the temps were DURING the snow. Not 12 hours before or after. Thats irrelevant. But oddly you know exactly what the temp was when it don’t matter but can only guess when it’s pertinent to the discussion. You think you’re clever when really it’s transparent exactly what you’re doing. Go BS somewhere else. Everyone here knows your act and it’s old tired and boring. 

[WxWatcher007]

Brief shout out to the great Arctic front 11 years ago that changed our season of futility to an epic finish.

https://imgur.com/a/esKC90G

[stormy]

2 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

Except you didn’t provide the relevant data. How warm it was the day before doesn’t matter. How warm was it while it snowed?  Did the temp drop to 27?  If so 2f wouldn’t have mattered and that’s still a snowstorm now. But if it was 32 during the snow, I got bad news for you regarding what math says the +2f would mean 

 

 Are you really serious??????????????????????????????????? 

[psuhoffman]

12 minutes ago, stormy said:

 Are you really serious??????????????????????????????????? 

I’m sorry did you forget the substantive part of this post?  Oh wait it’s YOU. Silly me. Carry on. 

[psuhoffman]

There is still a wave around the 24 and it’s close. It’s a little north on most guidance but given season trends don’t mind that 

[bncho]

2 hours ago, VBweather said:

You didn’t answer my question. What percent? What decimal? It’s 0.04%. That’s 0.0004. A 50% increase is 0.0006. That’s literally nothing. Drop the CO2 argument. Its negligible.  Things go up and down. Just answer me this then: what’s the correct average temperature of the earth? So we can aim for it.  

First, how do you think plants work? They rely on CO2! Let’s drop the CO2 levels by that same 0.0002, which is 50% of that 0.0004. That seemingly insignificant drop would diminish growth rates by up to 30% for plants who photosynthesize using C3 photosynthesis! Imagine how the biosphere would react to that! So I just disproved your point—that seemingly “small” fluctuation in CO2 levels makes a huge difference!

Secondly, to answer your question about the “correct”, baseline temperature of Earth. It’s 14C. Here’s why:

You are correct to point out that there are normal fluctuations in global temperature, and even without global warming, we just exited out of the Little Ice Age (1300-1700). At its peak global temperatures were around 13.5C. “Ice Age” may sound like a big cooldown to you, but really these fluctuations were only around 1C from peak ice age to peak “warm” age, and are smooth changes rather than abrupt.

I will leave you with this. How does it make sense for the Earth to suddenly warm 1.5C in 100 years (more than the average difference between an ice age and “warm age) and call it natural?

WxUSAF, forgive me, this will be my last post. Just needed to get this off my chest.

[DDweatherman]

It is very obvious what Hoff is saying is accurate. If you don’t think our “base state” has warmed you’re in denial…and that has clearly been evident in battleground events and toss up outcomes. We’ve started to see lowland climo creep further and further n/w beyond just the fall line. The outcomes recently where our n&w areas haven’t won are bad luck, but the rest is all rooted in fact.

 

also, stormy is one of the biggest shitposters in the history of AmericanWx, I wouldn’t even bother with that nonsense. 

[Maestrobjwa]

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

 

This. I’ve told you and others this before. Places south of us are not getting more snow than us. I showed you the snowfall the last 10 years in a ton of random southern cities and none have more snow than Baltimore over the last 10 years. Not one. Some had more snow one single season. Others more a different year. This is perception bias. You don’t pay attention to exactly where the storms missing to our south hit. Or the frequency. Yea New Orleans got that big snow last year. But that’s the only damn big snow they got in the last 10 years!  Charlotte got one a couple weeks ago. But they’ve only had a few storms over 10 years!  Same with Raleigh, Nashville, Dallas, Little Rock, find me one city south of us that actually has more snow.  Do some research before you make a declarative theory or statement. Don’t go on perception.  
 

Yes we will be like Raleigh and get some southern sliders. So every 3 years we will get one damn snowstorm. But hey we will get that storm that used to go south of us. Winning!!! 

Your last paragraph was all I really needed ya don't have to yell...

Okay fine maybe did need a little reminder of the rest too but my question wasn't exactly implying they had it better but rather just being weary of suppression, lol Recency bias! But I am starting to realize how rare it is for those other cities. It's coincidence that the examples I'm thinking about have happened during our worst snow drought in history so they stick out more--perception bias.

So it could indeed end up in a place where "suppression" is not longer a thing...interesting. Now the question is how many years does it take to get to that point. I mean at least for right now we can still get storms like a few weeks ago!

[psuhoffman]

@bncho he is baiting you dude.  Please delete that. They want you to engage in the more political aspects so they can get the whole discussion shut down. Besides what he said is SOOO stupid nothing you say will matter it will go way over his head!  

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

The ensemble means have a snowy bias. I’ve discussed why before.  Part of it is skewed results from big snow outlier members. The median right now which is a better indicator is only 1” for DC and about 2” for Baltimore and you. That’s a much more accurate indicator of what the model thinks the chances of snow are.   You could also look at the probability output and see you only have a 40% of 3” over the next 15 days. So it’s saying you have a 60% of NOT getting any significant snow!  
 

But everyone pots the colorful mean maps because they always show more snow because a handful of unlikely 20” members of the ensemble skew the snow higher!  
 

There are other issues too but I’ll leave it there. However…you still want the snow output to be good. Because yea you just said it. When thay be bad we NEVER snow!  It’s no hope!  When they do show snow it doesn’t mean we will snow it just means we have a shot.  I’d say today’s EPS would say about a 30-40% chance of some snow depending on where you are for the majority of the area.  So that means it likely WONT snow. But it’s better than having no fucking chance. 
 

I swear to god how are some people on here for 20 years and still haven’t learned how to use a tool or how probabilities work!  

 The WB Euro AIFS ensemble means are often the snowiest of the ens means due to having a true snowy bias likely resulting from an algorithm issue at WB although I suppose the issue could be internal at ECMWF (doubtful). This is most easily exhibited by the numerous times (every run) when individual members have blobs of heavy snow well out over the Gulf/Atlantic when temperatures are in the 60s-70s. Even Bastardi has noted this oddity about his company’s own maps! (This isn’t the first issue I’ve seen with WB maps by the way. For example, their Euro Weekly 2m maps are colder than the ecmwf in-house maps.)

Example: member 46 (far right) getting heavy snow during hours 60-66 (6Z to 12Z on 1/22/26) on the 18Z 1/19/26 run 200 miles out into the Gulf while temperatures are above normal (70s)! While laughable, it is more importantly indicative of a significant snowy bias on its maps:

 

 Actually, this can be seen in subtropical regions throughout the globe. It even is showing snow blobs now in Australia during their summer, for example!