donsutherland1

JFK has been warmer than Central Park on a number of occasions in July. The last such time was 2009 (JFK: 73.68° and Central Park: 73.66°) The largest difference was 0.3° in 1969 (JFK: 75.0° and Central Park: 74.7°). It's only happened during cool July cases. 2025 would be the first very warm July case where JFK was warmer.

The first 10 days of July have been very warm across the New York City area. New York City-Central Park: 79.0° (27th warmest) New York City-JFK Airport: 79.7° (8th warmest) New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 81.0° (11th warmest) Newark: 82.2° (7th warmest) Mean monthly temperatures for cases with July 1-10 mean temperatures at or above the 2025 figures ere as follows: New York City-Central Park: 78.8° New York City-JFK Airport: 78.4° New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 81.1° (8th warmest) Newark: 80.8° Warm weather will continue through the weekend with temperatures reaching mainly the lower and middle 80s through the weekend. Some of the guidance suggests that another round of heat could develop early next week with temperatures returning to the upper 80s and perhaps lower 90s. No widespread and sustained excessive heat appears likely through mid-July. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around July 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.58°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +16.68 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.962 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 70% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal July (1991-2020 normal). July will likely finish with a mean temperature near 79.0° (1.5° above normal).

The Polynesian civilization prior to the arrival of Europeans in the early 18th century. I suspect that today’s teens will be among the leading edge of a generation or generations that won’t view fossil fuels as indispensable and will see the vast planet-scale harm they have inflicted and then will move aggressively to curb their burning, even if the short-term effect is disruptive.They won’t believe the past generations who propped up the fossil fuels-centric society have the standing to object, much less complain about disruptions. After all, had they pursued a very gradual phaseout, the warming would have been limited and the societal burden on the younger generations would have been much less than that which they will inherit.

I suspect that the increase in aerosols that drove the general cooling into the 1970s more than overcame the modest warming effects of the PDO- during the winters.

It's a choice. It's actually no different from the choice made at Easter Island to cut down the trees leading to complete deforestation. Unfortunately, I expect that humanity will maintain its present course, so I don't see big reductions in the burning of fossil fuels anytime soon. Thus, we'll probably see 3°C of warming, and perhaps more given recent findings related to cloud feedbacks, by 2100.

For eastern North America, the relationships are weak, especially for snowfall. Nevertheless, an increased tendency for the PDO to be negative would translate into some reduction in seasonal snowfall and also warmer winters. However as the relationships are weak, additional variables could, at times, more than compensate for the PDO's state.

IMO, it does a good job providing an overview of one of the major consequences of humanity's collective choice to continue to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I believe that Matt Luongo, one of the climate scientists on the interview, said it correctly when he stated that it is "a political and social decision on how much we want to not emit CO2." I believe a combination of motivated reasoning, cognitive psychological biases, limited leadership capacity, and structural realities of complex societies (built on a status quo foundation, poor capacity to make rapid changes due to the complex relationships involved, etc.) have shaped humanity's collective decision. There is some debate over whether the AMOC will completely break down or merely slow. In one recent surprise, scientists found that the SMOC (southern meridional overturning circulation off Antarctica has actually reversed. That outcome could lead to the oceans releasing some of the CO2 that they have absorbed. Moreover, because the ocean and atmosphere is coupled, the changes related to ocean currents have synoptic implications. The rapid warming of the Western Pacific Ocean's negative PDO-type circulation that is enhancing drought in the Southwest is one example.

The article is actually based around on the same paper.

Japan and South Korea have also been exceptionally warm.

That’s increases in SLP. That’s where things are trending concerning ridges/heat domes.

Climate change is forcing changes to predominant patterns. Here's the summer trend: The underlying paper can be found here: https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0187-62362024000100036&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

A new paper that just came out reaffirms the Western Pacific warming from climate change and notes how the atmosphere-ocean forcing is similar to that for a PDO- Excerpts concerning West Pacific Ocean Warming: The simulations with prescribed vegetation show that mid-Holocene reductions in winter precipitation result from a coupled ocean–atmosphere response centred in the Pacific Ocean excited by hemispheric warming. This is evident in a distinct pattern of SST changes over the North Pacific, with intense surface warming extending across the mid- to high-latitude western Pacific surrounded by a ‘horseshoe’ pattern of minimal surface warming or cooling to the east and a weak La Niña-like pattern in the tropical Pacific... This ocean temperature pattern is accompanied by a region of increased sea-level pressure over the North Pacific, indicating a weakened Aleutian Low. The North Pacific surface temperature and pressure patterns are reminiscent of the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation..., which has been implicated in the length and severity of historical wintertime precipitation deficits over the Southwest United States. However, unlike the observed PDO, which is a decadal-scale mode of variability presumed to be internally generated, in the mid-Holocene this pattern emerges as a sustained state in the North Pacific that dominates the climate over several millennia. The paper linked the pattern to decreased winter precipitation in the Southwest. So, as warming continues and the pattern becomes predominant, winter precipitation is expected to decline in an already dry region. The paper did not discuss implications for winters in eastern North America.

