donsutherland1

It’s far too soon to conclude that clouds will alleviate some of humanity’s burden of addressing climate change. In a few years, the answers to key cloud-related questions might become clearer. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2936/clouds-arctic-crocodiles-and-a-new-climate-model/

A general 0.50"-1.50" rain fell across the region today with locally higher amounts. Rainfall totals through 8 pm included: Atlantic City: 3.67" (old record: 1.21", 2018) Bridgeport: 1.95" (old record: 1.67", 1999) Islip: 2.68" (old record: 2.30", 2015) New York City-JFK: 1.13" New York City-LGA: 0.91" New York City-NYC: 0.66" Newark: 1.07" Philadelphia: 0.69" Wantagh, NY: 4.66" Sunshine will return tomorrow. Readings will likely reach the upper 70s and lower 80s across the area. Sunshine and cooler conditions are likely for the start of the weekend. The season's coolest air mass so far could arrive next week. Nevertheless, the first half of September will likely wind up somewhat warmer than normal. Beyond that, some of the guidance is hinting at a possible dramatic and sharp decline in the PNA. Such a pattern, should it develop, would favor a return to warmer and perhaps much warmer than normal conditions late in the month. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.6°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.9°C for the week centered around September 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -1.08°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.72°C. La Niña conditions are now developing. The SOI was +0.12. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.826. That is the highest figure since March 26 when the AO was +1.934. On September 9, the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 0.683 (RMM). The September 8-adjusted amplitude was 0.605. Since 1990, there have been 11 La Niña events, 6 of which followed an El Niño winter. 10/11 (91%) case saw warmer than normal September. All 6 following an El Niño winter were warmer than normal. September mean temperatures for New York City for those cases were: 11 cases: 69.9°; Subset of 6 cases: 70.8°; Entire 1990-2019 period: 69.0°. The September mean temperature for all La Niña and neutral-cool cases following an El Niño winter (1950-2019: n=13) was 69.9°. Overall, the evolution of ENSO, along with the observed ongoing monthly warming (1.6°/decade in NYC and 1.5°/decade in the Northeast Region during September 1990-2019), favors a warmer than normal September. Since 1950, there have been five cases where a La Niña developed during June-July-August or afterward following an El Niño winter. 4/5 (80%) of those cases saw a predominant EPO+/AO+ winter pattern. The most recent such case was 2016-17. 9/10 (90%) of the La Niña winters that followed an El Niño winter featured a predominantly positive EPO. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 58% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal September. September will likely finish with a mean temperature near 69.3°. Finally,on September 9, Arctic sea ice extent was 3.586 million square kilometers (JAXA). Based on 2010-2019 data, the highest 25% bound is 3.742 million square kilometers. The lowest 25% bound is 3.581 million square kilometers. 2020 is the second consecutive year with a minimum extent figure below 4.000 million square kilometers and the third such year on record. 2020 also has, by far, the second lowest figure on record.

Thanks Skierinvermont. I made the correction.

No. Implied TCR should not be confused with TCR associated with a doubling of CO2. From the paper’s supporting information: Implied TCR is defined as the ratio between the change in temperature and the change in external forcing over the model projection period, for both models and observations. It is referred to as ‘implied’ as it differs from the traditional definition of TCR, which is typically based on idealized experiments where CO2 is increased by 1% per year (IPCC 2001).

A paper on the performance of the climate models: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

Actually, it is the UAH data that is likely flawed: https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

Here is a key finding from a relevant paper that removed the impact of ENSO: We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

It seems like a tiny number, but it’s cumulative impact has been profound: dramatic rise in global temperatures since 1950, large rise in OHC, sea level rise (thermal expansion and melting ice from Greenland, Antarctica, etc.), loss of mass from Greenland/Antarctica, diminishing Arctic sea ice extent, shifts in flora, etc. All of this has happened within a few decades, not a long geological timeframe. These changes in a compressed timeframe are astonishing.

Argo floats, satellite measurements of solar irradiance, satellite measurements of ice melt, etc. all provide data for measuring the energy imbalance.

Great point regarding the energy imbalance. The recent paper revealing the energy imbalance had an error bar of 0.12 w/m2. That the earth has already experienced dramatic and sustained warming is evidence of that imbalance. The idea that a significant imbalance might not exist (be an error) is implausible.

Over the past hour, Islip picked up 1.95" rain. That brought today's total to 2.53". That surpasses the previous daily record of 2.30", which was set in 2015.

