donsutherland1

Under bright sunshine, the warmth is again overperforming. Readings are running about 1.5 sigma or more above the modeled highs. High temperatures through 2 pm include: Bridgeport: 55° Islip: 55° New York City: 56° Newark: 59° White Plains: 56°

I agree. I welcome the changes that are taking place albeit at a much smaller scale than what is needed to secure the 1.5°C goal. My concern is that fossil fuels remain largely stable as a share of overall energy production (around 80% worldwide). COP 28 did nothing to change that trajectory. Indeed, just days after the Conference, its President Sultan Al Jaber reaffirmed his company's plans to invest in expanding its oil and gas production capacity stating that the world will still need the "lowest-carbon barrels at the lowest cost." That oil and gas are not low carbon sources of energy was not mentioned. This is how he interprets the COP 28 outcome. As he was its President, his interpretation is arguably the definitive one. Other fossil fuel companies and producers almost certainly will see things the way he does.

It will turn milder tomorrow. Temperatures will top out in the balmy 50s across most of the region. The mild weather will continue through the weekend. A significant rainstorm followed by a continuation of above normal temperatures is likely Sunday evening into Monday. A general 1"-3" of rain is possible. Strong winds and coastal flooding are likely. No Arctic air appears likely through the remainder of December. If anything, the warm risks for the closing 7-10 days of the month have increased. A transition to a colder pattern could commence during the first week of January. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +1.9°C for the week centered around December 6. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +1.97°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +1.92°C. A basinwide El Niño event is ongoing. El Niño conditions will may strengthen somewhat further this month. The SOI was -4.36 on December 13. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +1.548 today. Strong blocking in the final week of November, as occurred this year, has often been followed by frequent blocking in December and January. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 80% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal December (1991-2020 normal). December will likely finish with a mean temperature near 41.6° (2.5° above normal).

For reference, as the topic has arisen, below are the five December cases where measurable snow fell in New York City following a 60° or above high temperature: December 15, 1881: 1.3" (prior day's high: 67°) December 14, 1923: 1.2" (prior day's high: 64°) December 9, 1956: 0.5" (prior day's high: 61°) December 23, 1967: 1.2" (prior day's high: 62°) December 16, 2008: 1.0" (prior day's high: 67°) Overall, there have been 41 such cases in NYC's climate record (1869-present). January: 3; February: 5; March: 16; April: 4; October: 2; November: 6; December: 5 Biggest: 9.4", February 9, 2017 (prior day's high: 62°) Such events are very uncommon. It's premature to reach any conclusions about next week other than noting that a few model solutions including the 0z ECMWF bring some measurable snow to the City.

