stadiumwave

Don...here is another example of why there is distrust in the science community. Trust me there is...Dr. Curry has written much about it:

If the Euro Weeklies are correct a new minimum is inevitable. Big signal for dipole pattern continuing throughout August This is day 8-13, 5 day average. That's a strong signal for 8-13 day, 5-day average

Not much acceleration since around 1970. You had the big acceleration from 1940-late 1960's then not much acceleration since, but no big decelerations either like previous years. The steep increase from around 1920 is still curious. Again, AGW effect is there the last 50 years but back in 1920's-30's C02 PPM was not high enough to attribute to AGW & for anyone that argues it was then we have to admit % had to have been a minuscule.

It's the crap like this pointed out today by Dr. Judith Curry. Using info for convenience is just bologna. BTW, while we're on the 1930's...the new bullcrap of trying to say it was only regional warming is not impressive when plain evidence is there it was global...at least in the N. Hemisphere. Also the trying to minimize the 1930's with crappy educated explanations are not impressive either. Those heatwaves were certainly not C02 & the land argument is laughable. With all of that said...I'm not saying AGW is not a fact, it obviously is. And yes I believe its AGW, not just GW. But honest objective discussions & not history revision is needed. And certainly we need responsible realistic action. I'm all for that to. My posts are not about any of that. My posts are about the exaggeration, fearmongering, lack of objectivity, flat out lying about history to cause action really is & will hurt science in the long run. It does not take a very smart objective person to admit there is some truth to what I'm saying. EDIT: And I'm certainly not saying any of this about Don. He is one of the best, respected posters on the forum.

Yea...the "serious scientists" are those who stay true to the narrative never questioning our understanding of anything, which is what a "serious scientist" should do. And scientist that does not stay 100% true to the consensus narrative is labeled a "fruit cake" paid for by big oil companies. You do not have to be a denier to humbly admit lots of real, objective research needs to continue. But some of these "real scientists" as you call them, seek to burn at the stake any scientist who applies critical objective thinking & research. Amazing, some of these "fruit cake", paid for by big oil companies scientists, are not even deniers. They merely make humble statements of questioning our understanding of the processes & future implications, while all the while affirming AGW as a fact. But because they do NOT stick to the "damnation" narrative they are sought to be burned at the stake. Yes...there are the few real "deniers" that most folks ignore & rightfully so. But we should not ignore other scientists that are objective enough & brave enough to say while we can affirm an overarching fact, our total understanding of the processes underneath that fact still needs MUCH progress. And the progress of understanding the processes better may impact our understanding of the future.

Don...science has always made new discoveries that changes the way we understand things. So...not understanding all forcing mechanisms totally for sure affects the "real outcome". Cranky is correct in saying we're in infancy & any Climatologist worth their salt will agree with such. That's science! It's ok to admit that. Good grief...I know why less in the science community like to admit that because we want our confidence in our understanding of AGW to be with zero unknowns, but that's not the case & saying so is a flat out lie. It's 100% fact that percentages of attribution are not really known. We "think" this & "think" that for what appears to be solid reasons, but there is an element of uncertainty which should keep us humble & diligently researching for the truth. We should avoid bogus studies that seek to only validate the narrative. And yes there are those. And those doing that really believe they're justified in doing so for a good cause. The peer review process is usually, painfully slow. To conclude research of a recent heat wave & submit those findings for peer review & the peer review process finished (all of this in just a couple of weeks, including the heatwave) should make any objective scientist question why. You know as well as I do that's NOT how this normally works. Can there be good points from a paper? Sure! But to say we understand "attribution" of this heatwave just a few weeks ago is laughable.

AGW is real....I do not deny that. I deny a lot of this nonsense. A freaking per reviewed paper on attribution of a heatwave that just occurred? That's pure BS & it reeks agenda driven going through peer review that quickly. Gotta strike while it's hot. This is why there is so much distrust in the science community. And in the end all the agenda driven BS creates deniers by default. Way too much subjectivity in this area of science.