Morning thoughts... At 8:40 am, a batch of heavy rain was moving northeastward across Long Island and into eastern New England. Another batch of heavy rain was located in eastern Virginia and southern Maryland. Through 8 am, daily rainfall amounts included: Atlantic City: 1.36" (old record: 1.21", 2018) Bridgeport: 0.29" Islip: 0.58" New York City: 0.29" Newark: 0.41" Today will be mainly cloudy with periods of rain and perhaps some thunderstorms. Some of the rain could be heavy. While much of the region will pick up 0.50"-1.50" rain, there will be an area of 1"-3" rainfall that will cut across parts of the region. Temperatures will likely reach mainly the upper 70s and lower 80s across much of the region. Likely high temperatures around the region include: New York City (Central Park): 79° Newark: 80° Philadelphia: 81° Somewhat warmer than normal conditions will likely prevail through much of the week. Cooler air could arrive late in the week providing for an early taste of autumn this weekend.

Thanks for sharing this personal account. I do remember some of the past discussions at Eastern on the topic of climate change. To be fair, even as the body of evidence at the time turns out to have been fairly substantial, there was much less access to research papers and data sets back then. I think that the biggest test for anyone intellectually is the capacity to change one’s view to fit the evidence. The easier and more destructive path is to filter or reject the evidence to maintain one’s view. Where one winds up based on the evidence is far more important than one’s starting point. The problem of climate change and its urgency is of even greater magnitude than what I had thought back then. IMO, with hindsight from what happened over the years, the skeptics never really had a body of scientific work on which to base their position. As each one of their hypotheses—bad temperature measurements, claims that the energy imbalance was an artifact of measurement limitations, the sun had caused the warming, the oceans were responsible, cosmic rays were to blame, etc.—were blown out of the water, the futility of their position was exposed. As that happened, they increasingly resorted to attacks on the climate scientists, with some even claiming that climate scientists are not real “scientists.” Their evasions of the issue grew more desperate. Today, their remaining shield is comprised of appeals to uncertainty in detail and appeals to hopeless complexity, along with labeling (attaching the prefix “catastrophic” to “AGW” to denigrate scientific understanding). Uncertainties exist. Nuances exist. Details at the smaller-scale e.g., cloud responses, are still not well understood (although in this area, early evidence also does not favor the skeptics given data on northward shifts in clouds and high clouds forming at higher altitudes). For all that, the scientific verdict is unambiguous and unequivocal: the observed warming is real and significant and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the prime driver of this warming. There is no other plausible alternative explanation. Despite the lines of evidence in paleoclimatology (ice cores, coral, sediments, tree rings, pollen, leaf wax, etc.) and nature’s observed response to warming (shifting flora, receding glaciers, falling summer and annual Arctic sea ice extent, rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme weather or fires), the reality is many of the loudest skeptics ignore all of this evidence. Many now principally found on Social Media (especially Twitter) have become prisoners of their own biases and wishes. Long story short, people who allow their thinking to evolve based on the growing body of evidence deserve credit. There is never any shame in one’s having changed or adjusted one’s positions in light of evidence. That is a courageous and enlightened intellectual approach. That’s what learning is. Defending and maintaining one’s positions despite the evidence—even when they are no longer sustainable in any reasonable examination of affairs—is the far worse course.

On the issue of oceans, here’s a link to a paper that was published earlier this year: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf

An insightful piece from CBS meteorologist Jeff Berardelli: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-extreme-weather-wildfires-snow-jet-stream/

