donsutherland1

Light rain and drizzle gave way to fog as temperatures rose into the lower 50s this afternoon. Two photos:

I've always favored political reforms aimed at full disclosure that eliminates "dark money." All donors and amounts should be transparent so that the electorate can make an informed judgment. Hopefully, that issue will be addressed in the not-too-distant future. Lobbying is a trickier issue. At present, it is protected under the First Amendment. Individuals can come together in various ways to engage in the political process. Enforcement issues could also arise, as what would stop a Senator, for example, from meeting with CEOs of various companies doing business in his/her State. Barring participation of those who have potential conflicts of interest from serving on regulatory agencies would be an easier and almost certainly constitutional fix. The regulatory process allows input from all parties, so all parties have a fair chance to make their case.

There are several suboptimal reactions that have occurred (based largely on policy changes, Social Media activity of those within or aligned with the current Administration): 1. A small number increasingly accept the evidence for climate change, but they have little clout. 2. Some choose to impose the artificial constraint of "helplessness." From there standpoint, there's nothing that can be done. Thus, they find comfort in maintaining a business as usual course. 3. Others continue to reject scientific understanding of climate change. Part of this group rejects the scientific basis outright. Others take a more sophisticated approach in their denialism by consistently downplaying its impacts, amplifying uncertainties far beyond the narrow areas in which they exist, and pointing to forcings to be discovered/determined later that are natural. Some disguise their denialism with caveats, essentially stating/writing: "Anthropogenic climate change is real but..." What follows the conjunction is a defense of the status quo, doing nothing, discrediting climate scientists, etc.

As the world's largest ocean, most of the world's oceanic heat content is there. That's why what happens in the Pacific region can have global consequences. Extreme developments in the Atlantic can also have a global impact, at times, but the Atlantic's overall influence is notably less than that of the Pacific.

The GEFS has continued to shift toward a higher amplitude passage through the Maritime Continent. I suspect that's part of the reason the 6z GEFS showed a fleeting flattening of the ridge and then its rebound in the extended range.

I don't disagree that some societal-level changes will be needed/will occur if society makes a credible move toward a carbon neutral status. However, that should not mean that living standards must automatically deteriorate in a material fashion. If that becomes the cost, society will almost certainly choose adaptation. Ultimately, though, fossil fuels are not renewable, so a post-fossil fuel era will arrive. Hopefully, the changes will be made in a timely fashion to mitigate the worst of the anthropogenic warming, but so far with a few small exceptions e.g., New Zealand, the world remains largely on autopilot, even in countries that have devoted bold rhetoric to the issue of climate change. Policy changes matter far more than words.

There remains broad agreement among the ECMWF, GEFS, and bias-corrected GEFS that the MJO will be progressing to Phase 4 at an amplitude in excess of +1.500. Afterward, it should progress into Phase 5. The result will be a pattern that favors ridging in the means from January 10-17 and perhaps somewhat longer. Afterward, if past cases of such high amplitude MJO passages through Phase 4 during the January 5-20 period are representative, it should move toward and likely into Phases 7 and 8, if only for a short time. In a majority of cases, the 500 mb pattern changes dramatically to one that favors a ridge in the West and trough in the East. However, in a not insignificant cluster of cases, the pattern adjusts somewhat, but ridging continues to predominate in the East. 15-day Mean 500 mb Anomalies for the period beginning 10 days after the MJO Peaks in Phase 4 at an amplitude of +1.500 or above during the January 5-20 period: One teleconnection appears to offer insight into how the pattern will evolve. All of the cases that went into the cluster that saw ridging persist in the East had a PNA that remained persistently and predominantly negative.

Time will tell whether Gupta's hypothesis has merit. The younger generations are far more engaged and, quite frankly more knowledgeable about climate change, than many of their parents' and grandparents' generation. They understand the implications of a status quo approach. Polling outcomes and engagement on the issue provide evidence toward that end. They have become the leading advocates for addressing climate change. It's premature to speculate much about their impact once they gain policy making influence, but my hypothesis is that they will move more aggressively than today's leaders. Moreover, they will make some decisive choices that impinge on the policy preferences of those who back the status quo.