COP 28 concluded yesterday. Despite spin that the conference was a success, it was not. That the conference recognized what the science and public had known for at least some two decades--fossil fuels are largely responsible for ongoing climate change--is not a breakthrough. It is a long delayed acknowledgement that should have guided the annual conferences from the onset. If anything, because there were no binding commitments, much less enforcement mechanisms, to secure the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the conference had failed in its chief mission. The language related to the transition away from fossil fuels, already qualified by, ‘call’ on Parties, “to contribute”…”taking into account…their different national circumstances, pathways, and approaches” is flawed even when one ignores the Trojan Horse provision “that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security.” "Transitional fuels" is widely understood to refer to a fossil fuel--natural gas. A closer look at key language is in order: Adopted Language: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner…” Issues: • Limited to energy systems, not all areas e.g., transport, agriculture, etc. • Transition is linked to three conditions that must be met: “just, orderly, and equitable manner.” • No specific targets. Objections that any one of the three conditions can’t be met will provide excuses for not pursuing the transition. For example, oil and gas producers will almost certainly argue that the 43% reduction in fossil fuel production/consumption needed by 2030 to put the world on a path toward limiting warming to 1.5°C will not be “orderly.” Hence, they will rationalize continuing a high production/consumption approach. Worse, they will do so claiming that they are honoring the "orderly” approach endorsed by COP 28. The language should have been far stronger and more specific. Here's an example of what stronger language might have looked like. Stronger Language: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels consistent with achieving net zero emissions by 2050, including a 43% reduction in fossil fuel consumption and production by 2030, keeping in mind principles of a just, orderly, and equitable transition.” Benefits: • The end goal would be clear even without the more beneficial and desirable language of phasing out fossil fuels altogether. • There is specificity (near-term and end goal). • The transition would be the controlling factor and it would not be conditioned on other variables. • The principles of a "just, orderly, and equitable transition" would inform how the transition takes place, not whether it takes place. All said, COP 28 placed renewed faith in weak voluntary commitments that lack credibility. In other words, it hopes for a miracle without understanding that miracles are built from effort, especially when the laws of physics are involved. Similarly, policy is built. Sound policy requires courage, capacity, and insight from leaders. Such attributes are not unknown. All of the leaders who adopted and ratified the Montreal Protocol and those who pursued its implementation possessed such attributes. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was adopted. In 1989, it was ratified. Following its ratification, a COP process similar to what is ongoing regarding climate change was established. COP 1 set ground rules for how to proceed. During COP 2 in 1990, the parties announced that they "declare... their firm determination to take all appropriate measures to phase out the production and consumption of all fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons controlled by the Montreal Protocol... as soon as possible but not later than 1997." There were no fudge factors. There was no ambiguity. There was no weak "call" that could easily be ignored. There was a firm declaration with a specific near-term date. The leaders saw Ozone destruction as a crisis and responded with the boldness and firmness required to overcome a crisis. COP 4 in 1992 went on to adopt enforcement mechanisms. The leaders understood the importance of compliance. In stark contrast, COP 1 on climate change was held in 1995. COP 28 that just concluded still could not muster the leadership required to declare that fossil fuels would be phased out, or more specifically the burning of fossil fuels would be phased out, much less with a firm deadline. Their weak actions suggested that they view climate change as something more than an inconvenience but far short of a crisis. Critics will argue that a phase-out of fossil fuels can't be done (one wonders how they would respond if they knew that fossil fuels are essentially a finite resource that will eventually be depleted once they are all consumed). Such defeatist sentiment aimed at propping up an unsustainable status quo is not new. If one goes back to the period following the ratification of the Montreal Protocol, one heard many of the same kind of arguments from many in the chemical industry. They argued that there were no good substitutes. They asserted that refrigeration of food and air conditioning of homes and businesses would be lost. The defeatists suggested that a phase-out would be unrealistic. Their arguments did not carry the day. The leaders embraced the science, understood what was at stake, and chose to act. The Ozone layer would be protected and industry would have to innovate to comply with the new policy. The fossil fuel industry's arguments are no better. Those arguments should not prevail. Clearly, the fossil fuel industry would prefer to maintain its destructive but highly profitable business model--a model that brings it tens of billions of dollars in annual profits and $7 trillion annually in direct and indirect subsidies as per the latest IMF reporting. Nevertheless, societal wellbeing should take precedence. No industry is so sacred that it should be given a perpetual license for destruction of the world's climate and ecosystems. Defeatist rejectionism that such a transition can't be accomplished is without historical or technological foundation. Innovation has solved big problems. The Apollo Project was launched by President Kennedy on May 25, 1961 when he pledged that the U.S. would send men to the Moon within a decade. Much of the necessary technology did not exist. Yet, he set an ambitious goal with a specific timeframe. On July 21, 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon, even earlier than President Kennedy had imagined. The bottom line is that the transition can be achieved. With competent engineering and courageous policy choices, it can be achieved by 2050 in time to achieve the net zero emissions goal, if not earlier. Moreover, advantages exist that were not then available to NASA in 1961 or the chemical industry in 1992. There are numerous good substitutes available to supplant fossil fuels. Solar power, hydropower, wind power, nuclear power, geothermal power are all examples. Emerging technology to capture solar energy in space and beam the energy to Earth is under exploration. Storage capacity is increasing. In short, substitutes already exist. They should be scaled up at speed while fossil fuels are phased out at speed, at least as fast as alternatives come on line. That won't occur in the aftermath of COP 28. COP 28 demonstrated that the kind of will that allowed leaders to make concrete policy decisions to secure the Ozone layer from decimation is still lacking when it comes to addressing climate change. As a result of the failed outcome at COP 28, the remaining carbon budget to avert warming beyond 1.5°C will continue to be squandered. Global heating will proceed. Extreme outcomes will increase in frequency and magnitude in non-linear fashion. A growing societal commitment to increased sea-level rise with profound implications for coastal regions and major coastal cities will be pursued. Biodiversity will be undermined. Tragically, future generations who bear no responsibility for the problem and today's youth who seek to address it, will be the victims of this ongoing leadership failure. Virtually all of those leaders who refused to commit to phasing out fossil fuels, not to mention the fossil fuel industry representatives who have consistently worked to thwart meaningful efforts to address climate change, will have departed the scene long before their children, grandchildren, and future generations suffer the consequences of their shortsighted and selfish decisions. They will never experience the much harsher world they bequeathed to future generations.

