GaWx

Thanks for posting about this perspective about borealization, which presents it as a net negative. Modeling the potential myriad of effects of continued GW for the globe as a whole remains a highly complex and thus difficult endeavor. Thus having good discussions on these topics is beneficial.

I’m referring to the increase in boreal forests and the overall increased green areas of the globe as being a positive spect of CC, not the increased fires themselves.

AND What?! Are wildfires getting worse, or is the situation getting better? What can we expect going forward - more burn area globally as a result of a warming planet, or lessin concert with the present trend? This post wades into this apparent paradox and reasserts the idea that both the present and the future of wildfire burn area is highly linked to anthropogenic climate change. Yes, global burn area is declining, but it’s uneven regionally Globally, burn area from fires is indeed showing a robust declining trend over the last two decades. Some regions, however, have seen a pronounced increase over this period (especially boreal forest ecosystems). The longer term trends, as shown in the figure below, vary substantially from one model and dataset to the next, but generally speaking the story is that northern remote areas (especially boreal forest ecosystems and northern peatlands) are seeing an increase in recent decades, and tropical areas - especially in Africa’s savannah areas - have seen a decrease. Why is this happening? The specifics are complex, but the general explanation can be found in major expansions in agricultural development in Africa, which have helped drive “significant declines [in burn area] in African savannahs… despite significant increases in fire weather, and especially extreme fire weather, in the region.” This is, after all, savannah-grasslands account for more than half of global burn area, and so a significant reduction in that biome has a pronounced effect on the global totals. “Satellite data tracking shows that Earth's boreal forests have expanded in total area by about 12% (roughly 0.844 million square kilometers) and shifted northward as a result of warming temperatures.” https://science.nasa.gov/missions/landsat/boreal-forests-are-shifting-north/ This is a positive result from CC. Not all results of CC are bad. The overall greening of the globe is obviously a good thing even though it can also lead to increased wildfires due to increased potential fuel. And this being a carbon sink is helpful. The positive effects of CC are often minimized and thus there should be a more balanced presentation of its overall effects even if the net overall effect isn’t positive, which is where I’ve been leaning largely because of my concern about rising sea levels. Of course the future rate of sea level rise is a huge unknown and nobody knows how bad it actually will get.

That’s the link I’ve been going to also. That’s because whenever I google NOAA PDO or PDO NOAA, it takes me there. (I don’t have it saved as a bookmark.) But the server has been N/A much of the time since yesterday for some reason.

What’s weird is that NOAA July PDO of -1.29 isn’t as negative as NOAA June of -1.32 despite the big plunge on WCS in July!!

I just saw -1.29 rather than -2.03 for NOAA July 2026 PDO here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/v6/index/ersst.v6.pdo.dat That’s almost exactly what the WCS dailies in July average at. The vast majority of the time NOAA has been significantly more negative like had been the case since Feb.

A second straight day with a dousing on the way? It just started at 12:30PM and is picking up in intensity as radar confirms. Edit 4PM: That turned out to be only ~0.1”. But there’s more storms nearby that may add to this.

From that same pro-met, the strong support for a solid La Niña by next fall is there. This is just for ASO: If you look at RONI values that exceeded 1.0 in ASO, the higher end events almost always resulted in La Nina by the next year's ASO:1957: 1.2 -> 0.21963: 1.0 -> -0.61965: 1.9 -> 0.01972: 1.7 -> -1.51982: 1.8 -> -0.61987: 1.5 -> -1.41994: 1.0 -> -0.71997: 2.3 -> -1.52002: 1.3 -> 0.22015: 1.9 -> -1.12023: 1.1 -> -0.8

But why are they subtracting so much for the RONI deduction? It was only 0.44 for June ONI minus RONI. A sudden sharp increase from 0.44 to 0.8 is inconsistent with the size of month to month changes of the difference in the past.

Hot off the press posted by a pro-met! “It does seem strange/off, comparing the CRW and OISST products on cyclonicwx doesn't show that discrepancy.” He then copied this from a NOAA website: “In the afternoon on Aug. 3rd, the ERSSTv5 will switch to ERSSTv6 because NCEI is discontinuing ERSSTv5. RONI values will change slightly. The weekly OISSTv2.1 data will remain unaffected.”

Here’s still another amazingly strong CFS AAM run (about as strong as any overall), the 0Z August 3rd run (I’ve seen/posted 4 amazing runs in a row). Check out the complete agreement of members exceeding a very strong amp of 3 on Aug 13th/day 11 and an even stronger 3.5 on Aug 14th/day 12, as early as I’ve seen in any run! It being early is very important since these quickly become increasingly unreliable due largely to an increasing + bias once much past day 14. The key days for me to watch are in and near Aug 11-14 as of now: @snowman19

Relative 3.4 (weekly) remains notably lower than what this OISST graph suggests: graph suggests it was ~1.9 last week and NOAA has it at only 1.5 22JUL2026 3.0 1.8 1.4 0.3 29JUL2026 3.2 2.1 1.5 0.2 https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/rel_wksst9120.txt @snowman19any comment on this big discrepancy? I could accept without questioning it 0.1 or perhaps even a 0.2 difference. But 0.4 makes no sense! The graph shows it hasn’t been 1.5 since 4 weeks ago.