New Research: AMO, PDO Appear not to Exist... The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) do not appear to exist, according to a team of meteorologists who believe this has implications for both the validity of previous studies attributing past trends to these hypothetical natural oscillations and for the prospects of decade-scale climate predictability. Using both observational data and climate model simulations, the researchers showed that there was no consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that could be differentiated from climatic noise—random year to year variation. The only verifiable oscillation is the well-known El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). "A distinct—40 to 50 year timescale—spectral peak that appears in global surface temperature observations appears to reflect the response of the climate system to a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing rather than any intrinsic internal oscillation," the researchers report today (Jan. 3) in Nature Communications. https://phys.org/news/2020-01-atlantic-pacific-oscillations-lost-noise.html The paper can be found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w

Temperatures continued to run above normal in the region. In the Southeast, record high temperatures were tied and toppled. Select records there included: Jacksonville: 85° (tied January record set on January 30, 2013); Pensacola: 79°; Savannah: 80°; and, Wilmington, NC: 77° (tied daily record). Some of this warmth will push northward for a day tomorrow. Readings could soar into the middle and even upper 60s in such cities as Baltimore and Washington and into the middle 50s into southern New England. The first week of the month remains on track to average 5° or more above normal across much of the region. New York City will likely have a mean temperature of 40° or above. Since 1869, there were 23 cases when the first week of January had a mean temperature of 40° or above in New York City. In 17 (74%), January wound up warmer than normal and in 12 (52%), January had a mean temperature of 35° or above. The average monthly temperature for January for all 23 cases was 36.0° (median temperature: 35.6°). A short-duration cold shot is possible after the first week of January. A small window of opportunity for at least some snowfall in the region and especially across central/upstate New York and New England could exist until around January 10. Based on the forecast strongly positive AO, the probability of a significant (6" or greater snowstorm) for the major cities of the Middle Atlantic region during the first 10 days of January is low. Since 1950, the biggest snowfall for that region when the AO was +2.000 or above during the January 1-15 period occurred during January 14-15, 1954 when Philadelphia received 3.0" snow and New York City picked up 2.0". Boston has had numerous 6" or greater snowstorms during such cases, including one 10" or greater snowstorm. Therefore, the risk of significant snow would likely be greatest over New England assuming this relationship holds (no significant offsetting variables). Such a scenario does not preclude the possibility of a light snow event across parts of the region during this timeframe, particularly during the January 5-9 period. Afterward, a tendency for ridging with warmer than normal temperatures prevailing will very likely develop during the latter part of the second week of the month and persist through at least mid-month. Afterward, the progression of the MJO and state of the teleconnections will determine the pattern evolution for the second half of the month. Right now, there is strong consensus between the EPS and GEFS that the PNA will remain negative to strongly negative past mid-month. That typically translates in warm anomalies in the Middle Atlantic region. For the January 16-31, 1981-2019 period, the mean temperature for New York City and Philadelphia was 32.2° and 32.1° respectively. When the PNA was negative, those values were 34.2° and 34.1° respectively. The coldest mean temperatures for PNA- periods occurred when the EPO and AO were both negative. The warmest occurred when the EPO and AO were both positive. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.4°C for the week centered around December 25. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.27°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.48°C. The remainder of winter 2019-2020 will likely feature neutral-warm to weak El Niño conditions. The SOI was -7.34 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +2.949. No significant stratospheric warming event appears likely through January 12, several periods of warming appear likely to develop in the upper stratosphere and approach or reach 5 mb over the next 10 days. Wave 2 activity will remain relatively muted following the first week of the month. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS. On January 2, the MJO was in Phase 8 at an amplitude of 0.516 (RMM). The January 1-adjusted amplitude was 0.558.