World Weather Attribution, along with Climate Central and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, published a report on notable heatwaves during the May 1, 2024-May 1, 2025 period. The report noted: The year 2024 was, once again, the hottest year on record, surpassing the previous year (2023). It also marked the fi rst year in which global temperatures were clearly 1.5°C or more above the pre-industrial average for the whole year. Each month from January to June 2024 was the hottest ever recorded for that respective month, while the rest of the year was only marginally cooler than the record-breaking period of July to December 2023. The year 2025 started with the hottest January ever recorded and the lowest amount of Arctic sea ice that a Northern Hemisphere winter has ever seen. This is not a surprise or an accident — the causes are well known and the impacts are devastating. The continued burning of coal, oil, and gas has released and accumulated enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 1.3°C (over a 5-year average) — and by more than 1.5°C in 2024 alone — compared to pre-industrial times. In 2024, as in recent years, human-induced climate change drove more intense and frequent extreme weather events, with heat waves clearly and dramatically affected. One illustration of this is the March 2025 heat wave in Central Asia, which was up to 10°C warmer than it would have been without human-induced climate change. Key findings: 4 billion people experienced at least 30 days of extreme heat. Extreme heat was defined as temperatures above the top 10% of readings during the 1991-2020 base period. In 195 countries, climate change had at least doubled the number of extremely hot days. The report can be found here.

Warm weather will continue through the weekend with temperatures reaching mainly the lower and middle 80s through the weekend. Some of the guidance suggests that another round of heat could develop early next week with temperatures returning to the upper 80s and perhaps lower 90s. No widespread and sustained excessive heat appears likely through mid-July. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around July 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.58°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +10.16 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +1.239 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 70% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal July (1991-2020 normal). July will likely finish with a mean temperature near 78.9° (1.4° above normal).

As Martz often does, he builds plausible-sounding strawmen to evade the points that had been made. Zeff wrote: Nuance is important: Zeff is referring to extreme rainfall events, increased likelihood of dangerous flooding, and explaining the basic physics (Clausius-Clapeyron equation) where a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (about 7% for every 1°C increase in temperature). Now, look carefully at Martz's summary paragraph aimed at debunking Zeff: I am a recent college graduate with a degree in meteorology. Zeff was replying to my post on social media, pointing out that he, and other climate activists, were ignoring basic scientific facts when they blamed man-made climate change for the tragic flooding in Texas. The truth is that the rainfall and flooding along the Guadalupe River were not historically unprecedented and had little, if anything, to do with climate change. Neither heavy rainfall nor river flooding has increased in the Texas Hill Country over the last six decades. Notice how Martz subtly shifts the goal posts: He shifts the parameters to "historically unprecedented" rainfall and flooding. There is a difference between extreme (let's say top 1% of events) events and unprecedented ones. Notice also that Martz failed to try to shoot down the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. He couldn't. So, the test concerns whether extreme rainfall amounts are increasing. For purposes of extreme events, I used the top 1% of events for the first-order stations for NWS San Antonio. Such stations have long periods of record. Their data is high quality. I used the 1951-1980 base period for the start of the comparison, because that is the NASA-GISS reference period. I used the most recent 30 years (1996-2025). The average rainfall for extreme (top 1%) of rainfall events is, in fact, increasing. 2-day periods were non overlapping. Thus, if January 1-2 and January 2-3 both appeared, the event with the lower 2-day amount was dropped, as a single event was involved. Increases were also present for the shorter 1950-1959 and 2016-2025 ten-year periods. It's better statistical practice to use 30-year periods. Now, notice further what Martz did: 1. He relied on EPA flood data that only goes to 2015. The data is obsolete for purposes of measuring a significant portion of the last 30-years, much less the last decade. Moreover, because it starts in 1965, it misses the timeframe to which Zeff had referred. 2. His rainfall chart concerned highest daily rainfall on an annual basis. But the flaws were as follows: a) he never listed the stations (key to reproducibility); b) he was measuring the top daily rainfall for a given year, which is bad methodology for measuring extreme events. Extreme events are not equally distributed. Some years contain clusters of them (e.g., 9 top 1% events for 1951-1980 for Del Rio occurred during 1969 while 1955 saw none; the Martz methodology would give equal weight to 1955 and 1969). Other years have none. Moreover, such events are not neatly limited to the daily period. They can occur over overlapping dates; c) his chart does not explain whether he took averages for the 21 COOP stations or used the highest value for the whole set. Given that extreme events can be local and discrete, averaging is bad methodology. Because the data for floods is dated, I make no assessment on that matter. Finally, Martz makes a claim about "Texas Hill country." In fact, Kerr County that saw the extreme flood (2nd highest crest on the Guadalupe River) has no stations with rainfall data in the 1950s and 2010-present. A few stations have data in the 1940s. The Kerrville station only goes back to 1974. Conclusion: 1. Martz did not debunk Zeff's observations 2. Martz did not provide data in a reproducible and transparent fashion 3. Martz used bad methodology for assessing extreme rainfall events 4. Martz made claims about a location for which data is sparse and cannot be used to assess Zeff's observations 5. Not specifically provided here, numerous attribution studies concerning excessive precipitation events have found linkages to climate change, consistent with what one would expect given the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. In the end, Martz's op-ed may win him points at the CFACT interest group where he works outside of the meteorology profession, but it wouldn't stand up to scientific rigor given the flaws related to transparency, reproducibility, and methodology.

