Augdewst 2026: Summer's Last Stand

[CoastalWx]

8 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

what am I missing-models don't have much for the coast at least-looks well N and W

Yeah I was thinking a bit NW of there. 

[Damage In Tolland]

Yeah little to nothing tomorrow other than far NW CT

[Brian5671]

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Yeah little to nothing tomorrow other than far NW CT

models would suggest that.   however we have gotten hammered every time so I can see why they might go flood watch for the Philly area-SW CT yet again

[dendrite]

42 minutes ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

That’s the earthquake that caused it all , was originally listed as 4.4 now 5.2. 

Other way around. The glacial collapse/landslide caused the seismic response.

[CoastalWx]

Wiz seems confused. 

[Sey-Mour Snow]

1 hour ago, dendrite said:

Other way around. The glacial collapse/landslide caused the seismic response.

Oh wow 

[kdxken]

7 hours ago, kdxken said:

Politics. Massachusetts in May had their first month ever where renewables supplied enough energy for the state.

Correction it was 56.9% not 100. Tweet I read fast. Apologies.

[kdxken]

4 hours ago, Layman said:

I know you're typically pretty good about providing links for things that you share on here - do you know where this info came from?

My understanding is that solar is a tiny fraction of total energy generation in New England with gas and nuclear making up ~80%.  This link, with the most up-to-date info pegs solar at ~4.3% and renewables in total at 13%: https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix 

I'm inclined to think that Massachusetts as a whole would use more than 13% of all energy production in New England (assuming they used all the renewable generation alone).  I'd be curious to see how that math works out if it's accurate.  

I corrected the 100% in a later post. Here's the actual breakdown. 

 

[dendrite]

15 minutes ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

Oh wow 

Pretty wild

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000tbwb/executive

[Damage In Tolland]

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

Wiz seems confused. 

He’s called for tors to the coast al summer . Most of us haven’t seen lighthing

[Damage In Tolland]

Can make it up . Just unreal 

[dendrite]

6 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Can make it up . Just unreal 

I liked rufus 2.0.

Newark!

[kdxken]

Knew it was too good to last. Oh, well been a nice run. Looks like a train of rain from the great lakes next week. Hopefully jackass gets his tobacco in by then.

[Damage In Tolland]

53 minutes ago, dendrite said:

I liked rufus 2.0.

Newark!

Lol. Another 77 mph wind gust 

[vortex95]

On 8/25/2026 at 6:30 PM, dendrite said:

Everyone’s favorite 

Clueless.  He does not seem to know, or just being disingenuous b/c he wants to post content and clickbait, that it is a 5 day avg temp.  that's why it's called the 6 to 10 day. 

This is what happens when there are no TCs in the Atlantic to hype late summer, ppl just start posting fluff/nonsense or wx event anniversaries that are not multiples of 5.  It's why all you hear the last few days is "34 years since HU Andrew!"

[NH8550]

9 hours ago, Layman said:

I know you're typically pretty good about providing links for things that you share on here - do you know where this info came from?

My understanding is that solar is a tiny fraction of total energy generation in New England with gas and nuclear making up ~80%.  This link, with the most up-to-date info pegs solar at ~4.3% and renewables in total at 13%: https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix 

I'm inclined to think that Massachusetts as a whole would use more than 13% of all energy production in New England (assuming they used all the renewable generation alone).  I'd be curious to see how that math works out if it's accurate.  

Whatever he's posting is pretty misleading considering Massachusetts imports far more energy from the regional grid than it produces (and the regional grid is basically entirely natural gas and nuclear). 

You can read more here: https://www.eia.gov/states/MA/overview

From my understanding, this seems largely like a sleight of hand: shut down nuclear & fossil fuel plants, replace a fraction of that capacity with renewable - but you can call yourself green because it's a larger share --- and then import the lion's share of your electric from a non-green heavy grid. 

You can see MA's all source generation here (decreasing from 10 / 20 years ago): EIA.gov website. I know MA has installed a ton of residential and small scale solar, which is fine to celebrate but I see the data being used very loosely. In fairness, I think that chart is not including the 4,000 MWh of non utility solar, so a little overstating the reduction.

