bluewave

13 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Did this happen a few years ago when we all snow snow showers in early May with low temps near freezing?

The TPV looks even stronger this time near Hudson Bay maxing out near -5 SD.  It’s forecast to weaken as it heads to Maine. But there will still be a late season possible hard freeze for interior regions. Both events followed a late season -EPO pattern after record warmth prevailed during the winter.

5 hours ago, jm1220 said:

Here comes the gunk.  

Something unusual is going on with the the TPV. It’s becoming consolidated and very strong for late April. The forecast is for it to  approach record low 500mb heights for late April levels near Hudson Bay next week. All the guidance splits a piece off and it heads for Maine day 6-10. If this scenario verifies, interior portions of the Northeast could face a hard freeze. 

It will be interesting to see if Newark can maintain a high only in the 40s tomorrow. It would be one of the more impressive 48-72 hr afternoon temperature drops during the month of April if they can pull it off. The last 80s to 40s in the afternoon in April over a few days was back in 2018. 
 

https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?_wait=no&q=169&network=NJ_ASOS&zstation=EWR&v=tmpf&hours=72&month=apr&dir=cool&how=exact&_r=t&dpi=100&_fmt=png

On 4/15/2024 at 1:22 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

As a follow-up, this looks to be something specific to NYC (Central Park) ASOS. In addition to switching to an automated system at Central Park, they've also allowed a veritable jungle to encroach on the site in contravention of standard siting rules. So I would say it probably reflects a more substantial warm-season daytime cooling bias at NYC.

You can see the artificial warm season daytime cooling at Central Park when the ASOS was installed under the trees around 1995. That’s when the decrease in 90° days began to occur. So these charts show the previous 30 years vs the 30 years since the deep shade became a factor under the trees. 
 

12 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

Why the disconnect between ideal winter patterns not occurring inside DJF? It’s nice to see we can still get h5 looks like this but would be better during winter and not April 

Probably related to the big changes in the Pacific SSTs since 2014 along with the more frequent and amplified MJO 4-7s during the winter. 

A recent paper was just published on this remarkable warming  in the North Pacific SST patterns since the 2014 marine heatwave.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL101078

The fundamental result of this study is that the first EOF of SST in the North Pacific has changed starting in 2014. For more than 20 years, the PDO has been used to describe the state of the North Pacific. However, since the marine heatwave of 2014, there have been remarkable changes to the dominant mode of SST in the North Pacific. The spatial pattern of the first EOF of SST from 1950 to 2021 is notably different from the PDO, suggesting that though the PDO served as a useful metric of SST variations until 2014 (Johnstone &Mantua, 2014), it may no longer be as effective a climate index for the North Pacific. From 1950 until the 2014 MHW, the first EOF remained consistent in its proportion of positive and negative regions with both taking up roughly half the area of the North Pacific (and with the positive region taken to be the eastern Pacific). When EOFs are calculated from 1950 to endpoints after 2014, the first EOF has a maximum positive region covering 77% of the North Pacific, with a PC indicating the largest anomalies on record. These changes to the first EOF/PC of North Pacific SST are nothing short of remarkable.

In concert with these changes, the second EOF/PC of SST has also undergone profound evolutionsince 2014. This second EOF now accounts for approximately 18% of the variability, growing from 13% during the 1950–2013 period. The spatial structure of the second EOF now is positive over almost the entire basin, with a PC that has grown strongly positive in the last several years. Thus, the second EOF/PC describes warming over much of the Pacific not in the positive lobe of the first EOF.

16 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Like clockwork 

It's amazing 

We need to get back to those winters

The interesting thing is that we had those 2 cold winters just before the record 9 winters of record warmth since 15-16. Almost like our last really cool summer in 2009 was followed by all the record summer warmth since 2010. The lone top 10 coldest February 2015 month got answered by a record amount of top 10 warmest winter months since then including the +13.3 December 2015 and 80° in February 2018 not to mention all the 40° winters in recent years. Then our lone top 10 coldest June into July 2009 was  answered by the warmest summer on record in 2010 and a record number of top 10 warmest summer months since then.

