donsutherland1

On what basis? The CFSv2 moved away from the severe cold it had shown for March. The hemispheric pattern is not close to the 1960 pattern he had invoked previously. Typically, extremely strong polar vortices in February retain an influence on the pattern that lingers in March. The 2/26/2020 CFSv2 forecast for March:

The world is already more than half way to the 2°C goal and the warming has been occurring most recently at a rate of around 0.2°C per decade. That would mean the target would be reached or exceeded within five decades. The timing could be faster depending on the impact of amplifying feedbacks. Research into those feedbacks is continuing and there is some level of uncertainty. One feedback that would be potentially worrisome would be shortwave cloud feedback, which may have played a crucial role in the Eocene warming. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaax1874 My referencing to the aging shrinking climate change denial movement was never intended to define all older people. It referred to a subset. My reference to examples of misogyny in the climate change denial movement referenced a paper and highlighted one example (Anthony Watts--the tweet has yet to be deleted). There has been an increase in such tactics in recent years. The increased profile of Greta Thunberg has brought it out into the open. Watts is far from the only actor engaging in such conduct, though he is one with a fairly large following.

I haven't seen anything from Wells Fargo regarding moving away from funding fossil fuels.

JPMorgan Chase has also moved to eliminate most coal-related financing/assistance and financing for new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/pr/jpmorgan-chase-expands-commitment-to-low-carbon-economy-and-clean-energy.htm The notion that business, markets, and more broadly the economy are incompatible with addressing climate change is inaccurate. Companies are beginning to make the move. This movement is still in its early stages, but it is beginning to gather momentum, as climate change poses risks to companies, markets, and economies.

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc. That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs. As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/ "Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance. Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth. It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review. Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. It is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt. Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with). This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

Two quick things: 1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question. 2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

Thanks for sharing this information. Cook has done a lot of good work in trying to combat climate change denial. Hopefully, this book will do well in helping address what remains a real problem.

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg. Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic: https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20 Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics. Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Yes. It does favor a wetter spring.

At this point in time, the base case is a warmer than normal March in such cities as Baltimore, Boston, Islip, New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. Today was also the 5th day during February where the AO was +5.000 or above. Only 1989 (5 days) and 1990 (4 days) had at least 4 such days. All of this suggests that the March hemispheric pattern could be somewhat similar in the means to the February one. That would imply a warmer than normal March in the region. Further, a sizable majority (>80%) of years during which the AO has been, on average, strongly positive during the first 15 days of February were followed by a warmer than normal March. The preliminary February 1-15 AO average was +2.758. Only 1989 (+3.336) and 1990 (+2.948) had higher AO averages during this period. Finally, the most recent C3S multi-system blend favors a somewhat warmer than normal spring in the region.