A good summary on paleoclimate proxies can be found here: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/climate-research-and-development-program/science/paleoclimate-proxies#overview

Cool weather will continue through tomorrow. Afterward, temperatures will grow milder to end the week. The mild weather will continue through the weekend. A significant rainstorm followed by a continuation of above normal temperatures is likely Sunday evening into Monday. A general 1"-3" of rain is possible. No Arctic air appears likely through the remainder of December. If anything, the warm risks for the closing 7-10 days of the month have increased. A transition to a colder pattern could commence during the first week of January. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +1.9°C for the week centered around December 6. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +1.97°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +1.92°C. A basinwide El Niño event is ongoing. El Niño conditions will may strengthen somewhat further this month. The SOI was +6.69 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.180 today. Strong blocking in the final week of November, as occurred this year, has often been followed by frequent blocking in December and January. On December 11 the MJO was not available. The December 10-adjusted amplitude was 1.890 (RMM). Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 84% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal December (1991-2020 normal). December will likely finish with a mean temperature near 41.6° (2.5° above normal).

I agree. I think we'll see the blocking return. I suspect we'll get something in the first half of January, but most of the snowfall will likely occur late January or February (possibly with one storm accounting for most of it). I remain reasonably confident that this will not be a replay of the 2022-23 lack of snowfall or 1997-98 in terms of snowfall.

There's a mixture of good, bad, and ugly news as one looks ahead into the extended forecasting range. The ugly: The last 7-10 days of December are looking decidedly on the warm side of normal. The probability that New York City could wind up with a monthly mean temperature of 42° or above has increased markedly with Atlantic blocking having broken down. Such warmth would approach the top 10 figure for the month (10th warmest: 42.6°, 1990). The bad: The largest pool of very cold air is located on the other side of the Hemisphere. It won't be available to be tapped through at least the next 10 days or longer. A jet streak will also flood the North American continent with mild Pacific air. The good: Toward the end of the forecasting range, a trough could be developing over the southern United States beneath a Hudson Bay block. The subtropical jet looks to remain active. What all this means is that a transition toward a colder pattern that could present opportunities for snowfall still appears on track for the first week of January. At least through that time, genuine Arctic blasts appear unlikely. Aside from the inherent uncertainty associated with the timeframe involved (more than two weeks), one has seen a lack of run-to-run continuity on the weekly ECMWF guidance. There has been better consistency in the idea that the first week of January should be colder than the last week of December. Both the ECMWF weekly guidance and CFSv2 are in reasonable agreement concerning the first week of January about a colder pattern than the last week of December. But abnormal warmth could still be lurking not too far away in North America. What could go wrong? Given the lack of a large pool of cold air, it is worth examining this possibility. Winter 1994-95 provides an example. On December 25-26, 1994, the MJO moved through Phase 8. A colder pattern took hold shortly thereafter and continued toward mid-January. December 30-January 12 saw a mean temperature of 32.4° in NYC with 3 highs of 32° or below and 3 lows in the teens. Despite 1.87" of precipitation during that colder period, just 0.2" of snow was measured. Boston saw 4.4"; Philadelphia had only a trace; and, Washington, DC picked up 3.9". It then turned noticeably warmer toward mid-month with the temperature peaking at 64° on January 14th in NYC. Boston had two 66° highs. Philadelphia and Washington, DC reached 70°. 1994-95 argues for a measure of caution when it comes to the duration and impact of what appears to be a more favorable pattern in early January. Until one gets closer to that period, claims about high-impact snowstorms or high-impact cold are highly speculative. For now, a more promising, but not necessarily very cold, pattern looks reasonably likely to develop during the first week of January. Details about the magnitude of cold, amount of snowfall, persistence of the pattern should it develop, etc., remain to be determined. Most winter season snowfall during El Niño winters occurs in January and February with the largest share of 6" or more daily snowfall occurring in February for NYC.

