Typhoon Tip

it's not just 'stable' air. There is SAL, and SAL is a micro-physical inhibitor. There can be an unstable sounding ...having lapse rates and so forth. But SAL particles create an over proficient condensation process onto particulate (nano dust) surfaces. Think of it like an 'atmospheric sponge' soaking up the water prior to cloud genesis. Sort of a cartoon metaphor lol. Dry air is another aspect. The tropical instability requires more than just lapse rates for TC engine. WV> 25C wet bulb needs to be maintained.

It would be interesting to compare the interior of Antarctic's atmospheric chemistry/constituencies, against the regions outside during strong +AAO circulation modes persisting.

And actually ... it further elucidates my point when observing that during that same span of time, the N. Hemisphere is much closer to 2023 and 2024. ...So that strikes me pretty hard at this point that including the Antarctic peregrinations is casting an allusion to cooler world. Obviously, the Antarctic is part of this world - but the principle idea is that it's uniquely secluded due to its total geophysical circumstance doesn't reflect what is available to take place anywhere else. It's a 'weighting' concern.

Not attempting any acclaim to shame vs fame, either way, but using the Climate Reanalyzer, there appears to be a correlation between the Antarctic vs the rest of the Globe. There were significant downward spikes spanning some 3 to 5 days in the ongoing registry of the Antarctic daily temperatures, ~ July 5 and again July 25, then very recently ( see blw). Then looking over the curve of the entire planet during those same periods gives a coherent impression that the two curves are moving together in time. I think the Antarctic, having unique geologic circumstance that effectively closes it off from the rest of the world ... particularly during the +annular modes whence the PV is > median strength, ... it draws me to question using that to "weight" the world down. The Antarctic can circumstantially "protect" it's cold during +AAOs, which we can see here ... we've spent the ballast of the last 2.5 months in that circulation mode, My 'numerical suspicion' is that this is more of an artifact that looks like global cooling, holding the entirety of world averages down. The problem with that is geophysical. The Antarctics uniqueness tends to isolate it during these stronger positive excursions; I think that should be considered when assessing a whole planet that does not share in the unique geophysical capacity the Antarctic has for lesser homogeny with the surrounding world, during episodic circulation seclusion. I'm saying - in part - that a cooler 2025 ...mm I'm not sure that's really what's going on, when we're merely dealing in aberrant positive annular modes of the AAO. When/if the AAO goes negative, we may find that the total global temperature rebounds.

https://phys.org/news/2025-08-europe-millions.html

I was thinking about the 'counting eggs before they hatch, wah wah wahhh' phenomenon this morning. consternation and quibbling over who/what/where gets their TC and there isn't one. hiding in modeling virtual realm. Right now 'Erin' carving its way through a nasty dry and probably SAL contaminated space and it's got a ways to go. ...As already noted by NHC, this toxic air is likely being ingested.

Those cicada/'saw bugs' are out there deforesting already and it's not even 9am... Heh, it 'sounds' like a hot day is in the mail.

Like was said 8 days ago or whenever it was. Nothing's changed since, unfortunately, for TC enthusiasm. Unless there is a west oriented -D(NAO),whilst a semi-persistent trough positioned/repositions along 90W, any outlook for bringing TCs up along the EC is not well-enough correlated using climatology. Any depiction at D8+ ( go wonder...) is more likely based on model 'beta-drift', a force that emerges by a complex interaction that is too esoteric to get into but it pulls systems toward the NW. Most of the time, the other forces are strong enough that the beta scaling doesn't get noticed, but at long ranges in the guidance... the resolution for those is lost and that leaves beta as proxy over cyclone motion. So you get wonky aspects like a TC tunneling through a ridge with no steering fields. In other words, ...not likely to happen. Doesn't stop the slew of posts in here warning civility of impending doom [place eye rolling emoji here], no but hey. Nothing wrong with living in the realm of model fantasies. People need their distractions. So long as it's kept separate. I suppose what annoys others is when it's apparently not kept separate. Some don't know any better but have access to the tech. This is where society gets delicious.. the phenomenon of bulk density populace having access to information. Uh oh.. digression formulating. Information is like gasoline. Highly volatile substance that has explosive capacity. Normally, it is fed in careful predetermined doses to a machine that converts that potential energy to turn its gears..etc. But, the modern man ... several generations deep after the Industrial Revolution, has dumbed down to dangerously detached and increasingly dysfunctional machinery in the head (deferential and differential objective analytic intelligence, but we won't go there for now). So the dosing of information vastly surpasses what thee machine can really consume ... So what is left? a ton of volatility and explosions ( these are metaphors, btw - ) taking place. One such explosion: We've gotten the U.S. into a state of teetering social order. Floating a proverbial lit match under the Constitution by voter mentality-machinery that not just prefers fake news and appeasing information over reality, but has tons of access to enormous fuel with no constraints on dosing.

yeah, seems like a rt 2 north day ...

