donsutherland1

We have both discussed it. It’s laughable to think that sea level rise in Miami has zero cost. By 2100, the sea will be 0.7-1.1 meters above its 2000 level (intermediate-low to intermediate scenarios) for the Southeast. By 2150, the numbers are 1.1-2.1 meters. There is no magical solution to avoid the ocean’s reclaiming land at such changes. Source: https://earth.gov/sealevel/us/internal_resources/756/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

A colder than normal pattern has now moved into place. A prolonged stretch of below normal temperatures will likely continue into or through the second week of December. December 1-10 will be a solidly colder than normal period. The potential exists for the coldest first days of December since at least 2007 (33.4°, 5th coldest December 1-10 since 2000). The five coldest December 1-10 periods since 2000 were: 1. 30.6°, 2002 2. 32.2°, 2003 3. 32.4°, 2000 4. 33.1°, 2005 5. 33.4°, 2007 All 5 of these cases had measurable snowfall in Central Park. A storm will affect the region on tomorrow into Wednesday, bringing 0.50"-1.50" precipitation to the region. Some wet snowflakes are possible in and around New York City early on, but no accumulation is likely. Interior sections have the highest probability of seeing accumulations of snow. Binghamton and portions of northwest New Jersey will likely see 3"-6" of snow with some locally higher amounts. Albany could see 4"-8" of snow. The coldest air mass so far this season could move into the region late in the week. The temperature will likely tumble into the 20s Thursday night into Friday in New York City. Another system could bring some light precipitation to the region during the weekend. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.1°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.6°C for the week centered around November 26. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.18°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.67°C. La Niña conditions will likely continue through at least mid-winter. The SOI was -12.82 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.520 today.

Exactly. They dismiss the simple watt-for-watt comparability of energy sources because they still imagine a world where fossil fuels are the superior source of energy. They rage against any acknowledgment of implicit subsidies, because recognition of those costs reveal how the playing field has been tilted toward fossil fuels for generations. They pretend the economic, environmental, and social costs of engineering a hotter planet are $0, because only that fiction allows them to erase the mounting bill for continuing to choose to burn carbon at a massive scale. A $0 assumption also allows them to set aside the profound ethical choices involved in continuing to reject less expensive and cleaner alternatives for fossil fuels. Trapped in a worldview shaped by the sunk-cost fallacy, they insist that yesterday’s benefits justify tomorrow’s risks. They cling to the comforts of the past as if nostalgia could grant immunity from the consequences for their shortsighted choice. In doing so, they gamble the future on the belief that the benefits of yesterday’s energy can somehow cancel out the costs of the world it is relentlessly warming.

All New York City area locations saw below normal precipitation.

I suspect other factors are involved. The lag time would be too short to attribute the development to the recent SSWE.

Personally, I think that there should be a headline. Even if NYC, its nearby suburbs, and Long Island won't be getting much, if any, snowfall, parts of the forum will.

November outcomes for New York City:

3"-6" seems realistic for Orange County (as for my sister in Milford, PA). This should be a nice event to get the winter season started.

Implicit subsidies are based on imperfect estimates. But they recognize that there are real costs. Those costs are substantial even if they are estimates. One need not agree on the exact figure ($7.1 trillion) to recognize that they are very large. A framework that assumes that such costs don't exist is wholly unrealistic. Also, the IMF's working papers are not scientific in nature. They are estimates for policy makers. Finally, I recognize that there have been subsidies for renewable energy e.g., as one witnessed with the Inflation Reduction Act. An "infant industry" argument can be made. Energy has been a highly subsidized field. One finds a range of tax deductions, credits, and subsidies i.e., a deduction for intangible drilling costs, depletion allowances, accelerated depreciation for oil and gas infrastructure, etc. Unlike some of the renewable technologies, the fossil fuel industry is anything but an infant industry.