I agree. While most cases where the MJO reached Phase 4 at very high amplitude during January 5-20 progressed to Phases 7 and 8, there were a cluster of such cases where ridging on the East Coast persisted in the means in the period 10-25 days after the MJO peaked in Phase 4. January 1990 is one such example. The cluster is sufficiently large relative to the whole sample that the scenario cannot be dismissed just yet. If it plays out, then the second half of January would wind up warmer than normal overall, even if colder air arrives late in the month.

I'm sorry to learn that Snow88's attempt to block your punt failed. On a more serious note, there continue to be some indications of a pattern evolution that would allow for the last week of the month to wind up colder than normal (probably nothing exceptional, though). Such cold likely won't preclude January from winding up much warmer than normal across the region. Still, that's way out and a lot can change.

Leadership deficits don't confine themselves to single issues. They constrain decision making overall and impact multiple issues. Political self-preservation overrides the national welfare/national interest when conflicts arise between the two.

I suspect that what's going on in Australia is a product of larger developments (including the steady expansion of SSTA changes in the Pacific) that is increasing the MJO's stay in the Maritime Continent phases. That outcome further tilts the probabilities toward a warmer winter outcome than would otherwise be the case.

It is horrific. Another terrible weekend lies ahead.

The proverbial seeds leading to this outcome probably went back to at least the 1970s. The threshold of leadership failure is more recent. Even during the 1980s and 1990s, problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole were tackled. I doubt that would be the case today. The next generation could offer more hope, especially as it faces much greater exposure to the risks of climate change and will have a costs-benefits perspective that differs from today's status quo-oriented one.

I agree concerning Antarctic ice melt accelerating. I was focused on the Arctic. Australia remains on a bad climate and bad policy course (still expanding coal production). It remains uncertain whether this season's historic fire season will prove to be a political game-changer there.

Under partly sunny skies, readings across the region topped out in the upper 40s and lower 50s. The first week of the month remains on track to average 5° or more above normal across much of the region. A short-duration cold shot is possible late in the first week of January into part of the second week. This cold shot could provide a window of opportunity for at least some snowfall in the region and especially across central/upstate New York and New England. Based on the forecast strongly positive AO, the probability of a significant (6" or greater snowstorm) for the major cities of the Middle Atlantic region during the first 10 days of January is low. Since 1950, the biggest snowfall for that region when the AO was +2.000 or above during the January 1-15 period occurred during January 14-15, 1954 when Philadelphia received 3.0" snow and New York City picked up 2.0". Boston has had numerous 6" or greater snowstorms during such cases, including one 10" or greater snowstorm. Therefore, the risk of significant snow would likely be greatest over New England assuming this relationship holds (no significant offsetting variables). Such a scenario does not preclude the possibility of a light snow event across parts of the region during this timeframe, particularly during the January 5-9 period. Afterward, a tendency for ridging with warmer than normal temperatures prevailing will very likely develop during the latter part of the second week of the month and persist through at least mid-month. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.4°C for the week centered around December 25. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.27°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.48°C. The remainder of winter 2019-2020 will likely feature neutral-warm to weak El Niño conditions. The SOI was -17.42 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +3.596. No significant stratospheric warming event appears likely through January 11, but a temporary period of warming will very likely develop in the upper stratosphere and approach or reach 5 mb toward the end of the first week of January. Wave 2 activity will remain relatively muted following the first week of the month. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS. On January 1, the MJO was in Phase 8 at an amplitude of 0.564 (RMM). The December 31-adjusted amplitude was 0.748. Since 1974, there were five cases when the MJO was in Phase 6 at an amplitude of 1.500 or above during the December 20-31 period, as has been the case this year. The temperature anomalies were closely tied to how much time the MJO spent in Phase 8 during the January 1-15 timeframe. The mean temperature for January 1-15 for cases with more than 5 such days was 29.0° in New York City. The mean temperature for those with 5 or fewer such days was 36.1°. The overall 1981-2019 mean temperature for January 1-15 is 33.8°. January 2019 will very likely fall into the latter, warmer subset.