Some PNS reports from the snowstorm: 000 NOUS42 KMHX 211006 PNSMHX NCZ029-044>047-079>081-090>092-094-193>196-198-199-203>205-212206- Public Information Statement National Weather Service Newport/Morehead City NC 506 AM EST Fri Feb 21 2020 ...SNOWFALL REPORTS... Location Amount Time/Date Provider ...North Carolina... ...Beaufort County... Bath 2.8 in 0933 PM 02/20 Public 1 SSW Chocowinity 2.0 in 1110 PM 02/20 Trained Spotter 1 NNE Pinetown 2.0 in 1023 PM 02/20 Public ...Craven County... Vanceboro 3.7 in 1130 PM 02/20 Public 1 ENE Fort Barnwell 2.0 in 1100 PM 02/20 Public ...Duplin County... 3 SW Bowdens 1.5 in 0845 PM 02/20 Amateur Radio ...Greene County... Snow Hill 4.0 in 0414 AM 02/21 Public ...Lenoir County... 1 ESE Kinston 3.5 in 1120 PM 02/20 Public 1 ESE Kinston 3.0 in 0939 PM 02/20 Public ...Pitt County... 2 N Farmville 3.8 in 0123 AM 02/21 Public Grifton 3.5 in 0310 AM 02/21 Public && 000 NOUS42 KRAH 210829 PNSRAH NCZ007>011-021>028-038>043-073>078-083>086-088-089-212029- Public Information Statement National Weather Service Raleigh NC 329 AM EST Fri Feb 21 2020 ...SNOWFALL REPORTS... Location Amount Time/Date Lat/Lon ...North Carolina... ...Alamance County... 1 S Mebane 2.8 in 1100 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.28W 1 W Burlington 2.3 in 1000 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.47W Burlington 2.0 in 1015 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.45W ...Chatham County... 6 W Bynum 1.8 in 0732 PM 02/20 35.78N/79.25W 1 NE Siler City 1.5 in 0607 PM 02/20 35.73N/79.45W 1 ENE Goldston 1.4 in 0657 PM 02/20 35.60N/79.31W ...Cumberland County... 5 NNE Fayetteville 0.8 in 1021 PM 02/20 35.15N/78.87W Hope Mills 0.5 in 0822 PM 02/20 34.97N/78.95W 5 NNE Fayetteville 0.5 in 0911 PM 02/20 35.15N/78.87W Fayetteville 0.5 in 0921 PM 02/20 35.07N/78.90W ...Davidson County... 3 WNW Lexington 1.0 in 0608 PM 02/20 35.82N/80.31W Thomasville 1.0 in 0611 PM 02/20 35.89N/80.08W ...Durham County... 7 SE Gorman 2.7 in 1017 PM 02/20 35.97N/78.72W 1 SSE Parkwood 2.1 in 1147 PM 02/20 35.88N/78.90W Durham 2.0 in 0902 PM 02/20 35.98N/78.92W 1 SSE Parkwood 2.0 in 1008 PM 02/20 35.88N/78.90W ...Forsyth County... 3 W Pfafftown 1.0 in 0600 PM 02/20 36.15N/80.36W ...Franklin County... 3 NE Youngsville 4.0 in 0912 PM 02/20 36.06N/78.44W 4 ENE Franklinton 3.8 in 1030 PM 02/20 36.13N/78.39W Youngsville 3.0 in 1250 AM 02/21 36.03N/78.48W ...Guilford County... 3 SSW Gibsonville 2.0 in 0630 PM 02/20 36.07N/79.57W 5 E Colfax 2.0 in 0800 PM 02/20 36.12N/79.93W 2 SSE Summerfield 2.0 in 0815 PM 02/20 36.18N/79.88W Greensboro 1.5 in 0929 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.83W High Point 1.3 in 0630 PM 02/20 35.98N/80.00W ...Halifax County... Roanoke Rapids 2.5 in 0918 PM 02/20 36.45N/77.65W ...Harnett County... Coats 1.5 in 0745 PM 02/20 35.41N/78.67W 3 E Pineview 1.5 in 0815 PM 02/20 35.31N/79.03W 2 SSW Benson 1.5 in 1105 PM 02/20 35.35N/78.56W ...Johnston County... Benson 2.5 in 1005 PM 02/20 35.38N/78.55W 1 E Linwood 2.2 in 0801 PM 02/20 35.75N/78.30W 3 NNW Flowers 2.0 in 0700 PM 02/20 35.70N/78.37W 2 E Pine Level 2.0 in 1042 PM 02/20 35.51N/78.21W Clayton 1.9 in 0722 PM 02/20 35.65N/78.46W 6 N Coats Crossroads 1.9 in 0926 PM 02/20 35.61N/78.56W 5 WNW Coats Crossroads 1.5 in 0645 PM 02/20 35.54N/78.63W Emit 1.5 in 0731 PM 02/20 35.73N/78.27W 2 E Pine Level 1.2 in 0902 PM 02/20 35.51N/78.21W 6 NNW Coats Crossroads 1.2 in 1200 AM 02/21 35.59N/78.60W ...Lee County... Broadway 1.5 in 0709 PM 02/20 35.46N/79.05W ...Montgomery County... Troy 2.8 in 0916 PM 02/20 35.36N/79.89W Star 2.0 in 0839 PM 02/20 35.40N/79.78W Candor 1.8 in 0932 PM 02/20 35.29N/79.74W ...Moore County... 4 SW Carthage 2.3 in 0956 PM 02/20 35.31N/79.47W ...Orange County... 2 N Efland 2.5 in 0730 PM 02/20 36.09N/79.17W 4 NNW Efland 2.1 in 0630 PM 02/20 36.12N/79.20W 2 S Carr 2.0 in 0604 PM 02/20 36.19N/79.22W ...Person County... Roxboro 3.3 in 0757 PM 02/20 36.40N/78.98W ...Randolph County... 4 SE Asheboro 1.8 in 0745 PM 02/20 35.68N/79.76W 3 ENE Seagrove 1.5 in 0742 PM 02/20 35.56N/79.73W Asheboro 1.0 in 0517 PM 02/20 35.72N/79.81W ...Sampson County... 