Interesting seeing BOS be 90 with ESE 10kt harbor farts

Looks like MOS/machine was modestly cool biased ... ? Getting a lot of 94+ now. I also noticed the breeze kicked in here over the last hour. We were bouncing around 91 or 92, and then wind arrived and we observed a mini T jump in there. I mentioned this earlier... the models trying their best to limit the BL expansion heights, which of course would not realize the higher potential if that happened. I'm wondering if the over-turning took place.

95 here

69 is not picnic at that temp, either. The HI is 100

94

Definitely straight up hot out there today.

I'm not "Coastal" but the FA calls for that every year it seems. Anyone that has forecasted anything other than shoulder season blocking --> pseud-faux winter patterns, with windy sheared shitty mid seasons over the last 8 to 10 years were more wrong than right - a span of years within which the FA folks were hitting the winter sauce a bit more than what has occurred. Just sayn'

Probably 'false' foliage season is the better description.

Mixing hgts are limited in these model runs, which is sort of shirking the heat potential some... I'm seeing like 925mb BL depths at 18z on the NAM. Standard adiabatic extrapolation can't get the 1000mb much past 30C if that's all. So... the 2-m are only 90..91. Yet, the 850 mb T's, the standard BL summer metric sigma height is up +18 or +19C, which if that were the adiabat we'd be talking 99 or 101. That's 10 F worth of shirk. Lol. The last heat of the season has the pedigree to be mid and upper 90s, yet the models are pancaking the mixing heights at max heating.

you of all people? no way!

We're looking at 4 or 5 days of 90 to 94 type heat wave which began today for many front yards and towns but will be more convincing tomorrow through Thursday. Euro agrees with your assessment thereafter with heat returning over the weekend. Too early for confidence but it even soars Monday the 18th to 101 at Lawrence, MA otherwise a lot of 99's at all typical sites on the day. Aug 18 isn''t too late for that sort of thing, but it is nearing the climate drop off.

San Francisco can be brutal for ennui

Take up sky -diving

We have a kakistocracy ( - government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens ) ... for a government made possible by voters having dimmed intellect, and corrupted and/or poorly formed morality. That parenthetic is the formal definition of kakistocracy - give me a better description for this administration. You can't. That's what the hell why. Just sayn'