27 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Yup of course right when it’s not wanted which just sends in maritime puke from the east instead of the west. Right on cue for the last few years. Last year or the year before it was I think 2 weeks straight of some type of easterly winds. 

My guess is that the backdoor prevented us from reaching 90° this week. The long range models had mid 80s for Wednesday into Friday  before the backdoor appeared in more recent forecasts. So they probably would have been at least 5°+ too cool like we have seen on the original long range forecast for yesterday. 

Too bad we could get such a strong -EPO pattern which is forecast to coincide with the cooler backdoor this week when we needed it during the winter.  All the best -EPOs since 13-14 and 14-15 have occurred during other seasons than the winter. Those were the last winters with wall to wall -EPO patterns. 

 

The climate models that predict sea level rise will need a significant upgrade in order to factor in this faster Antarctic ice sheet melt from warming ocean currents. 
 

https://www.earth.com/news/antarctica-ice-shelves-melting-faster-due-to-ocean-currents/

Antarctic ice shelves are melting faster due to ocean currents
 

This new discovery necessitates a reevaluation of our current understanding of the complex interactions between the Southern Ocean currents and the Antarctica ice sheet. Prior models primarily focused on wind patterns as the driver of ice shelf melt.

This new research highlights the crucial role of ocean currents and seabed topography in influencing the movement and upwelling of warm water towards the ice shelves. 

Consequently, climate models used to predict future sea level rise will require significant adjustments to incorporate these newly discovered dynamics. 

“Our findings challenge conventional wisdom,” explained Yoshihiro Nakayama from Hokkaido University. 

By integrating this information, scientists can develop more accurate and nuanced projections of how much global sea levels might rise due to Antarctic ice melt.

“Our study underscores that the interplay between meandering ocean currents and the ocean floor generates upwelling velocity, bringing warm water to shallower depths. Subsequently, this warm water reaches the ice-ocean interface, accelerating ice shelf melting.” Nakayama explains.

“This internal oceanic process driving ice shelf melting introduces a novel concept. With this in mind, we have to reevaluate winds driving Antarctic ice loss, which can significantly impact future projections,” he concludes.

 

This discovery highlights a crucial point: climate change isn’t just a matter of rising air temperatures. It’s a cascade of interconnected effects that ripple throughout Earth’s various systems. 

The ocean plays a far more significant role than previously thought, and its dynamic interactions with ice sheets and currents can have profound consequences for global sea levels. 

As we delve deeper into climate science, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a holistic approach is necessary to understand the intricate web of cause and effect that drives 

13 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

I'll take that over 80. Too early for that type of warmth. 

Wait another month to early June

Yeah, the 90s came too early last April. I remember a bunch of places having to turn the AC on more than a month ahead of usual. It was one of those reverse summers where the April heat was more imoressive relative to the summer means. While the summer was much cooler in 2009,the April warmth last year came ahead of a summer that was closer to average with much less heat than recent years. Developing El Niño summers tend to be more reasonable with the heat.
 

14 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

How does tomorrow look? 

Closer to 70°.

Today looks like a great day. The HRRR has 78° around EWR and NYC. The model was 2° too cool last week with the warm up so 80° highs are possible.

This is one of those rare times that an advertised 6-10 day warm up underperforms. The much stronger 50/50 low and low over Iowa played a role here. It caused a narrower and more elongated ridge to allow a much stronger backdoor.

New run

Old run

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

If the models are overdoing this +IOD event, which is possible and we go into a -IOD, I think this La Niña explosively develops this summer and fall, should that happen, there’s a chance it becomes a record event (i.e. 73-74, 88-89). The ingredients, both atmospheric and oceanic are definitely there

El Niño to La Niña transition summers are usually pretty hot. So we’ll probably need to keep the pattern very wet to take the edge off the warmer potential. But that would come with the price of higher dewpoints. 

Another study on how aerosol reduction is leading to more warming than originally forecast by some climate models. 

My guess is that this persistent trough near the Northeast is related to the +IOD creating a MJO 2 type pattern. 