[vortex95]

9 hours ago, Layman said:

I know you're typically pretty good about providing links for things that you share on here - do you know where this info came from?

My understanding is that solar is a tiny fraction of total energy generation in New England with gas and nuclear making up ~80%.  This link, with the most up-to-date info pegs solar at ~4.3% and renewables in total at 13%: https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix 

I'm inclined to think that Massachusetts as a whole would use more than 13% of all energy production in New England (assuming they used all the renewable generation alone).  I'd be curious to see how that math works out if it's accurate.  

I'd be careful about how solar and wind are pushed as "supplying more of the power" or "taking over."  They play w/ numbers and cherry-pick stats for particular hours or days.  What matters is in long-term mean and going by any state, region, or even country can be misleading b/c we share electricity across borders.  Grids are not isolated in many areas of the world.

Also, even though solar/wind is on rise, coal/gas as a whole is also on the rise in many countries.  China leads the way in solar, but they also lead the way in new coal plants coming online and coal consumption, avg 2 new plants a week.  So yes, solar in increasing but not as a percentage overall.  This is where they play w/ numbers, giving absolute power output for solar and leaving out total percentage of use by all energy sources overall for the grids.

[vortex95]

8 hours ago, weatherwiz said:

Sounds like the Earthquake caused an avalanche and the snow/ice dumped into a river and caused a major blockage, allowing the water to build up and unfortunately cause the flooding. Heartbreaking. I can't imagine being in a situation like that, trying to run with essentially nowhere to go and not a chance to outrun it. 

That's good info.  I thought the video looked odd for a typical flash flood. I saw one video where it was all this dark dust/debris at first, like a cloud.

[vortex95]

7 hours ago, Brian5671 said:

You can set a clock to that...

Of course.  Right, there are about 50 magnitude 4-5 quakes every day.  So how does that work?  Did CC "target" Nepal for some reason?  The Himalayan chain is very prone to quakes due to the Indian Plate collision.  And this was only a moderate quake.  Law of averages and large numbers say something like this is going to happen from time to time, a concept the MSM and many grifters ignore or lack.

So did the AK Lituya Bay quake and landslide  megatsunmai in 1958, what caused that?

The idea that sfc temp changes cause quakes anything more that frostquakes is ridiculous.  Quakes original far down often in superheated or molten areas.

And regardless of CC, the topmost layer going down 10s of ft experience massive thermal stress year round unevenly around the globe w/ the change of seasons, and not just from temp, but rain/snow/ice as well.

The Moon's pull alone "works over" the Earth's crust constantly, and likely triggers many smaller of the quakes we see every day, along w/ tides, so there is no sensitivity tipping point or whatever!

[vortex95]

32 minutes ago, NH8550 said:

Whatever he's posting is pretty misleading considering Massachusetts imports far more energy from the regional grid than it produces (and the regional grid is basically entirely natural gas and nuclear). 

You can read more here: https://www.eia.gov/states/MA/overview

From my understanding, this seems largely like a sleight of hand: shut down nuclear & fossil fuel plants, replace a fraction of that capacity with renewable - but you can call yourself green because it's a larger share --- and then import the lion's share of your electric from a non-green heavy grid. 

You can see MA's all source generation here (decreasing from 10 / 20 years ago): EIA.gov website. I know MA has installed a ton of residential and small scale solar, which is fine to celebrate but I see the data being used very loosely. In fairness, I think that chart is not including the 4,000 MWh of non utility solar, so a little overstating the reduction.

Yes, what does the state *import*.  They seem to have left that out.  But never let such facts interfere w/ a desired narrative or virtue signaling.

"but you can call yourself green because it's a larger share --- and then import the lion's share of your electric from a non-green heavy grid."

The fine art of cherry-picking and playing w/ numbers!

[Brewbeer]

folks interested in looking at the definitive data for New England electricity generation and transmission definitely should check out the ISO New England website @Laymanlinked above, the data are nearly endless and highly informative 

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/

it's worth noting that the 7-day capacity forecast includes temperature and dew point forecasts for both Boston and Hartford.

one of the most fascinating graphs from ISO NE is how much and how quickly the 5 minute locational marginal price for a MWH changes 

[MJO812]

We track?