Today was another very warm day. Highs included: Bridgeport: 88° Islip: 88° New York City-Central Park: 90° New York City-JFK Airport: 88° New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 92° Newark: 97° Warm weather will continue through the weekend with temperatures reaching mainly the lower and middle 80s through the weekend. Showers and thundershowers are possible through tomorrow. No widespread and sustained excessive heat appears likely through mid-July. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around July 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.58°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +2.65 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +1.289 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 68% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal July (1991-2020 normal). July will likely finish with a mean temperature near 78.8° (1.3° above normal).

With respect to summer highs (lowest at Central Park vs. JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark) and Newark (highest at Newark vs. Central Park, JFK, and LaGuardia), there has been a massive change at Central Park and a remarkably stable relationship at Newark. The dramatic change in relationship relative to the surrounding area suggests that Central Park has the much larger issue than Newark. This does not mean that Newark doesn't run slightly hot, but changes there have not altered its relationship to the overall region. Central Park: Newark: Temperature averages are adjusted through various quality control mechanisms, so the long-term climate record filters out such problems. The problems exist only when it comes to daily temperatures or extreme temperatures, which are taken from raw unadjusted values. Based on the pre-2000 regression equation, the most recent heatwave would have had a peak temperature of 102° at Central Park setting a new June mark. The actual figure of 99° will wind up being the month's extreme temperature in the climate record. The June monthly mean temperature will be subject to modest adjustment at some point for the long-term climate record. My guess is that there is a conscious choice to maintain things as they are, even as the raw numbers (particularly during full foliage season) have noted issues. Maintaining a long climate record is worth the trade-off among the key stakeholders, especially as the long-term numbers can be fixed to account for biases, etc.

Today's preliminary low temperature at Phoenix was 93°. if it holds, which is likely according to the guidance, that would tie the daily record set in 2021. Such exceptionally warm nights have exploded in number in recent years due to the combination of anthropogenic climate change and an escalating Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect. In the past, Phoenix's nights offered residents precious refuge from the day's heat. After long, scorching days under a relentless sun, the darkness would bring a faint coolness creeping back across the "Valley of the Sun." Then in 1989, something extraordinary and unsettling happened. On July 20, the thermometer refused to drop below 93°. At the time, this was a rare anomaly, a single mark in the long record of desert nights that goes back to August 1895. Throughout the 1990s, this eerie event remained nearly alone. Even as the City rapidly grew, there was just one other such night. Phoenix's residents could still count on most summer nights dipping into the 80s or sometimes the 70s, enough to sleep, to breathe, to recover. But there was a dramatic shift toward hotter nights as the 21st Century commenced, particularly when the 30-year moving average summer temperature broke through 92.5°. During 2000-09, there were 14 such lows. The following decade was even worse, with 19 such lows during 2010-19. Then, there was a "breakout" from Phoenix's record book during the 2020s. Since 2020, amidst a sputtering Monsoon, there have been 46 such lows (today would be #47). That's more than for all of the period of record prior to 2020. Moreover, the last year without a 93° or above low was 2016. Phoenix's 93° or Above Low Temperatures: Phoenix's Mean Summer Low Temperatures and Trend (1980-2024):

1.09" of rain in 16 minutes so far.

Yes, today was Newark’s fourth such day this year.

Today was the hottest day of the month, so far. Highs included: Bridgeport: 94° Islip: 92° New York City-Central Park: 93° New York City-JFK Airport: 93° New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 98° Newark: 100° Today was also the fourth time this year that all seven locations record highs of 90° or above. Parts of the region could experience a strong thunderstorm with damaging winds and/or heavy downpours. Tomorrow will turn somewhat cooler. Highs will generally reach the middle and upper 80s. Warm weather will continue through the weekend with temperatures reaching mainly the lower and middle 80s through the weekend. A thunderstorm is possible through at least Thursday. No widespread and sustained excessive heat appears likely through mid-July. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around July 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.58°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer. The SOI was +3.38 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +1.234 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 67% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal July (1991-2020 normal). July will likely finish with a mean temperature near 78.8° (1.3° above normal).

Foliage affects recent temperatures (late 1990s to present). More is involved for the "100s drought" in late July, including but not limited to stochastic variability.

JFK Airport has reached 90° for the ninth time this year. Only 2010 with 13 days through July 8th had more such days by this time of year.

JFK and Central Park had no 100° readings during that timeframe.

Perhaps it has a small impact. The coefficient of determination was very low (0.026).