ORH_wxman

The warmth in Siberia probably will have the largest effect on the Laptev and East Siberian sea ice....because the snow cover there in northern Siberia melted out earlier this year and that helps push warmer air closer to the ocean. IF we were having a warmer year on the other side of the arctic where the Beaufort and Chukchi are, then we might have had a chance at a new record, but those seas are lagging way behind on the melt this season which will prevent a new record unless something really crazy happens. If we look at the average temps (listed below) in the arctic basin (north of 70N) in the Dec-Mar time frame, we see how warm it was for some of those seasons between 2014-2018 when we were really lagging on the refreezing in the Chukchi. But the last 3 winters have cooled back closer to the late 2000s baseline. The question is whether we spike back up quickly to the 2014-2018 levels or if it takes another decade or two to consistently get there again. The arctic can be notoriously volatile on temp swings. 2000 -18.706 2001 -19.469 2002 -18.780 2003 -19.126 2004 -19.802 2005 -17.880 2006 -17.321 2007 -18.124 2008 -18.628 2009 -18.553 2010 -17.506 2011 -17.678 2012 -17.581 2013 -18.566 2014 -16.554 2015 -18.181 2016 -15.655 2017 -17.128 2018 -16.510 2019 -17.756 2020 -18.734 2021 -18.239

We need winter temps to warm more to get to reliably ice free summers. Right now we are kind of in a new equilibrium where most of the ice is first year ice but the winters are still cold enough to freeze the first year ice to near it's maximum thickness (around 2m). We've been flat on volume since 2010. The minimums are mostly dependent on weather...specifically May and June weather which iswhy we can forecast the area mins somewhat accurately at this point. We saw some extremely warm winters in the 2014-2018 time frame, but the most recent 3 winters since 2019 have sort of reverted to the late 2000s baseline. We'll have to see if we see them spike back up.

Given we're now past 7/1, it is time for the annual forecast. Quick update on standings: 2020: -430k 2019: -380k 2018: +390k 2017: +70k 2016: -180k 2015: +190k 2014: +320k 2013: +390k 2012: -590k 2011: -140k 2010: -310k 2009: +710k 2008: +280k 2007: -330k You can see last year's forecast here: And here is last year's verification: As for 2021.....below is what the final area would be if we followed the path of every other year from here on out. An example is that if we followed the path of 2012 from here on out and lost another 4.3 million sqkm of ice like that year did post-7/1, then we would finish at 2.7 million sq km. The reason the forecasts are pretty accurate is that area loss post-7/1 is pretty stable over time going back to 1979. There has been a bias toward a little bit higher in the post-2007 world, but it is much smaller than the differences we see prior to July 1st (i.e., most of the area loss can be explained by what happens prior to 7/1.) Two things stick out on the graph....one, is that any minimum above 4.00 million sq km is basically impossible no matter which path we follow. Nevermind that we haven't had an area min above 4.0 million sq km since 2006 anyway, but there isn't even a realistic shot at one this year like perhaps was plausible in years like 2014. Secondly, the chance at a new record minimum is basically impossible too. The two largest melt years post-7/1 were 1989 and 2016. You can see following both of their paths still only produces a min around 2.5 million sq km....well above the record-low 2.23 million sq km minimum in 2012. Given that information, I will use the post-2007 average as my baseline. I might even skew a little on the high side of that unlike last year because the forecast is quite stormy over the arctic basin for the foreseeable future. The EPS have a pretty strong vortex over the pole through mid-July which is wasting what's left of prime insolation season up there. Taking a post-2007 average result post-7/1 purely at face value would yield a minimum of 2.9 sq km in 2021. I'll skew just a touch higher than that based on the forecast and current distribution of the ice. So for an area minimum, I'll forecast 3.0 million sqkm +/- 300k. That would place 2021 around 8th lowest. Sea ice extent is a bit more fickle since compaction plays a larger part unlike area. But I'll go 4.3 million sq km on NSIDC extent +/- 500k. I have a larger range on the extent min since it has a much higher standard deviation than area.

7.09 million sq km is the NSIDC area today....usually I want to see something around 6.60 million sq km or lower by tomorrow to have a plausible shot at a new record. Preferably lower than 6.5 million sqkm.....2012 was 6.42 on the 7/1 data (which isn't reported until 7/2)

toss the 100F at BOS....esp with SW wind

NSIDC area numbers: 2021: 7.16 million sq km 2020: -90k 2019: -310k 2018: +450k 2017: +270k 2016: -20k 2015: +370k 2014: +360k 2013: +520k 2012: -450k 2011: -80K 2010: -360k 2009: +870k 2008: +510k 2007: -20k 2021 is somewhat on the lower end in the post-2007 era, but not threatening a new record. After two more days of data, I'll post my prediction for final minimum like every year. Unless we see some drastic changes, a new record min will be all but ruled out.

