donsutherland1

There may be reason for concern. Some recent scientific literature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1764-4

It's due to two major assumptions: 1. The MJO's progression away from the Maritime Continent and through Phase 6 into Phase 7 2. A weakening of the strong polar vortex. There are a number of cases where a super strong polar vortex in early January weakened with sustained blocking occurring in late January and/or February None of this is cast in stone, but there's enough reason to refrain from canceling winter (even if Ji has already done so).

The weakening IOD should reduce interference with the MJO. That should allow it to progress in more typical fashion. The forecast shift to the Maritime Continent (Phases 4-5) is real and the ridging forecast beyond 240 hours is increasingly likely to verify. Absent the MJO, that's still what one would expect given the forecast state of the teleconnections. And if things aren't miserable enough, there's the risk that the EPS weeklies could deliver another serving of misery a little later today. However, this does not mean that it is time to cancel winter. If things work out, the potential for a pattern change for colder and snowier weather could increase during late January. February might offer the best chance for meaningful snowfall in the Middle Atlantic region. We'll see, as a lot of variables are involved, but things should eventually get better all other things being considered.

The AO is particularly important for the Middle Atlantic region and the NAO also carries weight. New England does much better thanks to its higher latitude and has had significant snowstorms even when the AO was in excess of +2.000 in January. The following from my nearly daily discussion in the NYC forum holds true for the MD-DCA-VA areas: Based on the forecast strongly positive AO to start January, the probability of a significant (6" or greater snowstorm) for the major cities of the Middle Atlantic region during the first week 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). Some of the newer AO forecasts keep the AO at +2.000 or above through January 10. If so, that development could adversely impact Mid-Atlantic significant snowfall prospects beyond the first week of January.

A report by Goldman Sachs on climate change: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/gs-research/taking-the-heat/report.pdf

An important paper concerning the impact of the stratospheric polar vortex... Abstract: The impact of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex on persistent weather regimes over North America is so far underexplored. Here we show the relationship between four wintertime North American weather regimes and the stratospheric vortex strength using reanalysis data. We find that the strength of the vortex significantly affects the behavior of the regimes. While a regime associated with Greenland blocking is strongly favored following weak vortex events, it is not the primary regime associated with a widespread, elevated risk of extreme cold in North America. Instead, we find that the regime most strongly associated with widespread extremely cold weather does not show a strong dependency on the strength of the lower stratospheric zonal mean zonal winds. We also suggest that stratospheric vortex morphology may be particularly important for cold air outbreaks during this regime. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085592

The first half of January =/= the remainder of winter. As noted in the past, one has to be wary of Social Media. Exaggeration is commonplace (big snowstorms, extreme cold, stratospheric warming events, and now claims about an impending demise of winter) on Social Media. Even as January appears likely to be warmer than normal on average, that does not mean that sustained cold with opportunities for snowfall can't develop later in the month or that February could not feature above normal snowfall.

One shouldn't be surprised that Heller, who has no scientific background, would imply that the winter freeze suggests a healthy Arctic sea ice situation. The difference between the 12/23 extent and minimum extent is largely the result of a very low minimum figure. According to Heller's logic, 2012 would have been seen as a fantastic year, as sea ice extent increased by nearly 8.7 million square kilometers by December 23. Of course, 2012 saw a record low minimum extent figure of just under 3.2 million square kilometers. In fact, the 12/1-23 average of 11.144 million square kilometers is the 3rd lowest on record and is nearly 3% below the 2000-19 average. This is not a healthy Arctic sea ice situation. If multi-year "old" ice were increasing, that would be newsworthy. The annual refreeze in 2019 is not.

Thanks for the kind words and Holiday wishes. I hope your family and you have a great Holiday season.

There's a fallacy that complexity of making weather forecasts at extended ranges means that climate forecasts years out are essentially not possible to make. A closer look is in order for purposes of a quick sketch. Take for example, New York City (Central Park). Let's say one is seeking to forecast the high temperature on January 1, 2020. The highest maximum temperature on record is 62°, which occurred in 1966. The lowest maximum temperature on record is 10° from 1918. The 0z GFS forecast a high of 36°. The historic range is 1.4 times the forecast high. Finally, let's say one is seeking to forecast the 2020 annual mean temperature. The warmest such reading was 57.4° in 2012. The coldest such reading was 49.5° in 1875 and 1888. Since 2000, the mean has averaged 55.7°. If one uses that estimate, the range of error is just under 0.15 times the estimate. That latter situation is the type of situation one is dealing with when it comes to making climate projections. Thus, the fallacy of synoptic complexity's precluding climate forecasts does not apply. When it comes to climate (and climate change) there are widely-established drivers of climate: solar and greenhouse gases are among the most important. Therefore, if one gets the forcings right, one should get a reasonable projection of the climate. Well, that's exactly what the research shows. Climate models have proved skillful. Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally-estimated forcings were taken into account. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378 Key takeaway: Climate should not be viewed through a synoptic lens. Finally, the physical properties of carbon dioxide are well-established. There's no serious scientific debate on that matter. Therefore, it should make little difference whether carbon dioxide is released through natural mechanisms or if human activities release carbon dioxide. The molecules should behave in the same fashion, not follow different rules depending on whether they were emitted into the atmosphere via volcanic eruptions or the burning of fossil fuels.