Brand new BoM remains full steam ahead to a record shattering RONI! This includes once again a record rapid rise within just one month (July to August). Also, it still doesn’t fall steeply after the peak totally unlike the V-shaped CFSv2 curve:

I just found an up to date (July 29th) source of worldwide burnt acreage in 2026 vs 2012-25: I don’t want to minimize how terrible these fires are wherever they occur and also I realize there’s CC contribution to these though it’s pretty complex. However, it just so happens that the two lowest years of year to date burnt world acreage since 2012 as of week 30 (~July 29th) are none other than 2026 (lowest with 112 million ha) and 2025 (2nd lowest with 131). The remainder are way up at 162-216. The avg of 2012-25 is 193. Thus, 2026 is a whopping 81 million ha below the 2012-25 week 30 world avg! I’m guessing it’s probably caused largely by more favorable wx (some combo of wetter (like in S America) as well as fewer lightning strikes, lower temps, and/or lighter winds in dry areas), fewer arsonists, and/or better firefighting: @donsutherland1@WolfStock1

The amazing runs keep coming! The 12Z 8/2/26 CFSv2 has the strongest AAM for forecast days ~12-23 that I’ve seen/saved! The mean hits 3 on day 12, 3.5 on day 16, and 4 on day 17 or 18! There are 3 of 4 members at 4+ on day 19 or 20 through day 22! Afterward, it isn’t quite as impressive as the last run and the far right isn’t as impressive as the last 2 although it’s still very impressive:@snowman19

It appears per radar that I’m about to get clobbered with heavy rain. Rain started ~5:50PM. Edit: The heaviest rain fell mainly 5:50-6:20PM on Aug 2nd. The total was ~1.75”. Thus I get a break from having to water!

12Z UKMET has no TC but it does have this vigorous TW on Thu evening moving NW and then NNW from there bringing convection into the NFL/GA/SC coast on Fri 8/7. I may have to watch this. Hopefully it ends up nothing more than this or a low end TS at the very worst:

The latest WCS daily PDO has fallen to -2.19, which is the lowest since way back on 8/29/25! This plunge was not predicted AFAIK:

This isn’t about measuring GW. This is about using the most appropriate 30 year period to determine what normals are. Due to GW, normals have increased a couple of degrees over the last few decades as you know. Thus, 1951-80 has been outdated for decades to use to determine normals, which are always changing.

The longer range model consensus is suggesting the possibility of a very long MJO phase 6 streak later this month, the 2nd this year possibly reaching 14+ days, and with a likely max magnitude of 2+. Longest MJO ph. 6: # days; max mag 7/28-8/18/1984: 22; 2.5; 7/15-8/4/1996: 21; 2.0; 10/13-31/2022: 19; 2.2 6/13-30/1984: 18; 2.0; 1/5-21/2026: 17; 2.7 11/16-12/1/1998: 16; 2.5 10/6-20/1988: 15; 3.0 7/19-8/1/2018: 14; 2.5 2/25-3/10/1997: 14; 3.6

Today’s SOI rose to ~-8, the highest in a month, from ~-22 yesterday due to a sharp increase in pressure at Tahiti. However, Tahiti has most likely about peaked and it will be falling back noticeably within the next few days. Meanwhile, Darwin’s pressure looks to be higher tomorrow than today. Thus, I’m expecting another -SOI tomorrow, which would make it 85 straight -SOI days vs the record back to 1991 of 100 (set in 1998). Darwin should peak tomorrow followed by a drop for 2-3 days. But with Tahiti’s concurrent fall during that period, I’m thinking the -SOI streak will likely continue for at least the next few days and likely make it to at least 90 days.

I was wrong as the Darwin 1015+ mb streak is still going! It’s now up to 24 days and tomorrow looks to also be 1015+. That would make it 25 straight days vs the prior longest of 20 days from July of 2015.

I strongly disagree. 1951-80 has not been relevant base climo for anomalies for a very long time. Normals are supposed to reflect the most up to date available climo. We’re obviously in a notably warmer climate than that of 1951-80. That earlier colder climate is no longer relevant for determining normals.

I fully realize that the 30 year climo period available during 1997-8, just like at the time for any winter, always has to end prior to that winter for obvious reasons. There’s no choice. But once one gets further into the future, a more appropriate 30 year period to use as a basis for the analysis of anomalies for any winter is imho the 30 years most centered on that winter. Otherwise, in a warming climate using a 30 year period that’s prior to that winter is always going to bias that winter to look warmer than it really was vs the best centered 30 year climo. So, I strongly disagree with you on this and I’ll leave it at that. I don’t expect for you to agree with my thinking here. That’s fine as there’s nothing wrong with that. These are solid debates, which I enjoy, rather than them being arguments/throwing cheap shots.

Chris, The following is a better way to look at how 1997-8 did: using the more appropriate/well centered climo base of 1981-2010 instead of 1961-90, which is earlier than 1997-8. Using the earlier, colder 1961-90 makes 1997-8 anomalies ~1F warmer than they actually were in many areas as you know vs the available best centered climo of 1981-2010: still mild in NE but not as mild and SE NN: