eduggs

Injecting aerosol into the atmosphere on a large scale would be extremely risky. We don't know exactly what the impact would be and at the level that would be required to have a meaningful impact, the potential consequences to water resources (irrigation, drinking water, drought), farming (food production), and general weather patterns could be quite severe. This would seemingly also require international large-scale cooperation to avoid regional or global conflict. This type of technology might be worth investigating or attempting, but it is unlikely to be a magic fix... certainly not without major societal costs and unintended consequences.

It is not correct that renewables cannot provide sufficient baseload. That classic argument about winds not blowing or the sun not shining is outdated ignorance. Hydro, geothermal, and a variety of wind/solar with battery are completely viable alternatives technically. The issue comes down to economic viability. Nuclear can and does provide an excellent and relatively affordable supply of baseload power. The issue with nuclear comes down to society's appetite for risk. Fukushima Daiichi was considered much safer than most currently operating nuclear power plants in the US. We cannot anticipate and mitigate all sources of risk. Even if the likelihood of catastrophe is very low, if the consequences of such an event is that a large area is rendered essentially permanently uninhabitable, the overall risk assessment might force us to turn elsewhere. Society still doesn't have a permanent solution for spent nuclear fuel, which presents a significant risk for potential accident or terrorist act.

Technically no energy source is completely renewable. Most of what we call renewable is directly or indirectly driven by the sun, which is very slowly exhausting its hydrogen fuel. Tidal energy is harnessed at the expense of a very minor deviation in the orbit of the moon. Eventually even these sources will be completely depleted. Obviously for our purposes they are infinitely renewable. A combination of solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and wave/ocean energy is entirely sufficient to fuel our energy needs. The huge expense associated with fully transitioning is the remaining obstacle. Continued advances in battery storage technology and transmission lines from isolated sources is needed in improve the economic viability of new projects. But we have long passed the time where the technological viability of 100% renewable is already there. Nuclear power can be a part of this solution/transition/process, but it's not needed. Fukushima Daiichi showed us once again that no technology is completely safe, and the consequences of a nuclear accident might be too severe to warrant the risk in some places or circumstances, particularly if other less dangerous energy sources are viable. China is the leading emitter of CO2 currently, but not per capita. And if you look back at the cumulative history of CO2 emissions, the US is far and away responsible for the most CO2 emissions. India is a growing emitter, but still lower down on the list, particularly per capita. Sure it's more effective to get all countries to work together, but certainly the US has a big responsibility to lead on this issue. The prudent thing to do is to implement everything at once - reduce GHG emissions, transition to renewable energy sources AND investigate strategies to reduce surface heating. The danger is that if we rely on unproven, futuristic technology to save us, that might lessen the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels. Venting a life-essential molecule out to space BTW is a terrible idea.

Tue-Wed is super amplified. Big phase, neg titled trof, big QPF, and strong SLP. So we shouldn't really say it can't happen.

All guidance actually shows a pretty decent phasing event on Tue - Wed of this upcoming week. Pretty classic phase with the trof taking on a negative tilt and a strong surface SLP. Should be a big QPF maker and significant snowstorm for deep interior Ontario.

12z ICON, CMC, GFS, UK, and ECM all have a distinct (trackable!) wintry threat for Sat 3/8. Nice to see a sudden move towards model consensus. Too bad it's still 7+ days out.

I honestly thought JB would be unemployed and homeless by now. Surprised to hear his name mentioned... It was obvious to everybody about 11 or 12 years ago that he is a garbage meteorologist, a fraud, and an idiot.

I'm confident (though not certain) that you know less about fire prevention than experts whose job it is to know. The issue is likely a lot more complex than you indicate.

The averaged anomaly charts have been looking interesting most of the winter. But the actual realization of shortwaves has continuously materialized as not interesting.

How about we average every hour of the day instead of just the high and low? Then we would have a much better index of the temperatures on a particular day.

On the subject of temperature records... is anybody concerned about how temperature departures are calculated? Is averaging the daily high and low temperature even all that representative or comparable? Should it matter if a low temperature was achieved after a brief but precipitous drop vs. a constant temperature for 16 straight hours? All this fussing about reference periods and minor anomalies... when the method of calculation is hardly precise or rigorously scientific.

Apparently. I'm running behind all coastal regions from Cape May to Cape Cod since 2021.

Meh storm. Just a couple inches.

The Feb 28 - March 3 period is still worth watching. There's a tendency to amplify the flow for successive waves with marginal cold air and a modestly favorable longwave pattern. The 12z ICON, CMC, UK, and EC-AI show significant coastal storms during this period, though with mostly non-frozen precipitation. As usual, the nuances of wave interaction will be key to determining if we can sneak anything wintry out of it.

The Hudson Highlands area had an OK winter this year, especially when you factor in a few early season localized light/moderate events and the sustained snowpack. But I drove through parts of Orange and Putnam yesterday and there was a lot of bare ground on southerly, sun-baked aspects and the usual late-winter snowbanks on the sides of roads were largely missing. People were ice fishing out of the lakes, but the vibe was of a low-snow winter. Down in northern NJ this is the 3rd winter in a row essentially without snow, particularly east of the I-287 terrain boundary. It's been a miserable stretch for snow lovers.