It was mentioned above that coffee appears as both beneficial and harmful in scientific studies. That was implied to impugn scientific research. A new study supports the benefit side: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00409-y Different reported results are common in science, and do anything but impugn its process. Our rise from ignorance must include some understanding of statistics, here namely unbiased sampling from large populations. I do not know how many humans consume coffee, but guess about one billion. Small samplings from that population could show anything from biased sampling. Above study was N=130 thousand; still a small fraction of population, but larger than previous studies. If anyone funded research into net effects of coffee on many million people, it could aspire to achieve unbiased sampling. This does not look like our highest priority for research funding. == What does anyone want from science to lift us from ignorance? What costs should be paid for the lifts? These are questions for all, not to be defined by me.
Ah.....weather guessers..... They gleefully tell us every year in February that they're more accurate than a subterranean rat. To be fair, they ARE fairly accurate out to about 10 days. THEY claim 90-percent. YMMV.
Sometimes they’re right, and sometimes they’re wrong. Can’t trust them if it’s important. Err on the side of caution
Weather forecast accuracy is vastly improved compared to the end of the 20th Century, when 'accuracy' out at 10 days was still hardly better than random luck.
A strong low-pressure system will move northeast near coast from Monday through Wednesday. How close it comes to the coast and where, strongly influences the amount of snow and where. It looks like some places could get 50 cm of snow, so this is a matter of concern. All this happens because moist marine air is brought together with cold continental air, resulting in snowfall. I assume that readers know such things. To visualize weather model forecasts I suggest windy.com Set up a regional view, select ‘new snow’ from menu, set timespan for Monday through Wednesday. Then you can compare results from ECMWF, GFS and ICON models. Screenshots will allow you to compare forecasts of how much snow where. After storm passes, accuracy of those 3 models can be compared. Concerning track of this low-pressure system, those models do not differ a whole lot (less than 200 km?) but that has leverage because of bringing together the different air masses mostly onshore or offshore. For reasons I do not know, tracking hurricane low pressure centers are much more tightly constrained than these winter storms. It may be that more mesoscale data is collected because or hurricane intensity threats are more localized. Or, because they are more compact. There are other weather models, but not available in convenient form as windy offers. If all that convinces readers that weather model forecasts are guesses, well, there you go. But bear in mind that CNN is driven to some extent by clicks, and thus motivated to highlight model forecast differences. Controversy, yum. It would be … peculiar for readers to support CNN for emphasizing controversy here, and assail CNN for emphasizing controversy in other sorts of stories. But there you go. == Almost unrelated, I use ECMWF products in other ways, and they are best available. So if I were to pick a winner, it’s them.
PriusChatters on eastern US coast, is it snowing? Please put some sticks in the ground with 10-cm marks for what might come. Citizen science! But sooner, focus on helping your families survive what may or may not be a large infrastructure disruption for you.