On 4/9/2024 at 7:11 AM, bluewave said:

Yeah, looks like it’s a function of the rapidly warming subtropical oceans. 
 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00839-w

In this study, we evaluate the ocean warming pattern derived from four decades of satellite measurements. We find widespread strong subtropical ocean warming, concentrating mostly on the western ocean basins. In contrast to these observations, studies of paleoclimate suggest that the greatest ocean warming occurs at higher latitudes. By pairing the observed warming pattern with SST evolution in long-term climate simulations, we propose that the observed warming pattern is constrained by ocean dynamics of surface convergence (downwelling, subtropical gyres) and divergence (upwelling, subpolar gyres) rather than being dominated by internal variabilities, such as the PDO. 
 

 

 

A recent paper was just published on this remarkable warming  in the North Pacific SST patterns since the 2014 marine heatwave.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL101078

The fundamental result of this study is that the first EOF of SST in the North Pacific has changed starting in 2014. For more than 20 years, the PDO has been used to describe the state of the North Pacific. However, since the marine heatwave of 2014, there have been remarkable changes to the dominant mode of SST in the North Pacific. The spatial pattern of the first EOF of SST from 1950 to 2021 is notably different from the PDO, suggesting that though the PDO served as a useful metric of SST variations until 2014 (Johnstone & Mantua, 2014), it may no longer be as effective a climate index for the North Pacific. From 1950 until the 2014 MHW, the first EOF remained consistent in its proportion of positive and negative regions with both taking up roughly half the area of the North Pacific (and with the positive region taken to be the eastern Pacific). When EOFs are calculated from 1950 to endpoints after 2014, the first EOF has a maximum positive region covering 77% of the North Pacific, with a PC indicating the largest anomalies on record. These changes to the first EOF/PC of North Pacific SST are nothing short of remarkable.

In concert with these changes, the second EOF/PC of SST has also undergone profound evolution since 2014. This second EOF now accounts for approximately 18% of the variability, growing from 13% during the 1950–2013 period. The spatial structure of the second EOF now is positive over almost the entire basin, with a PC that has grown strongly positive in the last several years. Thus, the second EOF/PC describes warming over much of the Pacific not in the positive lobe of the first EOF.

3 hours ago, gravitylover said:

^^What does it look like for Putnam and northwestern Fairfield counties?

15.00” of rain this spring in spots is really impressive by April 15th considering the regional average for the whole spring (MAM) is around 12.00”.

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not really ... What I "want" ? No, that is beside the point.  

What needs to happen, that is the point I was trying to make - however well, notwithstanding.  

We cannot sell CC mitigation and/or correcting tech and policy to the highest bidder. The virtue cannot be in profit.  It has to be in recognition of the problem at a personal level that triggers flight or fight, unfortunately.  Humans don't seem to 'believe' urgency unless it appeals that way. And since we cannot taste or touch, see or smell CC ... etc etc

Anyway, I like that 2nd bold statement there.  I've often thought to compared this to a race between making technology accessible to everyone as a means to survive, prior to time running out.  That, and tech also directly fixing the problem.  Maybe that is the entry into Kardashev 1 civilization ranking - when a species gets to this brink but then succeeds.    Sci Fiction's "Star Trek" provided matter-energy exchange replication.   Not meaning to imply that is relevant to objective reality by mentioning.  Just an example of tech 'winning the race'.  All the essentials become essentially free... etc etc, and there's no basis for greed. 

That's unlikely in our life time... But out there, some where there probably is in the infinitum of cosmic probabilities, societies that have succeeded.

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not really ... What I "want" ? No, that is beside the point.  

What needs to happen, that is the point I was trying to make - however well, notwithstanding.  