Tomorrow will be mostly cloudy and very humid. Showers and heavy thunderstorms are likely. Overall, much of the region will likely pick up 0.50"-1.50" rain with some locally higher amounts. Overall, the first half of September will likely wind up somewhat warmer than normal. An autumn-like air mass will likely arrive late this week. Another cool air mass could arrive next week. Beyond that, some of the guidance is hinting at a possible dramatic and sharp decline in the PNA. Such a pattern, should it develop, would favor a return to warmer and perhaps much warmer than normal conditions late in the month. Numerous record low temperatures were established overnight in the Rockies and parts of the Southwest. Select low temperatures included: Albuquerque: 39° (old record: 43°, 1915) Amarillo: 37° (old record: 44°, 1941) Casper: 25° (old record: 29°, 1962) Colorado Springs: 30° (tied record set in 1941) El Paso: 53° (old record: 55°, 1882 and 2004) Denver: 30° (old record: 31°, 1962) Lander, WY: 23° (old record: 26°, 1903 and 1962) Snowfall totals through September 8 included: Burris (11 WSW), WY: 17.0" Casper: 7.5" Cheyenne: 1.1" Denver: 1.0" Lander: 4.7" At Denver, yesterday's 1.0" snow followed a four-day heat wave. The temperature on September 7 reached 93°. That was Denver's highest temperature one day before the city received measurable snowfall. The previous record was 92° on September 12, 1993. At the Rapid City National Weather Service Office in East Rapid City, September 5 saw the temperature reach 102°. Just two days later on September 7, 1.0" snow was measured. The air mass responsible for the record cold could send the temperature below 70° tonight in Phoenix. Temperatures below 70° on September 10 or earlier have become very uncommon occurrences. The last time the temperature was in the 60s on or before September 10 was August 28, 2008 when the mercury fell to 64°. The number of occurrences by recent decade are below: 1970s: 9 days 1980s: 6 days 1990s: 3 days 2000s: 1 day 2010s: None The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.6°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.9°C for the week centered around September 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -1.08°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.72°C. La Niña conditions are now developing. The SOI was -6.00. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.381. On September 8, the MJO was in Phase 3 at an amplitude of 0.605 (RMM). The September 7-adjusted amplitude was 0.750. Since 1990, there have been 11 La Niña events, 6 of which followed an El Niño winter. 10/11 (91%) case saw warmer than normal September. All 6 following an El Niño winter were warmer than normal. September mean temperatures for New York City for those cases were: 11 cases: 69.9°; Subset of 6 cases: 70.8°; Entire 1990-2019 period: 69.0°. The September mean temperature for all La Niña and neutral-cool cases following an El Niño winter (1950-2019: n=13) was 69.9°. Overall, the evolution of ENSO, along with the observed ongoing monthly warming (1.6°/decade in NYC and 1.5°/decade in the Northeast Region during September 1990-2019), favors a warmer than normal September. Since 1950, there have been five cases where a La Niña developed during June-July-August or afterward following an El Niño winter. 4/5 (80%) of those cases saw a predominant EPO+/AO+ winter pattern. The most recent such case was 2016-17. 9/10 (90%) of the La Niña winters that followed an El Niño winter featured a predominantly positive EPO. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 60% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal September. September will likely finish with a mean temperature near 69.5°.

Yes, there’s a lag. That’s why scientists refer to “committed warming.”

In a paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research on August 20, 1988, Dr. James Hansen and seven co-authors wrote, "Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability." They explained that if the temperature "rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is about 0.4°C for 99% confidence (3σ), it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship i.e., a 'smoking gun,' in current vernacular.” Today, global temperatures are routinely more than 0.4°C above what they were in 1988. That forecast for greenhouse gas warming was arguably the greatest long-range weather or climate forecast ever made. In the research that built upon that work and new findings that followed, the world's climate scientists warned that adding heat to the global climate system would lead to more weather extremes (temperature, precipitation, drought, and storms). They warned that the consequences of such extremes would be severe. Last year, Europe experienced its worst heat waves in history. At the height of the extreme heat, Paris saw the temperature soar to a previously unthinkable 109°. Anchorage reached 90° for the first time on record in a summer that saw June, July, and August all set monthly records for warmth. This year, Siberia was gripped by exceptional warmth that saw the temperature soar to 100° within the Arctic Circle. Phoenix experienced its warmest summer on record. Death Valley registered a 130° temperature, which is likely the highest reliably recorded temperature in world history during the instrument record. Greater heat, more prolonged heat waves, and more frequent compound high minimum and maximum temperature extremes were forecast by the climate scientists. Those forecasts proved accurate. Australia's record-breaking fire season of summer 2019-20 was no fluke. The West Coast's current fire season, its worst fire season on record, which has already seen 2.3 million acres burned in California, is no random occurrence either. A growing body of scientific literature revealed the growing risk of a hellish trinity of heat, drought, and fire. In an act of responsible journalism, The Washington Post linked the raging West Coast wildfires to climate change explaining, "The wildfires come after a record-shattering heat wave and amid human-caused climate change that is heightening fire risks, along with temperatures, in the West." Such context is the lowest common denominator of sound journalism in the era of climate change. Imagine, for a second that seasonal forecasts for the winter ahead or summer ahead calling for one's preferred weather verified over and over and over again. One would hail those making the forecasts. Such acclaim has not been showered on the world's climate scientists. Yet, the level of skill described above in the hypothetical seasonal forecasts has actually been demonstrated by the world's climate scientists, at least as far as the cause of climate change and its big picture implications are concerned. They have been right over and over again. That public policy has been frozen does not detract from the outstanding results they have demonstrated from their work. The enormous body of evidence built by the world's climate scientists coupled with the lack of a body of evidence for alternative explanations of even a fraction of this evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable explanation for the observed warming since the mid-20th century except for anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Human activities and the greenhouse gases emitted from those activities--not the sun, not the oceans, and not "hail Mary" appeals to cosmic rays--are the principal driver of the observed warming. The case for AGW has been proved in the scientific literature. AGW has been experienced by people in real life in the now annual or more frequent return of "once-in-a generation" or even "hundred-year" events. Human greenhouse gas emissions are now leaving behind the world in which humans first evolved and bestowing on future generations a completely different world in which humans might never have evolved. The scientific arguments are over. The scientific debate has ended. Society has a moral obligation to render the correct verdict based solely on the evidence before it. The case for AGW has been proved. It has been proved well beyond the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Now, concrete action must follow.