It won't melt immediately and could take centuries to do so. Nevertheless, it appears that humanity is committing itself to a course that could lead to that outcome given little or no response to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (projected to have increased another 0.6% this year). The latest Arctic Report Card provides a glimpse of what is currently happening in the Arctic. https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/ArcticReportCard/Documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2019.pdf

Sea ice melt doesn't raise the sea level by itself. It does make an indirect contribution as a feedback mechanism that is accelerating Arctic warming. That warming affects the Greenland ice sheet. Greenland's melt, which has accelerated greatly over the past few decades, has been a key driver in rising sea levels.

Young ice melts fairly fast. It's the ice melt over the summer that has a large influence over how much of the incoming solar radiation is reflected and how much is not. Declining summer sea ice is playing a large role in Arctic amplification (as it is a feedback that amplifies the ongoing warming already underway). That's a major reason why Arctic warming has exceeded the rate of global warming, especially in recent decades.

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology reported regarding yesterday: Based on preliminary analysis, yesterday, Australia recorded its hottest day on record. The nationally-averaged maximum daytime temp was 41.9 °C exceeding the record set on Tuesday, 40.9 ºC. 40.9°C is 105.6°F. 41.9°C is 107.4°F. The highest temperature anywhere in Australia yesterday was 47.7°C (117.9° F) at Birdsville Airport. The national December record is 49.5°C (121.1°F), which was set on December 24, 1972 at Birdsville Police Station. Australia's hottest temperature on record is 50.7°C (123.3°F), which was set on January 2, 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport.

It's a difficult situation. Externalities e.g., the cost of carbon emissions and their consequences, aren't captured in the pricing mechanism of fossil fuels. That's part of the reason at least some economists favor a carbon tax. In addition, certain governments have little or no meaningful commitment to addressing the great challenge of climate change (or even recognition of the science). Yet, the time left to avoid making what amounts to an almost irrevocable commitment via emissions to temperature increases above 2.0 degrees C or 1.5 degrees C is shrinking.

Thanks for this information. The 12/13-16 data has now been pulled and replaced by "M." Given the temperatures at Sitka, I suspect based on what you found and the lower temperatures there than a few days ago, the sensor was, in fact, malfunctioning.

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

I believe I was quoting Vice Regent. We agree about living in a more sustainable way. The former almost certainly won't be broadly supported. The latter could and should be.

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were: December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017) December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017) December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005) December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005) All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

Such a geoengineering approach, not withstanding other risks that may or may not be known, would only capture a fraction of the annual CO2 emissions per year (around one-eighth). That assumes one could produce enough iron sulfate for maximum effect. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon

I'm not as pessimistic, though I have worries given how impotent and unwilling today's generation of leaders (political and business) are in addressing the challenge of anthropogenic climate change. Addressing climate change should not require "phasing out civilization." It does entail some significant changes. Among those changes are a transition to cleaner fuels, increased energy efficiency, a carbon tax/elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, etc. In my view, were the same leaders involved in tackling the problem of anthropogenic climate change today, credible, binding, and concrete commitments would have been undertaken. They understood what today's leaders don't, namely that today's choices have consequences for tomorrow. Consequently, they were not paralyzed by the suffocating short-term thinking that defines today's leaders.