The statistical models can be found here: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/forca.shtml

Cool weather will continue through Thursday. Afterward, temperatures will grow milder to end the week. The mild weather will continue through the weekend. No Arctic air appears likely through the remainder of December. However, a transition to a colder pattern could commence during the first week of January. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +1.9°C for the week centered around December 6. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +1.97°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +1.92°C. A basinwide El Niño event is ongoing. El Niño conditions will may strengthen somewhat further this month. The SOI was +6.69 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.180 today. Strong blocking in the final week of November, as occurred this year, has often been followed by frequent blocking in December and January. On December 10 the MJO was in Phase 6 at an amplitude of 1.890 (RMM). The December 9-adjusted amplitude was 1.862 (RMM). Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 75% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal December (1991-2020 normal). December will likely finish with a mean temperature near 41.3° (2.2° above normal).

In the wake of the storm that brought heavy rain and gusty winds to the region, a period of cooler weather will settle into the region. However, temperatures could again rise to above and perhaps much above normal levels as the winter solstice approaches. No Arctic air appears likely through the remainder of December. However, a transition to a colder pattern could commence during the first week of January. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +1.9°C for the week centered around December 6. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +1.97°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +1.92°C. A basinwide El Niño event is ongoing. El Niño conditions will may strengthen somewhat further this month. The SOI was -1.87 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.747 today. Strong blocking in the final week of November, as occurred this year, has often been followed by frequent blocking in December and January. On December 9 the MJO was in Phase 5 at an amplitude of 1.862 (RMM). The December 8-adjusted amplitude was 1.766 (RMM). Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 74% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal December (1991-2020 normal). December will likely finish with a mean temperature near 41.2° (2.1° above normal).

What was posted today is worse than his posting extreme maps. The problem in this case was that the WeatherBELL analogs had been publicly posted. One could go back to those analogs for purposes of comparison. Had the original forecast not been available, his revised map might well have stood up to scrutiny creating the perception of a better forecast than appears likely. Finally, is this a one-time issue or has it occurred before when there was no publicly-available evidence to validate the claims? In his Accuweather days, he would often "take out the trash" as he called it to discuss where things didn't work out. It seems that those days are long gone. He should delete his tweet. If so, I'd certainly be happy to delete my references to this case.

