Isotherm

1 hour ago, StormchaserChuck said:

Really nice and anomalous -NAO happening now!

(Conditions around the rest of the Northern Hemisphere do not favor this - and the NAO is quite negative!)

This is, once again, a big indicator for the upcoming 3 months. 

Not seeing it. The NAO dipped to -1 SD a couple days ago, but will be oscillating up to +1 SD for the next week or so. By December 15th, the Dec 1-15th NAO mean is likely to be near neutral, or possibly even ever so slightly positive. So far, it's not a propitious indication of an ensuing moderate to strongly negative NAO winter.

16 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Peak foliage now. Actually a great leaf season around here.

Turned out much better than it seemed it would a couple weeks ago. Maples are mostly past peak here now, but still holding great color, and oaks are now peak. I think we'll see major leaf drop with the CAA event at the end of this week.

On 8/5/2017 at 8:09 PM, Isotherm said:

I like where I stand with my pre-season predictions; might even end up a tad aggressive for some areas:

 

 

PHL: 28

EWR: 25

NYC: 16

LGA: 19
TTN: 21

Still going to end up a bit high on NYC/LGA/TTN, pretty close on PHL/EWR. Happy with the call overall.

13 minutes ago, nzucker said:

I may have even been too high with 1-2 more 90s for NYC and 3-4 more for EWR...looks like we were done after the widespread 90F readings on Aug 1st. We may see a slightly warmer pattern in the second half of September, or at least the next week, but it doesn't look extreme enough with declining climo to reach 90F again in NYC. It looks as though 12 90-degree days will be the number for Summer 2017.

Barring any extreme changes in the forecast or the first October 90F since 1944, time to put this thread away for winter hibernation. The fat lady has sung...saying she will see us in April.

Cooling degree days have been the lowest probably since 2009 for our area. I only have 766 CDD's for year thus far, quite low comparatively after the past couple summers.

7 hours ago, nzucker said:

I don't think your forecast will verify for EWR or NYC. You need 4 more at NYC (16 have 12) and 6 more at EWR (25 have 19). I think the reality is 1-2 more at NYC and 2-3 for EWR. You will be very close but probably on the high side unless September is huge heat. 2015 was the warmest September ever and had 6 days of 90F.

Current pattern keeps Canadian high pressure over the area into September, looks like until at least 9/5. With 9/15 basically the cut off for more than an isolated 90F every 10 years, time is running out fast.

You could feel it in the air yesterday. Still warm but sun is losing its punch. Airmass is transitioning to low humidity deep blue skies.

Agreed on all counts. Those numbers will almost certainly be too high. And yeah, definitely feeling much more fall like in terms of sun intensity now. Really noticing the lengthening nights.

16 here now. We're pretty much done given the upcoming pattern. Might be able to make the average of 18 for around here.

I like where I stand with my pre-season predictions; might even end up a tad aggressive for some areas:

PHL: 28

EWR: 25

NYC: 16

LGA: 19
TTN: 21

4 hours ago, doncat said:

My station... May 3, June 6, July 7, Aug 1...Total 17 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3, 5, and 7 here for May, June, and July respectively. Total 15. So far nothing in August, and it looks like nothing for awhile. 

94F and day 14 for the season here.

5 hours ago, doncat said:

Move your barbecue away from your vantage

I'm tied with Newark (doubt that will last) at 12 90 degree days here.

1 hour ago, doncat said:

28 days here so far...normal for entire season is 21...Record is 44 days in 2010.

Up to 22 days here, above the normal of 17-18 I think. I had 38 in 2010.

We should manage some more days in Sept.

11 hours ago, doncat said:

19  days of 90+ here so far .

Stuck at 12 here, but I've had at least 6 days of near misses at 88-89F over the past few months. If the next two months are very warm/warm as I expect, my backyard should be able to surpass 20 days.

Interior areas and urban locations already near normal for annual 90s. 20 at New Brunswick is impressive. Coastal sites like NYC still need another 7 or so. But we're really only half-way through the summer as far as the heat goes.

4 total here with 3 in May and 1 this month.

Still stuck at 1 here (91.5 on May 28th), with 1 89F and a couple 88s as well. So far my high for June of 88 is less than May, and only 8 degrees warmer than March! Talk about a pattern reversal.

I would strongly doubt that is the reason. 

Anyone know why StudentofClimatology doesn't post here anymore?