What's weird is max temps have risen faster since 2000 in the summer than min temps They've risen almost twice as fast here. Granted, only 20 year sample, but that is completely opposite of the trend from 1950-2000. Even weirder, the rest of the year has been the usual...min temps continue to rise much faster than max temps. But for the summer months, it has not followed that pattern the past 2 decades.

Agreed. Ten years doesn’t even change that much. Obviously there are some underlying factors that are different versus 20+ years ago, but it’s pretty silly to just discard analogs because of that. Let’s not act like previous ENSOs didn’t buck trends either or have weird things happen. Just last winter we kept mentioning how we were getting El Niño during a La Niña similar to what happened during a 4-6 week period in 1975-1976. Or how can we forget 1968-1969 acting like a La Niña.

Weaker Nina is often fine during multi-year...00-01, ‘08-‘09 and ‘17-‘18 were all during multi-year events. The stronger events seems to do worse multi-year but there are exceptions like ‘75-76.

Happy hour still exists in MA but they just work around the “law” they wrote for it. As others said, they usually make food super cheap. Or they will bundle the alcohol with food. You still have drink specials but they just make them for the whole evening. They can’t discount them just during the early hours.

Yeah here is the main site. I had linked to the map itself, but you can go to other regions from the main site. It's def nice to have a map that will catch the SPECIs http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/surface/

It actually updates like every 10-15 min. I didn't save a plot from this site for the ice storm, but one of my favorites that I did save was from April 4, 2016 when powder snow was falling right into Logan airport and it was in the 70s south of PHL. Don't typically get a gradient like that.

Rap real time is a good site too https://weather.rap.ucar.edu/surface/displaySfc.php?region=alb&endDate=20210617&endTime=-1&duration=0 It's the one I use the most for regional obs

The 2/1/21 storm definitely had one of the bigger coast to 128 gradients we've seen in a long time. As Scott and others have said for years, it was due to happen. The moisture was pretty incredible though in that. Most of my 17" fell in like 5 or 6 hours. I think you'd have to go back to January 3-4, 2003 to find a storm with that much coast to 128 gradient. There's been plenty of other storms since then with gradients, but not from "near zero to 3-4" of slop" on the coast to over a foot in like a 10-15 mile span since that '03 storm I don't think. Oct 2011, the gradient was more between 128 and 495....and February 24, 2010 was more of an elevation dependency....between like 495 and ORH hills. Jan 17-18, 2010 was kind of similar but not the prolific amounts. Coast got mostly skunked while 128 and westward had like 5-8"....but not over a foot. Maybe I'm missing another one in there somewhere but I don't think so. You prob have to go to 2003 to find one that big between coast and 128.

Around now is when we start tracking NSIDC area....and the reason I like to track this is NSIDC area is a good proxy for melt ponds due to the SSMI/S satellite it uses being "fooled" by melt ponds into thinking it is open water, so the area metrics respond to them. And we care about melt ponds in June because they are the best predictor of both minimum area and extent from this time range. Far better than extent metrics or non-SSMI/S area metrics. Anyways, 2021 area on 6/15 was 8.63 million sq km, here are how previous years were in relation to that number (negative means that year had less ice) 2020: -130k 2019: -370k 2018: +250k 2017: +200k 2016: -190k 2015: +40k 2014: +170k 2013: +280k 2012: -640k 2011: -110k 2010: -120k 2009: +750k 2008: +300k 2007: -50k

It can kill 60-70k actually....2017-2018 flu season had around that number. The "delta" variant breakthroughs aren't all that compelling unless they are killing vaccinated people.

That's probably the saddest part of it....the people who need help the most are on the receiving end of the violent crime surge.

There's always going to be some crime where a lot of people are living in high density....the way to measure it though is on a relative scale. Violent crime is absolutely surging right now compared to the normal pre-2020 baselines. That is not a good thing at all. It is what helped hollow out a lot of cities in the 1970s/1980s.

Prob not going to threaten the new record this year unless the pattern changes. The ensembles don't look overly exciting as they are producing a strengthening vortex over the CAB through the solstice. We need that to reverse and show strong high pressure to get the ice into better position to threaten 2012. We're kind of tracking the 2010s average on a lot of metrics at the moment.

Wow awesome pic Nick. Thats crazy for 10 days into June even up there.

The property value argument is a straw man because aesthetics isn’t a very convincing argument to a larger audience. The problem is you have some medium density communities that are very close to high density neighborhoods and amenities but don’t want to increase the density in their own little island. If you want to live in a low density area, there’s more than enough room in America, but you have to be willing to be well outside a major city.

Prob like 91 or 92?

Ok that is definitely wrong on the elevation then. It sounds like it is claiming the same location as the coop site in northern ORH but I believe that elevation was like 610 or 620 feet.

Yeah HOAs are not very common in New England....you do get them in those townhouse neighborhood a lot, but otherwise they are fairly rare.

Can't quite read that google doc....which ORH site is that? There's a good coop in northern ORH near Indian Lake that was around 600 feet which reported as the official site for years. 402 feet is really low....I wonder where that is. I think Lake Quinsigamond is the only place that is that low inside the city limits.