During 1971-2018, 89% of the earth's growing energy imbalance was stored in the oceans. That has led to rising oceanic heat content at all depths. Source: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf With the earth experiencing a persistent positive energy imbalance (now +0.87 W/m^2), of which the overwhelming share is being stored in the oceans driving rising oceanic heat content at all depths, what would trigger a large-scale sustained oceanic cooling cycle? Such an event is not realistic as long as the energy imbalance persists.

I might be a bit pessimistic, but I suspect that it will take either the Millennial Generation or Generation Z to bring about the big changes needed. By that time, the societal commitment to even greater warming will already have been made by current policy choices. Tragically, the status quo has too much momentum at present. Generations preceding the Millenial Generation are, by and large, overly committed to the status quo. We are exceptions to that condition. These earlier generations see fossil fuels as an immutable part of the energy landscape. In contrast, at least the early opinion polling shows that the Millennials reject notions of a fossil fuel constraint. They don't see the industry as "untouchable." But for now, their political influence is limited. Historic experience reveals that societies can make great technological leaps over very short periods of time. Development of the atomic bomb, the technologies needed to reach and return from the moon safely, and the rapid emergence and development of the Internet and related technologies provide some examples. The energy sector, with some modest exceptions, has been relatively stagnant when compared against the above examples. Advances have been incremental e.g., how to extract hard-to-reach fossil fuels via fracking, etc., as opposed to the development of carbon free sources despite the companies' possessing enormous financial resources and engineering talent. Absent sustained and growing pressure for big and rapid change e.g., the kind of pressure present during the Manhattan Project, large parts of the energy sector could well remain a relative backwater. The Millennials and Generation Z will likely place increasing pressure for big breakthroughs through their societal choices. Both see addressing climate change as the biggest and most urgent issue confronting their generation. As their political clout grows, they will likely favor policy changes that require fossil fuel companies to pay for externalities associated with carbon pollution--and yes, pollution is the correct term, as excessive dumping of even naturally-occurring compounds can be hazardous to the environment. Once that happens, the balance of incentives will shift toward carbon-free energy. Ensuring that fossil fuel producers pay the full costs of their carbon pollution would probably accomplish far more than simply eliminating tax expenditures that help incentivize such production. One complicating factor is that certain countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, even if the U.S. changes its policy course, may stubbornly persist in producing and marketing fossil fuels. They may even subsidize them to a greater extent than exists today to keep such energy sources viable.

.87. Small typo on my part, but a huge problem were the mistyped figure accurate.

Morning thoughts... Today will be partly to mostly cloudy. Showers could arrive in parts of the area late in the day or at night. Temperatures will likely reach the lower 80s across much of the region. Likely high temperatures around the region include: New York City (Central Park): 81° Newark: 82° Philadelphia: 82° Somewhat warmer than normal conditions will likely prevail through much of the week. Cooler air could arrive late in the week. September 9 has the lowest figure for record daily precipitation in Central Park. The record is just 0.86", which was recorded in 1903. Records go back to 1869.

The idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant forcing driving the observed warming is settled. That’s a fairly narrow point. There is no compelling alternative explanation in the literature. That’s why the IPCC is considering upgrading its assessment to 99%-100% confidence in that idea. In the larger scheme of things, nuances and uncertainties exist. Questions about feedbacks persist. Finally, a newly published paper found that the earth’s energy imbalance has increased to +.87 W/m^2 in recent years. That may seem small, but it’s a very large imbalance.

Decades. As far back as the 1930s the risks associated with tobacco had become clear. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK294310/

I would hope that humanity would act to avert the worst of climate change.