In 1987, humanity was confronted with a growing ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and the implication of an inevitable and dramatic rise in skin cancer cases. The world's leaders at that time, even while taking on an existential Cold War struggle, came together in Montreal to adopt a solution to address the problem. A binding commitment to completely phase out the use of CFCs and halons was agreed. That treaty was universally ratified. Since then, much progress has been made. NASA recently revealed: Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery Then, science carried the day. Political leaders made the kind of decisions that fall with responsible leadership. They made no excuses. They did not embrace defeatist conclusions that acting would be economically harmful, much less that nothing could be done. They did not descend into "denialism" or conspiracy theories aimed at alleviating accountability from their shoulders. They acted with conviction. They put the world on a better path. Just three decades later, when confronted by another global challenge--that of anthropogenic climate change--the world's leaders abdicated their responsibility in Madrid. They proved unable to summon the courage, foresight, and leadership to tackle the global challenge of the contemporary era. They chose timidity at a time when no great struggle comparable to the Cold War is raging. Put simply, they failed the test of leadership. They demonstrated that although they hold positions of authority, they lack the capacity and qualities necessary to lead. Instead, they chose to remain passive bystanders to history. They failed as leaders. They failed as people. In their enormous failure to lead, they have substantially magnified the burden they have already left to today's youth and future generations to come. In doing so, they have defined their generation as arguably the most short-sighted one in modern history. They chose to leave the world a worse place than they inherited. Given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and range of tools available to launch a credible effort to curb then reverse greenhouse gas emissions, their fateful choice is a deliberate one. Ignorance is not a valid defense. At the same time, they have unequivocally made clear to today's youth that the concerns and futures of those youth are to be sacrificed for the preservation of the short-sighted status quo. Given the urgency and gravity of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, this is a most sad outcome. Urgent problems aren't punted to the future year after year. Great problems are not routinely ignored, much less cloaked in the packaging of brave words disconnected from concrete and credible measures to evade responsibility. Fortunately, as time passes, those who occupy today's positions of leadership will gradually depart those positions. In their wake, future generations will be left with a tremendous mess. The passage of time will determine whether leadership capacity on the global stage merely skipped today's generation of global leaders or whether the absence of leadership capacity is a new and persistent problem. Considering that human nature has changed remarkably little since the emergence of Homo Sapiens, the odds are still high that the contemporary leadership deficit is merely a temporary phenomenon.

A quick note: The COP25 conference was, for all intents and purposes (when credible outcomes are considered) a failure. In effect, the colllective choice was to punt to next year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/un-climate-talks-end-with-hard-feelings-few-results-and-new-doubts-about-global-unity/2019/12/15/38918278-1ec7-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

It appears that a significant number of countries that came to the COP25 conference on climate change likely did so for cosmetic appearances rather than serious decisions. Barring last minute developments, inaction and the status quo will likely prevail. One can't rule out a last-ditch flurring of non-binding commitments, but non-binding commitments lack credibility. Hopefully, I am incorrect about this, but the latest news out of Madrid suggests what would, in practical terms, be a failed conference. The BBC reported: The pact's intention is to keep the global average temperature rise to well below 2C. This was regarded at the time as the threshold for dangerous global warming, though scientists subsequently shifted the definition of the "safe" limit to a rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. But Mr Meyer commented: "The latest version of the Paris Agreement decision text put forward by the Chilean presidency is totally unacceptable. It has no call for countries to enhance the ambition of their emissions reduction commitments. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50795294 That's a ratification of the status quo. The status quo path is not enough. Excerpts from the 2019 Emissions Gap Report: There is no sign of GHG emissions peaking in the next few years; every year of postponed peaking means that deeper and faster cuts will be required. By 2030, emissions would need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to put the world on the least-cost pathway to limiting global warming to below 2˚C and 1.5°C respectively... Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed. Further delaying the reductions needed to meet the goals would imply future emission reductions and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at such a magnitude that it would result in a serious deviation from current available pathways. This, together with necessary adaptation actions, risks seriously damaging the global economy and undermining food security and biodiversity. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf Tragically, the policy path of choice is to delay credible steps, shift the burden to today's youth, and hope that they will possess the courage, foresight, and leadership capacity that the current generation of leaders at the conference lacks. The idea that nothing can be done, market-based approaches are impossible, or credible measures would be economically disruptive are fallacies aimed at preserving the status quo. They are not reality. Even without new technologies, a number of policy tools are available. Those tools include increased reliance on wind, solar, and nuclear power for supply and increases in efficiency to deal with the demand side. The latter may be less costly than scaling up the former, but only at present. Estimated costs of various investments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/images/122019/Gillingham-tbl-lg2.jpg For comparison, the true cost of carbon emissions per ton is an estimated (median) figure of $477 per ton. http://www.cobham-erc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/preprint_Ricke2018_country_level_scc.pdf Phasing out production of the dirtiest carbon-based fuels early on, namely coal, should be prioritized. Tax expenditures and other policies that favor carbon-based fuels are not market-oriented. Instead, they skew market function via externalities (cost-shifting to taxpayers, shielding producers from the full costs of their products, etc.). They also prop up a false scenario that makes it appear that the status quo is more beneficial than a transition based on cost-benefit analysis. If the costs associated with the consequences of climate change--ranging from increased storm damage to the impact of rising sea level--were added to the cost of carbon-based fuels responsible for anthropogenic climate change, the cost picture would be quite different. When the full costs of climate change are considered, the status quo is more costly than the transition.