2 W Spivey`s Corner 1.8 in 1100 PM 02/20 35.25N/78.56W ...Vance County... Henderson 2.8 in 0925 PM 02/20 36.32N/78.41W ...Wake County... 4 NE Wendell 3.1 in 1001 PM 02/20 35.83N/78.31W 4 NE Rdu International 3.0 in 0947 PM 02/20 35.91N/78.73W 5 SSW Garner 2.8 in 0951 PM 02/20 35.62N/78.67W Purnell 2.7 in 0920 PM 02/20 36.03N/78.57W 2 N Raleigh 2.5 in 0831 PM 02/20 35.85N/78.66W 3 S Falls Lake 2.5 in 1020 PM 02/20 35.89N/78.58W 4 NNE Raleigh 2.3 in 0856 PM 02/20 35.87N/78.64W 6 W Falls Lake 2.3 in 0924 PM 02/20 35.94N/78.68W 1 S Cary 2.2 in 0800 PM 02/20 35.77N/78.80W Wake Forest 2.0 in 0825 PM 02/20 35.97N/78.52W 5 W Purnell 2.0 in 0914 PM 02/20 36.03N/78.65W 2 NNW Fuquay-Varina 2.0 in 1040 PM 02/20 35.62N/78.81W 4 SSW Raleigh 1.8 in 1200 AM 02/21 35.77N/78.68W 2 WSW Holly Springs 1.7 in 1000 PM 02/20 35.64N/78.86W 2 NE New Hill 1.5 in 1100 PM 02/20 35.70N/78.88W ...Warren County... 1 N Arcola 1.8 in 0613 PM 02/20 36.29N/77.98W ...Wayne County... 1 SW Goldsboro 2.0 in 1110 PM 02/20 35.36N/77.99W 3 N Mar-Mac 1.1 in 0845 PM 02/20 35.37N/78.06W ...Wilson County... Lucama 2.3 in 0955 PM 02/20 35.64N/78.01W 2 ESE New Hope 2.0 in 0858 PM 02/20 35.79N/77.92W && 000 NOUS41 KAKQ 210832 PNSAKQ MDZ021>025-NCZ012>017-030>032-102-VAZ048-060>062-064>069-075>090-092-093- 095>100-509>525-212032- Public Information Statement National Weather Service Wakefield VA 332 AM EST Fri Feb 21 2020 ...SNOWFALL REPORTS... Location Amount Time/Date Lat/Lon ...Maryland... ...Somerset County... Crisfield 0.3 in 0938 PM 02/20 37.98N/75.85W Eden 0.3 in 0936 PM 02/20 38.28N/75.65W ...Worcester County... Ocean City 0.1 in 0939 PM 02/20 38.36N/75.07W ...North Carolina... ...Gates County... Corapeake 2.0 in 1130 PM 02/20 36.53N/76.58W ...Hertford County... Ahoskie 3.0 in 0843 PM 02/20 36.29N/76.99W ...Virginia... ...Accomack County... Bloxom 2.5 in 1008 PM 02/20 37.83N/75.62W Quinby 2.0 in 0942 PM 02/20 37.56N/75.73W 2 NE Atlantic 1.0 in 0714 PM 02/20 37.92N/75.48W Chincoteague 0.5 in 0938 PM 02/20 37.95N/75.36W ...Brunswick County... Gasburg 4.0 in 1000 PM 02/20 36.57N/77.90W ...Chesterfield County... 3 S Meadowville 1.7 in 0739 PM 02/20 37.33N/77.33W ...City of Chesapeake County... 2 SSE Hickory 2.0 in 1230 AM 02/21 36.63N/76.21W ...City of Franklin County... Franklin 5.1 in 1100 PM 02/20 36.69N/76.94W ...City of Newport News... 1 ESE Oyster Point 1.0 in 0716 PM 02/20 37.10N/76.49W ...City of Norfolk... 2 SE Norview 0.4 in 0120 AM 02/21 36.87N/76.23W ...City of Petersburg... 1 W Petersburg 3.0 in 0817 PM 02/20 37.21N/77.41W ...City of Suffolk... Downtown Suffolk 4.0 in 0115 AM 02/21 36.72N/76.59W ...City of Virginia Beach... 2 WNW Princess Anne 2.0 in 1215 AM 02/21 36.77N/76.09W ...Gloucester County... 1 NNW Gloucester Point 3.0 in 1100 PM 02/20 37.28N/76.50W ...Greensville County... Purdy 4.0 in 1044 PM 02/20 36.82N/77.59W ...Henrico County... 1 W Fair Oaks 0.6 in 0815 PM 02/20 37.53N/77.34W Varina 0.5 in 0900 PM 02/20 37.45N/77.35W ...Isle of Wight County... Zuni 3.0 in 1100 PM 02/20 36.87N/76.82W Carrsville 3.0 in 0732 PM 02/20 36.71N/76.83W Windsor 2.5 in 1230 AM 02/21 36.81N/76.74W ...James City County... Lightfoot 3.4 in 0952 PM 02/20 37.34N/76.75W Toano 2.5 in 1000 PM 02/20 37.38N/76.80W ...Lunenburg County... 2 N Dundas 3.0 in 0925 PM 02/20 36.95N/78.03W ...Mathews County... Soles 3.5 in 1030 PM 02/20 37.49N/76.44W Mathews 2.0 in 1030 PM 02/20 37.44N/76.32W Gwynn 1.5 in 1009 PM 02/20 37.50N/76.29W ...Mecklenburg County... Bracey 2.3 in 0856 PM 02/20 36.60N/78.14W ...Prince George County... 2 SSE Fort Lee 2.0 in 0930 PM 02/20 37.21N/77.32W 2 SE Richard Bland College 2.0 in 0854 PM 02/20 37.15N/77.35W 1 W Prince George 2.0 in 0830 PM 02/20 37.22N/77.31W 4 NNW Barham 2.0 in 0706 PM 02/20 37.19N/77.15W ...Southampton County... Courtland 5.0 in 0245 AM 02/21 36.71N/77.06W 1 WNW Hunterdale 3.0 in 0731 PM 02/20 36.71N/76.98W ...Sussex County... 1 NW Wakefield 3.6 in 1029 PM 02/20 36.98N/77.00W ...York County... Yorktown 3.0 in 1210 AM 02/21 37.24N/76.51W Grafton 2.0 in 0838 PM 02/20 37.17N/76.47W &&

On this I disagree. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The papers are available. The skeptics have no credible alternative to explain ongoing warming. Any serious money manager with a long-term horizon would already be working to mitigate risks and pursue opportunities in areas exposed to climate change based on the science. They would not be giving consideration to things that, quite frankly, have not much more scientific credibility than astrology.

It should be noted that 1960 was experiencing strong blocking at this time and that blocking would continue into March at which time the blizzard took place. In contrast, the AO is at extreme positive values and may approach or reach the record set earlier this month in coming days. Unlike in 1960, the cold is far less expansive in the Northern Hemisphere. Even if a mechanism to bring it into the CONUS and then hold it there were available, which seems unlikely, one would not be dealing with the kind of widespread cold that defined March 1960 in the CONUS. Here's how things progressed in 1960: None of the guidance shows cold of the expanse and magnitude shown during the second half of February, much less over a two week period. At this point, especially with the current pattern and forecast ensembles, calls for extreme cold on a scale of March 1960 should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Extremes, by definition, are low probability events. When no clear variables for producing them are currently visible or available in the guidance, their absence should raise significant "red flags."

Another climate scientist who is no longer giving perceived legitimacy to climate change deniers via debates: https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1228197739760013317

Bloomberg.com reported that the U.K. will be making a significant investment to upgrade its weather and climate computer resources. https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-02-17/u-k-to-spend-1-6-billion-on-world-s-best-climate-supercomputer

I was referring to today. That was yesterday’s 12z run. Both today’s 0z and 12z runs dropped the storm.

While the GFS is largely on its own with this idea, it should be noted that during winter 1972-73, Columbia, SC picked up 16.0" snow on February 9-10. That winter, just 2.8" snow fell in New York City and only a trace was recorded in Philadelphia.

On GISS, January 2020 was the warmest January on record globally. The temperature anomaly was +1.18°C, which was narrowly above the previous record of +1.17°C from 2016.

An insightful video (h/t Mark Boslough):

It should be noted that since winter 1869-70, there is only 1 case where seasonal snowfall through February was less than 10" and March had an 8" or greater snowfall in New York City: 1956. Seasonal snowfall through February 1956 was 8.2". The February 1956 AO average was -2.029. The second lowest figure was 10.8" in 1981 (February AO: -0.331).

The NOAA also reported that January 2020 was the warmest January on record globally. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202001