Abstract: For generations, climate scientists have educated the public that ‘weather is not climate’, and climate change has been framed as the change in the distribution of weather that slowly emerges from large variability over decades. However, weather when considered globally is now in uncharted territory. Here we show that on the basis of a single day of globally observed temperature and moisture, we detect the fingerprint of externally driven climate change, and conclude that Earth as a whole is warming. Our detection approach invokes statistical learning and climate model simulations to encapsulate the relationship between spatial patterns of daily temperature and humidity, and key climate change metrics such as annual global mean temperature or Earth’s energy imbalance. Observations are projected onto this relationship to detect climate change. The fingerprint of climate change is detected from any single day in the observed global record since early 2012, and since 1999 on the basis of a year of data. Detection is robust even when ignoring the long-term global warming trend. This complements traditional climate change detection, but also opens broader perspectives for the communication of regional weather events, modifying the climate change narrative: while changes in weather locally are emerging over decades, global climate change is now detected instantaneously. The paper can be found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0666-7

IMO, that record is almost certainly safe. The least snow during the January-April period is the 2.8" that was recorded during winter 1972-73. NYC would need just 0.2" during that period to break the record and no season has come close to such a minimal amount during January-April.

My initial thinking on the system is that a window of opportunity continues to exist. This hasn't been in doubt. The base case is that the potential for a light accumulation in the NYC/EWR area exists with a higher probability of a moderate or possibly even significant accumulation in parts of New England, including Boston. The pattern has some similarities to that when a storm affected the region on January 16-17, 1965, but with some differences (a far less impressive and weakening PNA ridge is forecast) and the 500 mb trough placement differs, too. These differences could result in a somewhat "too late, too little" scenario for NYC/EWR. Cold air would arrive, but by then the heaviest precipitation would be off to the east. Parts of Long Island, particularly Suffolk County, could see higher accumulations as the storm begins to rapidly develop on its approach to the New England coastal waters or when it is over those waters.

My guess based on what's happened from 2000 onward and the climate papers I've read is that a general decline will continue at varying rates. The average rate might slow somewhat from the most rapid average rate seen during the last 10 years, but the 2012 minimum extent figure will be surpassed during the 2020s, and maybe more than once. Arctic warming will continue with aggressive feedbacks. I don't see a plausible mechanism that might materially slow the rate at which it is warming right now, though maybe others can identify one if it exists.

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann's op-ed from Australia where he will be conducting research: The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change. Take record heat, combine it with unprecedented drought in already dry regions and you get unprecedented bushfires like the ones engulfing the Blue Mountains and spreading across the continent. It’s not complicated. The warming of our planet – and the changes in climate associated with it – are due to the fossil fuels we’re burning: oil, whether at midnight or any other hour of the day, natural gas, and the biggest culprit of all, coal. That’s not complicated either... Australians need only wake up in the morning, turn on the television, read the newspaper or look out the window to see what is increasingly obvious to many – for Australia, dangerous climate change is already here. It’s simply a matter of how much worse we’re willing to allow it to get. Australia is experiencing a climate emergency. It is literally burning. It needs leadership that is able to recognise that and act. And it needs voters to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/australia-your-country-is-burning-dangerous-climate-change-is-here-with-you-now And a link to commentary by Nerilie Abram, investigator at the ARC Center of Excellence for Climate Extremes and an associate professor at the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/ 2019 was Australia's warmest and driest year on record.

I believe there is a relationship. I am not aware of literature demonstrating that they are manifestations of a larger phenomenon.

Today's AO value of +3.653 was the highest such figure since December 23, 2016. Unfortunately, it was timed for January, not some month outside of winter. Moreover, since January 1950, there are only 8 prior cases where the AO reached +3.500 or above in the January 1-10 timeframe. Five of those cases went on to have a predominantly positive AO in February. 1976 was one such case. Three, however, saw a predominantly negative AO. One such case was 1983. Perhaps, because of the "sacrifice" that has been made, something closer to 1983 will play out. Hopefully, once the MJO departs from the Maritime Continent, its travel plans will exclude any quick returns there.