17 90F days here. Tomorrow would make a heat wave and 18. Now at the seasonal normal for this area re 90s.

Climate is a field with many unanswered questions, and thus most topics are fairly debatable. I think part of the issue could be seeing things as black/white, right/wrong, rather than a difference in opinion. I've seen many posters fall victim to this way of thinking. Of course there are some aspects which are hard facts, but for example: one person could present a peer-reviewed study on a particular subject, but then I can respond with a peer-reviewed paper asserting something contrary to the one you posted (like ECS for instance). If someone holds an opinion that is different from your own, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong/liar. When someone cannot substantiate their claims with peer reviewed evidence, or at the very least, valid scientific reasoning, then it's a different story. But my interpretation of the entire conversation is that it boils down to differences of opinion regarding the utility of a dataset.

The quality of discussion in this forum has decreased dramatically recently, not because of SOC, but due to certain individuals who apparently have something personally against SOC, and thus are trying desperately to discredit him / run him off the board. Meanwhile, I've seen nothing from him that necessitates a banning (however, a ban could be argued for those responsible for the verbal attacks). As I said before, it's unprofessional, inappropriate, and speaks volumes of the characters' of the people engaging in this behavior.

I'm not sure why a discussion on climate needs to devolve into something nasty (actually I do: it's because people cannot separate their emotional instinctive response from their more emotionally detached intellectual response, and the way to accomplish this is through simple discipline).

I hope this forum improves in the future, as climate is an important subject that deserves attention. But productive discourse cannot occur if there are folks constantly attempting to derail the threads with personal attacks.

It will probably go on until you man up and admit you were wrong. As shown by your own words.  I know that accepting responsibility for your actions is not your strong suit, so carry on with your semantic games and weasel wording - the credibility you trash is only your own.

Is this a Supreme Court trial? Even if he was wrong, which is your opinion, he has no obligation to publicly admit it.

The bottom line is that skierinvermont is basically correct. He may be aggressive, but he's clearly won the argument against SOC. 

 

SOC claimed there was no homogenization/interpolation of data in RATPAC. Skierinvermont produced contrary evidence that the data was gridded, and then the average of the grids was taken. While Skier should have acknowledged that this does not completely eliminate the problem of poor aerial coverage in the Southern Hemisphere, where the warming has been least, his basic argument was correct: RATPAC uses a similar method to GISS to calculate anomaly, though not quite as accurate. SOC tried to backpedal and use semantics to cover up the fact he was wrong. He should have admitted such, and simply insisted that some data was still lacking. 

 

SOC also jumped on the solar study just because he perceived it might negate arguments that higher solar activity is responsible for global warming instead of human activity. Even though the study doesn't really change much, he worried it might weaken the skeptic position that solar activity is as important as anthropogenic inputs, so he immediately attacked the study. This without even reading the original paper. Skierinvermont was, once again, correct. 

 

Skierinvermont may be annoying sometimes, but the most annoying part to you guys is that he's right.

Strongly disagree. It is your opinion that his argument is correct, and besides, you've completely missed the point. Who is correct or incorrect is irrelevant. We can have civil, scientific disagreements without attacking posters' credibility, which skier has done to SOC in this thread (and SOC, LEK, and myself in the solar thread). He's done this on numerous occasions, and it appears you're condoning this both unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Anyone who dissents from his opinion(s) are treated as intellectually inferior. It is very unfortunate because solid, good posters will be driven away from the climate forum, and soon, it will become an echo chamber in which only a handful of people possessing the same views remain.

Up to 13 here. Surpassed last summer's 11, and should attain 2013's 16 I think.

This is not a fair statement. How many sources do we have actually measuring LT temps? And yet you claim the satellite sources are "outliers". 

 

Being inconsistent with the theory does not make a source an outlier, as Will explained above.

Agree. You can't verify the satellite datasets w/ datasets that measure something completely different. Saying that the satellites are outliers is presupposing that the surface datasets provide a more accurate, representative measure of global temperatures. One could make the argument that the satellites provide a more representative measure. The bottom line is that in the longer term, the datasets are very similar. Some seem to be expecting the satellites to consistently be in lock-step with the surface, which makes no meteorological sense when one considers the different domains being measured. It also appears that some are quick to point out the flaws in the satellite measurements, while never broaching the subject of sfc dataset flaws, due to the underlying biases present. Global temperature measurement is not an exact science, and we need to accept that limitations exist with both techniques.