13 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The expansion of the boreal forests into the tundra raises another set of issues.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/boreal-trees-are-spreading-into-the-arctic-tundra-405025

 

In an increasingly warmer world, the Arctic tundra is becoming more forestlike. This process, known as borealization, is particularly widespread in Eurasia and in Arctic mountain regions, where the distance to the boreal (northern) forest is shorter. Many species of grasses and shrubs that can live in both the tundra and the forest are gaining ground in the tundra. This is shown by a new large-scale study of 1,100 sampling sites across the entire Arctic biome.

Consequences

“If this trend continues, it could have a number of consequences. For example, it could accelerate the melting of the permafrost or change the seasonal migration of reindeer. It could also affect the traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, who rely on hunting, reindeer herding, and gathering plants as a part of their subsistence and cultural practice,” says Robert Björk, a researcher on Arctic ecosystems at the University of Gothenburg.

When shrubs and other tree-like species expand, they trap more snow in winter and cover the ground in summer. This changes the ground temperature and can accelerate the thawing of the permafrost. As a result, large amounts of carbon that have been frozen for thousands of years could be released, contributing to global warming. 

 

 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.

4 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The issue at hand is the expansion of wildfires in the boreal and other forests. Places like Canada  have seen both national and regional record fire activity increase due to the warmer and drier conditions. The recent record fire in Ontario produced the record smoke from the Great Lakes to the Northeast. I don’t count that as a positive. 

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.

13 hours ago, bluewave said:

https://thetradeoff.substack.com/p/the-wildfire-climate-change-burn?r=1q3cpv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

 

The Wildfire-Climate Change Burn Area Paradox

Climate Change is making wildfires worse, but global wildfire burn area is declining

 

RYAN KATZ-ROSENE

AUG 03, 2026

 

Consider the following two statements about global wildfires from two high-level scientific reviews on the matter:

“Overall, climate change is exerting a pervasive upwards pressure on fire globally by increasing the frequency and intensity of fire weather, and this upwards pressure will escalate with each increment of global warming.” (From Jones et al. 2022)

AND 

“Since the early 2000s, global burn area has declined by roughly one-quarter, driven mainly by reductions in the area burned by fires in African savannahs linked to landscape fragmentation and changes in the distribution of rainfall” (From Kelley et al. 2025).

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.

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This is the one that I use, as I have found that the other reading hasn't accurately depicted the severity of this Pacific cold phase throughout the 2020's.

 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/

 

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!!

2 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

July 2026 PDO: -2.03

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 -> 0.2
1963: 1.0 -> -0.6
1965: 1.9 -> 0.0
1972: 1.7 -> -1.5
1982: 1.8 -> -0.6
1987: 1.5 -> -1.4
1994: 1.0 -> -0.7
1997: 2.3 -> -1.5
2002: 1.3 -> 0.2
2015: 1.9 -> -1.1
2023: 1.1 -> -0.8

8 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

The main difference is that NOAAs RONI reduction is larger. The raw weekly anomaly is 2.3. They subtracted 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.

4 hours ago, snowman19 said:

I have no explanation. It makes no sense whatsoever when compared to the OISST RONI. The BOM and NOAA are and have been in complete disagreement. The BOM has the official weekly readings consistently much higher than NOAA’s

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.”

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

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

 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

10 hours ago, GaWx said:

 

 Amazingly, the very next CFSv2 run of AAM (0Z on 8/2/26) is even more extreme overall than the posted prior run making it the most extreme I’ve ever seen although this one never quite gets all 4 at 4+ simultaneously (so the first week and last few days are only parts not more extreme): this one already has two at 4+ at day 20! @snowman19

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:

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

NASA GISS uses 1951-1980 for its departures with Canada going with 1961-1990. Berkeley Earth uses the 1850-1900 period along with Copernicus and the Met Office.

1951-1980 was the last relatively stable temperature regime before emissions and temperatures really took off.

So using warmer 1991-2020 climate normals masks the warming relative to the past. 
 

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/world-of-change/global-temperatures/

The NASA GISS team chose the period of 1951-1980 as its baseline largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort also began around 1980, so the most recent 30-year period was 1951-1980. Their objective is to provide an estimate of temperature change that could be compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/climate-trends-variability/trends-variations.html

Much of Canadian economic and social activity is climate dependent. Understanding how Canada’s climate is changing, in the context of global climate change, is important for developing adaptive responses. The Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin (CTVB) helps communicate to Canadians how Canada's climate has changed  over the recent past and longer, over the period for which Environment Canada has climate observations.

The CTVB describes climate variability through maps of current and past departures from the mean (the 30-year average 1961-1990) temperature and precipitation conditions, both seasonally and annually. This approach provides visualization of the extent to which temperature and precipitation vary above and below longer term average conditions. Maps are presented for each season and year. The data are then analyzed to see if there are detectable trends of longer terms against this backdrop of climate variability for Canada as a whole, and for 11 climate regions. This information is presented as graphs with trend lines to assess climate change over the period of record, starting in 1948 when nation-wide records became available.

 

Winter National Temperature Departures and Long-term Trend, 1948–2025

 

 

 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

On 7/31/2026 at 9:24 AM, GaWx said:

 2. This brings us to 82 straight days of -SOI. Going back to when records are readily available (since 1991), this is second only to the 100 days of 1998! It’s too early to tell whether or not the current streak will reach 100 days.

  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.

On 7/31/2026 at 11:59 AM, GaWx said:

 Darwin’s pressure has averaged 1015+ mb, a high pressure for there, for 22 straight days! That’s a new record (back to 1991) that breaks the old record of 20 days that was set during another developing super Nino, July of 2015. I’m expecting that streak to finally end tomorrow.

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.

5 minutes ago, bluewave said:

They probably should just have left the departures fixed at 1951-1980 which was our last stable temperature period before the warming accelerated.

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.

23 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The climatology period for the 1997-1998 super El Nino was 1961-1990. They don’t have 1941-1970 climatology maps on that site for 1972-1973. There also isn’t an 1951-1980 option for 1982-1983. So I used the closest time period that they offered at the site.

 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.

28 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, there weren’t any cold winters in the East with super El Niños relative to the climatology at the time. 
 

 

 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: