donsutherland1

I did, too. They're a great resource.

A "KU" snowstorm is a storm of the kind featured in Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini's research on Northeast snowstorms. They wrote a two-volume work on the storms: https://www.amazon.com/Northeast-Snowstorms-1-2-Set/dp/1878220640

To say that New York City and Philadelphia are digging out of their biggest snowstorm of the winter so far would be somewhat of an exaggeration, but not a complete exaggeration. Yesterday's snowfall of 2.1" in Central Park and 0.2" in Philadelphia are both cities' largest snowfall of winter 2019-20. It has been a bleak winter in terms of snowfall across much of the Middle Atlantic region. To add insult to injury, the pattern evolution has become less favorable for meaningful snow through the remainder of January. Even the previously bullish CFSv2 weeklies have now delayed the onset of a cold pattern beyond the first week of February. Should New York City finish January with less than 6.0" total snowfall for the season, winter 2019-20 will join 34 previous cases. The mean snowfall for the remainder of the season during those prior cases was 13.5" and the median was 10.6". The most was 43.0" during winter 1895-96 (30.5" in March). The least was 0.0" in winter 2001-02. In 11 (32%) cases, New York City received 15.0" or more snow during the remainder of winter. In 16 (47%) cases, New York City received less than 10.0" snow for the remainder of winter. In addition, the temperature has yet to fall below 20° this month in Central Park. New York City's minimum January temperature was 20° or above in seven prior years, most recently 2002. Five of those cases went on to record much below normal snowfall in February. Two (1949 and 1993) had somewhat above normal February snowfall (10.7" in both cases). Still, things could be worse. Instead of infrequent but picturesque light snowfalls, the region could be experiencing the non-winter that has gripped Europe throughout the season. Today, the thermometer is again flirting with record high temperatures in parts of Estonia, Finland, and Russia.

The McKinsey Global Institute's report on climate change and its impacts: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Sustainability/Our Insights/Climate risk and response Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts/MGI-Climate-risk-and-response-vF.ashx

Perhaps this is one reason climate change deniers have stepped up their attacks on climate scientists, as well as the volume of their disinformation on Social Media and other outlets that still disseminate their position. From the Yale University Climate Change Communication Program: Our latest survey (November 2019) finds that the Alarmed segment is at an all-time high (31%). The Alarmed segment has nearly tripled in size since October 2014. Conversely, the Dismissive (10%) and Doubtful (10%) segments have each decreased over the past five years. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the-alarmed-are-now-the-largest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/ In short, science is gaining ground when it comes to Americans' views of climate change. As that process continues to play out, public support for effective policies aimed at making a credible start to addressing the challenge of climate change could reach critical mass. At that point, the defense of the status quo could disintegrate, as support of the status quo could hinder electoral success.

The definitions are universal. If, for example, a scientist/group of scientists discovers or identifies a new natural mechanism that can credibly explain at least some of the ongoing observed warming that cannot currently be attributed to natural forcings, then of course it would need to be given due consideration. Science is an iterative process. Areas of uncertainty e.g., especially with respect to some feedbacks, remain to be resolved.

The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical.

The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement. That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt. The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation. That movement has a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field. The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations. The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific and medical understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of knowledge of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity, not to mention biodiversity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts.

Why the "LOL?" Mann has been among the most prolific, influential, and widely-cited climate researchers, including in recent years. His work has been cited more than 35,000 times, including more than 12,000 times since 2015.

Yes. I agree with you.