I know there's a lot of noise and speculation of what's causing this and what's causing that but for me this crappy pattern: MJO first the past 3 weeks. Thankfully progression now looks for real. We don't have to necessarily get two phases 8 1 and 2... that would be wonderful but even the COD would break this pattern & get the PAC more favorable which is THE must.

Here's the 500mb for December for those years:

Take it another step....what did Tropical Pacific anomalies look like in those years for November-December?

Looked at every +ENSO since 1950 for October 1 - December 13. No matter if it were weak positive ENSO, weak, moderate, strong, or super El Nino. The closest matches I found were: 1952 1957 1976 1979 2002 2014 All of these years but 1952-53 had cold Jan-Feb. Here's the January-February composite for those years: What does this mean? Maybe nothing...but interesting nonetheless.

Went through all the El Nino years since 1979 & the closest matches for since October 1 until present is 2002 & 2014...and it's not even close. What does it mean? It may mean nothing...I dunno. It may be a meaningless fact...but interesting nonetheless. 2002 is the #1 year

Observation...be careful with all the SST anomaly maps. I've seen a lot of maps of regions 1 & 2 with the greatest anomalies but it appears from CPC data it's region 3 & the blip in region 4. Subsurface anomalies showing warmth surface in region 3 & if you look at towards the end of the animation it appears to move west as it surfaces. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

Great job @donsutherland1

It's driving me crazy! Constantly spinning on every forum why Siberia will sit over New Mexico & hades will sit over the east.

JAMSTEC just updated. Has practically almost the entire CONUS below normal temps for DJF http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/e/seasonal/outlook.html

JMA updated & its golden for DJF....all 3 months. BLOCKING: DEC: Strong -EPO with bouts of Atlantic blocking. JAN: Strong -EPO, Strong -NAO FEB: Very Strong in all 3 regions -EPO/-AO/-NAO The biggest change was the increasing amount of blocking.  http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/model/map/4mE/map1/pztmap.php

Agree. Folks seem to forget that it's the -EPO/+PNA that delivers the cold, it's a -NAO that locks it in. -NAO very useful for storm purposes if blocking is in the right place, but without the Pacific pattern being right you could get a -NAO & a lot of warmth like 2011-12. So, here's to Pacific delivering the goods! And it appears NAO may have more negative bouts than first anticipated...hopefully.

You NE folks will love this outlook: http://firsthandweather.com/3993/2018-2019-winter-outlook/

63 & 76 yes. 53 & 76 no...for east. But ORH_wxman had some good years for cold DEC posted above. Again, it's really about timing. I have a hunch we see some cold in spells in DEC. All my comments were based strictly on my analog years. Analog blend sdo not always pan out. A good outlook will use analog blends as a tool but pity anyone that ignores trends & makes a winter outlook based "solely"on analogs. That's why its smart to wait until Thanksgiving. I certainly hope for some wintry periods in DEC! It just seems fitting with the holidays

2009 - mean trough over plains, colder west & south 1972 - mean trough over SW, ridge east But overall definitely colder with those years. Timing has a lot to do with all of this also. And with this Nino being a late bloomer that may have impacts in a more non-traditional way. I noticed that the RRWT which is a model based on rosby waves & trends etc.....has trended colder for DEC recently. So, the timing could yield a colder or at least some cold this DEC. I certainly do not think we'll see a blowtorch DEC.

1st, it's not a weak modoki. It's more of a hybrid. 2nd show me the analogs that have a cold east in DEC. You have 2002...and it can happen but on average any blend of Nino's will not have a mean trough in east. Again, I'm not saying it won't happen but research shows on average not. EDIT: Good grief, I posted that on the fly last night & just read it this morning. Forgive me for how rude it sounds. Didn't mean for it to sound exactly that way. And I will say there are some signs that we could see some DEC cold this year. I was just trying to question the mean trough in east for DEC but could have been a little more tact in how I worded all of that. Again, forgive my lack of tact.