Without doubt, fossil fuel interests and their allies reject the concept of implicit subsidies. Even as implicit subsidies are estimates, they are premised on the reality that that the burning of fossil fuels leads to an increase in particulate matter, dumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and drives changes in climate that have significant societal costs and even larger long-term costs associated with lost economic output, human health, climate change-enhanced disasters, etc. The question isn't whether such costs exist. They do. It isn't whether they are significant. They are. The only meaningful question concerns the exact magnitude of such costs. Estimating implicit subsidies is a far more realistic practice than relying exclusively on an explicit subsidies-only framework. An explicit subsidies-only framework rests on the fatally-flawed assumption that there are no costs from the burning of fossil fuels beyond those captured in explicit subsidies. Implicit subsidies provide a fuller and much more realistic picture. It's obviously a picture the fossil fuel interests seek to mask, much as the tobacco interests had done in the face of rising lung cancer cases and other smoking-related conditions decades earlier. It is also no less unethical than the deceptive practices deployed by the embattled tobacco industry at that time. Fossil fuel interests, who are largely responsible for the problem of anthropogenic climate change, want to dictate the rules by which society views energy in general and costs of energy in particular. They don't want society to accept that there are better, cleaner, less costly alternatives for a growing share of energy needs. The International Monetary Fund chooses to provide a fuller picture. It isn't perfect, but it is far more complete than one the fossil fuel interests seek to paint.The IMF's framework is far more accurate than any simplistic framework that treats the implicit subsidies associated with the burning of fossil fuels as $0.

A cooler than normal November is concluding. New York City is finishing with a monthly mean temperature of 47.2°, which is 0.8° below normal (0.5° below the older 1981-2010 baseline). A cold front will bring showers tonight into early tomorrow. Afterward, a prolonged stretch of below normal temperatures will likely continue into or through the second week of December. December 1-10 will be a solidly colder than normal period. The potential exists for the coldest first days of December since at least 2010 (34.6°, 6th coldest December 1-10 since 2000). The five coldest December 1-10 periods since 2000 were: 1. 30.6°, 2002 2. 32.2°, 2003 3. 32.4°, 2000 4. 33.1°, 2005 5. 33.4°, 2007 All 5 of these cases had measurable snowfall in Central Park. A storm will affect the region on Tuesday into Wednesday, bringing 0.50"-1.50" precipitation to the region. There is a distinct possibility that New York City could see its first measurable snowfall of the season, even as the storm will be mainly a rain event. Interior sections have the highest probability of seeing accumulations of snow. The coldest air mass so far this season could move into the region late in the week. The temperature will likely tumble into the 20s Thursday night into Friday in New York City. Another system could bring some light precipitation to the region during the weekend. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.7°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.7°C for the week centered around November 12. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.16°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.65°C. La Niña conditions will likely continue through at least mid-winter. The SOI was -2.04 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.064 today.

TEMP _________DCA _ NYC _ BOS __ ORD _ ATL _ IAH __ DEN _ PHX _ SEA -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -3.3 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.1 SNOW _______ DCA _ NYC _ BOS ___ ORD ____DTW ___ BUF __ DEN _ SEA _ BTV 10.0" 20.0" 40.0" 37.5" 45.0" 92.0" 40.0" 6.5" 80.0"

For perspective, no industry comes close to the explicit and implicit subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry. From the IMF:

Some December Snowfall Statistics: For Philadelphia, the December date(s) with the highest frequency of each snowfall threshold is: Measurable snowfall: December 14 and December 29: 15 occurrences 1.0" or more snow: December 5 and December 26: 10 occurrences 6.0" or more snow: December 19 and December 26: 3 occurrences 10.0" or more snow: December 26: 2 occurrences

The 11/30 0z and 6z GEFS has returned to a warmer outlook for much of North America after December 10th. It offers a credible alternative scenario. I'm still going with the EPS/ECMWF weeklies, as the GEFS has shown inconsistency. Moreover, the size of the rebound in temperatures (December 11-20 vs. December 1-10) would be both extreme and rare. Nevertheless, a look at the alternative scenario is still in order as a muted variation is plausible. The GEFS's development of a fairly strong PNA- is the key variable differentiating it from the colder baseline idea shown on the EPS. The latest two cycles of the GEFS show the development of a WPO-/EPO+/AO-/PNA- pattern. The GEFS maps are consistent with the largest cluster for the December 5-15 period (39%) of cases. WPO-/EPO+/AO-/PNA- Maps (Largest December 5-15 cluster): 500 mb Height Anomalies: Temperature Anomalies: GEFS (11/30 6z cycle): Days 11-15: 500 mb Height Anomalies (5-day average): Temperature anomalies (5-day average):