Let us start by saying Gothamist loves Staten Island Chuck. But our unconditional love for New York's largest commuting rodent hasn't fogged our assessment of Chuck's forecasting ability. We realize this is the first time Chuck #6 has made a forecast, but it is as wrong as the last couple of forecasts the late Chuck #5 made. It pains us to contradict Chuck. There will be no early spring this year.
Do you like our little graph of December and January temperature anomalies? December started off with a few ups and downs, then there was the 38-day streak of no cold weather before the up and down pattern started again two weeks ago. We'll be in a down pattern for at least the next week.
The storm we had been keeping our eye on formed a little too far south to give us more than the lightest of flurries this morning. We may get a dusting late this afternoon as air circulates around the back side of the storm. Today will be slightly cooler than normal, with a high around 37. That will make today the warmest day of the next week. Another arctic air mass arrives on Sunday. Sunday, Monday and Tuesday are looking mighty cold and windy.
Staten Island Chuck's early spring prognostication might be more accurate if it was for the next six decades instead of the next six weeks. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this morning released their fourth climate change assessment since 1990. The report, which assesses the our current state of knowledge about the climate system, concludes for the first time that the scientific community now believes it is nearly certain that human activities –mainly the burning of fossil fuels—is the driving force behind the warming that's occurred since 1950. Over the next century, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels double their pre-industrial amounts, the earth will become between 3.5 and 8 degrees warmer, with a ten percent chance it could get much warmer than that. If you disagree with the conclusions and want to pick up some easy money get in touch with the American Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil has funded them to pay dissenting scientists $10,000, plus travel and expenses, to spread uncertainty where it doesn't exist.