4 New Myths About Climate Change—and How to Debunk Them Pushing off climate change policy isn’t that far removed from denying its existence. Popular Science Sara Kiley Watson More from Popular Science Misinformation and delay are just climate denial tactics with a layer of green-washing. Not much more than 10 years ago, it may have seemed like climate change denial was an ordinary, if not misinformed, opinion shared among loads of people. Nowadays, with climate disasters plaguing most everywhere in the world, it’s not so practical to live in denial. As of September 2021, only one in every 10 Americans thinks climate change isn’t happening, but around three out of every four believes it is. Of course, some leaders still hold on to the constantly debunked idea that climate change isn’t happening. But businesses, even fossil fuel ones, are changing their tune ever so slightly. “Although some politicians continue to traffic in climate denial, corporations are too smart for that because they realize it will alienate most of their consumers,” says Edward Maibach, director of George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication. Climate change denial now comes in a variety of embellished, truthful-sounding opinions—but in reality, they’re just as mythical as the idea that climate change is a hoax. Here are three examples of those altered arguments. Myth no. 1: Clean energy will hurt working-class people It’s no secret that in the past, renewable energy was a far off and expensive alternative to fossil fuels. But today we know that isn’t the case: Solar and wind were the cheapest sources of energy in the world in 2020, and prices continue to drop. “Renewables present countries tied to coal with an economically attractive phase-out agenda that ensures they meet growing energy demand, while saving costs, adding jobs, boosting growth and meeting climate ambition,” Francesco La Camera, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said in June. Still, there are plenty of op-eds boldly stating that renewable energy policy will hurt the vulnerable—often to make the case for expanding fossil fuels. But these arguments are simplistic and overlook the bigger, more important picture, says John Cook, a research fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Australia. “More broadly, these types of arguments ignore the harmful impacts of climate change that damage society and the economy—the costs of climate inaction will be far greater than the costs of climate action,” Cook says. Some opponents have brought up concerns about job losses, specifically in the US, which despite global growth during the pandemic, saw a downtick in employment. Whether it’s fossil fuel workers in already-struggling communities or clean energy workers who lost jobs during COVID-19, policy must prioritize working class people in the energy transition. Myth no. 2: Scientists and activists are overreacting; opponents are being realistic Another way that climate denial views are being recast is in “culture war terms,” says Cook, by painting proponents of climate action as “extremist and pushing political agendas.” One example is the idea of “climate realism”—which supposedly exists to counteract panic. Fossil fuel-funded groups like the Heartland Institute have gone so far as to find their own anti-Greta Thunberg who pushes against “climate alarmism”—the idea that the climate crisis must be combated with serious urgency. In reality, we’ve been in the loop on climate change for at least 62 years—and that we’re down to the wire to to keep the worst impacts from happening. Making climate change political and dragging out decision making is in some ways, a new excuse to do nothing at all. “These kinds of arguments tap into people’s social identity and are quite corrosive as they have a polarizing impact on society,” Cook says. “When issues become culturally or politically polarized, progress becomes more difficult.” Another reason politics and social identity have been injected into climate conspiracies is through a fringe movement that correlates immigration with environmental catastrophe. This has also been named “eco-bordering” by British political scientists Joe Turner and Dan Bailey. “This discourse seeks to blame immigration for national environmental degradation, which draws on colonial and racialized imaginaries of nature in order to rationalize further border restrictions and ‘protect’ the ‘nativist stewardship’ of national nature,” they wrote in a recent paper. And these ideas aren’t new: John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and often called the father of the American national parks, discriminated against Black and Indigenous people. This idea is based off a multitude of ethical problems and scientific inaccuracies—namely that the majority of climate change issues stem from overproduction and consumption in major economies, while poorer nations will be the ones to bear the worst brunt of climate change. Myth no. 3: Corporations are already doing the necessary work Greenwashing is everywhere—from buying clothes to taking vacations to offsetting carbon footprints by planting trees. But it very much exists for once-climate denying industries, especially fossil fuels. For example, Chevron may have set some goals for minimizing emissions, but the vast majority of its footprint comes from scope 3 emissions (all of the emissions associated with making and delivering a product) which isn’t addressed anywhere in its climate goals. Instead of accounting for emissions associated with oil and gas, according to environmental law group Client Earth, the company “will develop a renewable energy business, invest in ‘low-carbon technologies’ and sell offsets ‘to our customers around the world to help them achieve their own lower-carbon goals.‘ ” Still, Chevron’s shiny advertisements and rampant use of the terms net-zero and sustainable fuels don’t give the slightest clue that it hasn’t revealed how, or even if it plans to, move away from fossil fuels. A similarly concerning trend is “wokewashing,” where corporations pose as champions for people of color and women through advertisements. Exxon’s ad, which centers around the story of an immigrant from India who now works for the fossil fuel giant, is one example. “Big oil companies now spend a lot of money to convince us that they are dealing with the problem, although their claims are highly misleading,” says Maibach. “They have large advertising and PR budgets which they use to convince us that they are responsible actors who are working to solve climate change.” Myth no. 4: We’re doomed The final kind of new climate change denial is the belief that the apocalypse is inevitable, and there’s nothing we can do about the climate crisis. And while global warming is certainly an ever-looming and scary issue, it doesn’t have to signal the end of the world. “The kind of hope we need—rational, stubborn hope—isn’t about positive thinking, but it doesn’t begin with imitating an ostrich, either,” Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, wrote in New Scientist. “It starts by acknowledging just how serious climate change is and what is at risk: the future of civilization as we know it.” Luckily, we know what we have to do—namely drop emissions to keep the global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, while still prioritizing protection of biodiversity and human populations. But we’re cutting it close to the roughly 2030 goalline. “While it’s true that our climate has already been changed and that it will change for many decades to come, the actions we can take to limit the extent of the change will have huge benefits,” Maibach says, “many of which begin to pay off immediately in the form of cleaner air and water, better health, and more jobs.” Sara Kiley Watson is an Assistant Editor at Popular Science, where she has led sustainability coverage since 2021.

We're passing out of the solar max this weekend. It's going to get harder to get an official heat wave as the month ages onward. We've seen 90+ in early September, so heat can happen.. .but getting 3 days consecutive? sooner rather than later is climate preferred and for a reason. I wonder what is the latest official heat wave ( 3 consec days) to have occurred. Big heat ( > 95 F) ...I think I've seen that two or three times post Aug 20th.