We cannot sell CC mitigation and/or correcting tech and policy to the highest bidder. The virtue cannot be in profit.  It has to be in recognition of the problem at a personal level that triggers flight or fight, unfortunately.  Humans don't seem to 'believe' urgency unless it appeals that way. And since we cannot taste or touch, see or smell CC ... etc etc

Anyway, I like that 2nd bold statement there.  I've often thought to compared this to a race between making technology accessible to everyone as a means to survive, prior to time running out.  That, and tech also directly fixing the problem.  Maybe that is the entry into Kardashev 1 civilization ranking - when a species gets to this brink but then succeeds.    Sci Fiction's "Star Trek" provided matter-energy exchange replication.   Not meaning to imply that is relevant to objective reality by mentioning.  Just an example of tech 'winning the race'.  All the essentials become essentially free... etc etc, and there's no basis for greed. 

That's unlikely in our life time... But out there, some where there probably is in the infinitum of cosmic probabilities, societies that have succeeded.

Addressing the issue is going to need creative solutions which aim to make life easier for the inhabitants of our societies across the globe and which appeal to their higher aspirations. So far we have heard from the politicians and world leaders how the average person needs to sacrifice to bring about changes. This is being done by individuals with giant carbon footprints in private jets who may mean well but have no idea the financial struggles and challenges that the average person faces on a daily basis.

We knew the original idea being promoted for years was a non starter right out of the gate of levying a carbon tax which would inevitably be passed on to individuals. People need relief from the high costs of life not more economic stress.

Countries like Germany have seen their electric rates shoot through the roof due to the high cost of trying to upgrade the grid to renewables which is extremely expensive. Instead of keeping their nuclear plants open they have now turned to coal to meet their additional energy needs. 

In this country there are many that in theory who want renewable energy. But once a large installation is proposed in their area they reject it. These installations take up large swaths of land and the local residents have moved to block them. Plus the current inflationary economy makes renewables less competitive since they were designed for a lower inflation environment. This is why their stock prices has been falling recently. Along with the cancellation of projects due to the higher costs.

Renewables like wind and solar also take a long time to scale up and have the issue of being intermittent. So it’s no surprise that that the fossil fuels share of the energy mix still remains constant across the globe and has not dropped. Countries in Europe have demonstrated that nuclear has scaled up more quickly than wind and solar. But there has been too much resistance to nuclear over the years. We now have next generation nuclear which is much safer. So there is no need to wait for fusion to become viable. That could still take another 15-30 years. 

I see government plans to transition from internal combustion engine cars to electric vehicles. But electric vehicles like Teslas are very expensive to the average consumer who is currently economically stressed due to the high rate of costs and inflation. These are niche items for the more affluent who own their own homes with chargers. We still don’t have enough charging infrastructure for the majority of people who are apartment dwellers in big cities. Plus the grid is nowhere near the level needed to sustain a large vehicle electrification project. 

China has taken a different approach with mass producing EVs for only 10,000 which would be affordable to the average citizen. But there are some who want to block the entry of these vehicles into our market. The contradictions coming out of China are very notable. On one hand they have become the greatest emitter of co2 due to their rapid expansion of coal plants. But they are also working on EV technology at a fast rate and look to end up dominating the world market. So there is no way the planet is going to reduce carbon emissions without China experiencing a rapid transformation first. For all our issues in this country, we still have managed to lower our emissions somewhat. We have been using more natural gas which greatly reduces mortality and disease from air pollution. China could take a cue for us here since it along with India has some of the worst air pollution in the world.

On 4/12/2024 at 10:39 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm... surviving CC cannot be about money.

In fact....that's entirely trivial, really.  Money is but a human invention. I mean... not you per se ( I realize what you were after above and it is not your problem - ).  The 'societal machinery' is autopilot-attempting to mediate everything through the lens of dollars and cents - but unfortunately ... the natural order is 100% mutually exclusive  to that invention. 

Money is internal to the 'human bubble,' a delusion in the sense that it's ability to solve problems is not what it seems because humans have a tendency not to see beyond the boundary. 