In what appears to be as classic an example of a bait-and-switch forecast to imply verification as one has seen in some time, JB has largely reshuffled his analog package to claim verification for how December is playing out in the East. This type of practice needs to be called out, as it shifts the goal posts to attempt to assert verification where verification appears unlikely (the East Coast). It is an unfair attempt to claim verification--both to the public and to other professionals in the field. Let's have a closer look: The winter forecast from WeatherBELL is posted at: https://www.weatherbell.com/winter-seasonal-forecast The list of analogs deployed is: 1957-58, 1965-66, 1969-70, 1976-77, 1986-87, 1997-98, 2002-03, 2009-10, and 2015-16 (see analog map used to construct the winter forecast) Here's how December played out using the above analog package: On November 20, when JB appeared to think that early-season cold was coming in line with his thinking, he tweeted a 45-day CFSv2 map showing extreme cold in the East (he tends to reach conclusions and then select guidance that supports those conclusions rather than using the guidance to inform his conclusions, which creates confirmation bias-related forecasting issues): The map was an extreme outlier with almost no chance of verifying in the contemporary climate. Even considering only historic climatology (not the impact of climate change), Boston had seen only 2.6% of cases with the cold shown on the map (last: 1989-90), New York City had seen 1.9% cases (last: 1917-18), and Washington, DC had seen 2.6% cases (last: 1917-18). Here's how December has played out through the first 10 days (imperiling the cold in the East idea and eliminating any prospect that the extreme CFSv2 map would verify): Rather than acknowledge that the forecast has done well in the Northern Plains but that the warmth has been more expansive than anticipated so far, including extending to the East Coast where the analog forecast was for cold, he tweeted the following on today (December 11): The full December map from that tweet is below: Look closely at the analog list shown on today's map and compare it to the forecast package posted on the WeatherBELL website. Here's how things have stayed the same or changed: 1957-58: Missing 1965-66: Retained 1969-70: Missing 1976-77: Missing 1986-87: Retained 1997-98: Missing 2002-03: Retained and used twice 2006-07: New 2009-10: Missing 2014-15: New 2015-16: Missing It's ok to revise forecasts as new evidence comes in. It's not ok to pass off new ideas as existing ones. The analogs presented on the WeatherBELL winter forecast are listed. That forecast was made public. The difference between the analogs shown in today's tweet and that forecast are apparent: 6 were deleted, 3 were retained with one being used twice, and 2 new ones were added. The December map should have been presented as a revised forecast. It is not the initial analog forecast, which was far too cold in the East. Finally, the extreme outlier map should never have been posted. 45-day maps have real limitations in skill. That the cold was exceptional relative to historic climatology was an early big "red flag" that suggested the need for extreme caution regarding the map. That the climate has warmed since the last comparable outbreaks of extreme cold further reduced the probability of the outcome shown on the map. The extreme map served no public purpose, as it was all but certain to bust from the onset. It was posted to reinforce the initial idea of a cold December in the East: 1. Notice the language in the tweet about "if it's going to be cold the CFSv2 45 day forecasts see it" (preemptive verification of a cold idea) 2. Notice the language that "some of the analogs of this winter say its (sic) not waiting till later Dec and beyond" (acknowledgement of the existence of the cold analogs that disappeared from this morning's tweet) JB should delete his tweet. It's not his best work to put it mildly.

From sister in Blooming Grove, PA:

The final numbers: Warmth overperformed in New England relative to the ECMWF weekly map; parts of the Mid-Atlantic were wetter than normal.

You did a terrific job.

A significant rainfall is likely tonight into tomorrow. A general 1.50"-2.50" rainfall with locally higher amounts is likely in the New York City area. Parts of Connecticut could see 3.00"-5.00" of precipitation. Already, Bridgeport has seen 1.55" through 6 pm. That breaks the daily record of 0.87" from 1994 (an El Niño December). Strong southeasterly winds will gust past 40 mph. Coastal flooding and beach erosion are likely. The strong winds could bring down limbs and even some trees. Thunderstorms are possible as the cold front pushes across the region late tonight or early tomorrow. The rain will likely end as a period of wet snow or flurries north and west of New York City. New York City could see some snowflakes, as well. A cooler period will follow the storm. However, temperatures could again rise to above and perhaps much above normal levels as the winter solstice approaches. No Arctic air appears likely through the remainder of December. However, a transition to a colder pattern could commence during the first week of January. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +2.1°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +2.0°C for the week centered around November 29. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +2.18°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +1.87°C. A basinwide El Niño event is ongoing. El Niño conditions will likely continue to strengthen somewhat further this month. The SOI was -10.07 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -1.294 today. Strong blocking in the final week of November, as occurred this year, has often been followed by frequent blocking in December and January. On December 8 the MJO was in Phase 5 at an amplitude of 1.766 (RMM). The December 7-adjusted amplitude was 1.732 (RMM). Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 71% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal December (1991-2020 normal). December will likely finish with a mean temperature near 41.0° (1.9° above normal).

A jet streak that will flood the CONUS with mild Pacific air.

This morning's HREF:

The mercury has now reached 60° in Central Park. That is the second such day this month. The frequency of December 60° has gradually but steadily increased.

LGA: Thunderstorm

Today, we increasingly need all the teleconnections to work together. The extent and magnitude of cold available to be tapped is less than it was 30 or more years ago. Thus, some of the earlier analogs some utilize should only be used with caution and adjustment to the contemporary context.

Another reason to favor the slower pattern transition (first week of January vs. last week of December): The AO is now forecast to go positive and remain positive through the remainder of the 2-week period ending December 24.

The final chart following last season for NYC's warmest and least snowy winters. The score is the combined standard deviation from the historic DJF temperature and seasonal snowfall means.