Some excerpts from a timely interview with Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann: JAISAL NOOR: So you actually traveled to Australia to study the links between climate change and extreme weather events. You didn’t go to cover what’s happening now, but describe what you have discovered since you’ve been there. MICHAEL MANN: Yeah. It’s a bit surreal, because this trip, this sabbatical, was more than a year in the making. And indeed my goal was to come here to Australia to collaborate with some Australian scientists and understanding the scientific linkages between climate change and extreme weather events in Australia. And of course, ironically I arrived at the time that Australia was experiencing perhaps the most extreme weather on record in the form of unprecedented heat across the continent. And of course these unprecedented bush fires that are literally spreading across the continent. I’ve witnessed these impacts firsthand here in Sydney where I’m staying. Yesterday, I couldn’t go outside and take my usual daily run because the air quality was dangerous from all the smoke that was blowing in from these wildfires. And so here in Sydney, climate change isn’t just some theoretical construct. It’s something that is playing out in real time. I can look out my window and see it... JAISAL NOOR: Now have we reached a tipping point when it comes to climate change and these catastrophes that are unfolding not only in Australia but you see around the world. You see this growing devastation that natural disasters are causing. And is it possible to reverse this at this point? What would that look like? MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, so there is the danger of tipping points. You know when things get dry enough and hot enough, you can see a very dramatic escalation of these wildfires and bush fires here in Australia. And arguably that’s what we’re seeing in California and the Western US. That’s what we’re seeing here in Australia and in any many other regions around the world where summers are getting hot enough and dry enough that you just see this almost exponential escalation in these wildfires. So we may indeed be starting to cross a tipping point where, in the very best case, we are dealing with the new norm. That is to say, if we stop warming the planet and we sort of stabilize temperatures, we don’t worsen the problem. https://therealnews.com/stories/australia-fire-denying-climate-change-wont-save-you

There has definitely been arson. However, the disinformation being circulated is a claim that 90% or more of the fires are the result of arson (not lightning, not accident, etc.).

Yes, I did read about how the bots are spreading disinformation. Social Media platforms may be the battleground where the dying climate denial movement is making its last stand. Science has already triumphed in the research publications field (though pseudo-journals may be launched to try to create confusion) and it has made major gains among numerous media outlets (except mainly for ideology- or interest-driven ones). Nevertheless, ignorance-driven movements typically prove unsustainable in the long-term when knowledge becomes widely-diffused. Unfortunately, when it comes to addressing the challenges of anthropogenic climate change, early significant progress is needed, due to the long atmospheric residence of some greenhouse gases and the increase in forcing associated with their increasing atmospheric concentration. There is real urgency for society--on a global basis--to begin to make serious efforts to address the challenge. But, for now, with some exceptions, there remains a leadership deficit and the impact of that deficit is compounded by the noise of the shrinking but still loud climate change denial movement (and the interests, some with vast financial resources, that have a vested stake in its goals).

It appears that the shrinking climate change denial movement--what's left of it--is becoming downright nasty and condescending, especially toward women who have vast expertise in the field (including those on the forefront of research). One Twitter exchange that highlights the problem: https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1214367143837544448 Let's take a look at the two women who were told they should "spend some time in meteorology and climatology classrooms" via Twitter. Dr. Jacquelyn Gill is an ice age expert with extensive published peer-reviewed research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAZsZhIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Dr. Kate Marvel is a NASA climate scientist with a PhD in theoretical particle physics. She has an extensive range of published peer-review research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cC8JXpQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao But what about the critic? The one who all but implied that the two women have little or no relevant knowledge? What about his body of research? The absence of a link to his peer-reviewed research is no accident. The critic has no peer reviewed research that can be found. Of course, that didn't stop him from telling Drs. Gill and Marvel to "spend some time" to learn about meteorology and climate. Put another way, expertise and evidence are irrelevant in the world of climate change denial. That world is endangered by expertise and evidence. This Social Media exchange is just another pathetic death rattle of a movement that has no relevant knowledge of climate/climate change and, therefore, no meaningful contribution to make to the scientific discourse. Despite its fatal flaws, it is desperate to overturn the now overwhelming body of evidence behind scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Thus, detours aimed at discrediting and delegitimizing climate scientists are pursued. Those efforts cannot succeed. The problem the climate change denial movement faces is that the public now has access to who has published peer-reviewed research. Thus, the public, or those who seek to be informed and who possess information literacy skills to pursue the facts, can readily sort out the genuine experts from the climate change denial bomb throwers who offer little but attacks. Spoiler alert: The experts are the very scientists being assailed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately, yes.

The study indicates that on account of the expanding pool of warm waters, the MJO is spending somewhat more time in the Maritime Continent phases. This would make sense given the ocean-atmosphere-convection linkage.

A quick note on teleconnections and Washington, DC's 6" or greater January snowstorms (1950-2019): AO-/PNA+: 67% AO+/PNA-: 0% (biggest: 3.9") AO-: 80% PNA+: 87% NAO-: 67% n=12 If one broadens the pool to include 4" or greater snowstorms (n=22), the numbers change very little for all but the NAO: AO-/PNA+: 64% AO+/PNA-: 0% AO-: 77% PNA+: 86% NAO-: 55% Note: All of the 10" or greater snowstorms occurred with an AO-/PNA+