The  human construct bubble has served a very good purpose. There's no question. It's the ( sorry, gross cliche incoming...) threads in the fabric of civilization.  It's what creates our human cooperative cloth. It allows the primitive tribal 150 member "entrusted" model of antiquity, to function at scales of population that are so large in scalar numbers that it's impossible for even the finest polymaths to completely wrap their heads around the far reaches of such population numbers.  It's the collective belief in the "intrinsic" value of money that keeps people operating in relative unison, well beyond the periphery of the tribal size.  Noah Harari's "Sapiens" - is vert a good read.  He finely describes the historical significance of economic emergence on large scales, and why-for how it assisted transforming humanity's primitive tribal states ...ultimately into countries ( spanning some 7 to 10,000 years to do so), replete with all the modern amenities that allow both population to explode to billions over ...but extending the life expectancy by decades.

Except along the way( oops ), humanity repeatedly demos its willingness to die by it.  And I'm not talking just about CC in the current context, either.  Wars are fought over it sponsored by state, and individuals act out antisocially for take.

If we make decisions designed to ameliorate CC's certain dilemmas based upon it?  Doesn't seem to project very well.  It may be that humanity doesn't otherwise know how.  That may be so.  But tough shit. Adaptation and mitigation mean nothing if mass-extinction fractures critical connections between inextricably codependent nodes of "Gaia" ( for lack of better word). The self-correcting super structure no longer corrects.  Pull enough 'keystone relationships' out of that web, and life cannot be supported.

While people are trying to figure out how to pay for CC?  

Your views are based on the way you want the world to work and not how it currently works. I also have a soft spot for that sentiment since I think we could be doing so much more collectively across the world on a whole host of issues.

Society needs to have things demonstrated to them first before they are willing to make big changes in the way they do things. Scientists are missing the fact that societies are more reactive than proactive. And climate change involves being proactive in order to avoid the worst outcomes as the climate continues to rapidly warm. Big changes in society have historically happened after major catalyzing events. But on numerous occasions these events were well forecast by people who were paying attention to the signs. So I am sure climate change will be no different. We have been conditioned by experience to react to immediate threats in the here and now and not what could eventually happen in the future. Don’t be surprised it it takes the beginning of a break up in the WAIS and much faster seas level rises than we have seen for climate change to rise to the top of many nations list of priorities. My guess is that a sudden rise of sea levels in a relatively short period of time will get all the countries of the worlds attention. But we are not at that point yet. 

Money is just another form of abundance in life. So it’s the currency  that value across the globe is measured by. It’s a form of exchange that represents our current level of advancement. I am sure there are probably much more evolved civilizations out there in the universe where money isn’t such a dominant feature like on our planet. But we haven’t reached that level just yet. So climate change is going to need to start costing societies so much that collectively we all decide that we need to change the way we order our economies and societies. It would be great if we currently had some technology that could speed up the transition away from fossil fuels. But energy transitions throughout history have been slow. 

I don’t think that we can rely on government bodies to protect us from an increasingly more volatile climate. My focus on adaptation  is based on the individual making informed choices on how to best navigate this change in climate. I don’t expect any government body to do it for us. So my focus is raising awareness of these climate issues so the individual can make their own best informed decisions. 

 

17 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Interesting observation about all three peaks being within only 0.2C of each other. I’m having trouble even finding three consecutive neutral peaks within only a 0.2C range.

The evolution 2020-2023 triple dip La Niña was different from 1998-2001 in several ways. First, this most recent one didn’t follow a very strong to super El Niño event. Second, it was driven more by the stronger SST contrast from the WPAC to EPAC leading to stronger trade winds. 
 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023JD038843#:~:text=Subsurface cooling in the equatorial,SST) contrast along the equator.

Key Points

Plain Language Summary

16 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Because "hot days" are defined by the number of times it hits 90 degrees.  How hot a summer is, is tangibly defined that way.  I'm done with the humidity driven overnight lows.  Higher lows come from humidity, while actual heat determines how many times we hit 90 degrees.

90° days have been on the increase with numerous top 10 years since 2010. But the higher dewpoints are allowing the 70° minimums to increase at a faster rate.

While it still looks like generally warmer weather next week than we have seen recently, it may not get quite as warm as models were indicating a few days ago. As we can often see this time of year, back doors have a way of popping up the closer in we get to a forecast period. 
 

New run stronger backdoor nearby

Old run weaker backdoor