Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,981
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    WeatherANDR
    Newest Member
    WeatherANDR
    Joined

September 2021


wdrag
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Surprised it's September and October, I thought it would be December with how warm recent Decembers have been.

 

I was just talking SON with is meteorological fall. December is the first month of meteorological winter. December has also seen a very big average temperature rise from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 climate normals.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bluewave said:

I was just talking SON with is meteorological fall. December is the first month of meteorological winter. December has also seen a very big average temperature rise from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 climate normals.

 

 

And funny the last month of winter and first month of summer have the slowest temp rise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Parts of the West remained very dry.

It makes one wonder if it's even possible for them to ever not be very dry, they've been so dry for so long that I've thought that the area might no longer be able to support the vegetation it now has.

A physicist who lives in WA half jokingly told me you want to stop all these horrendous forest fires?  Chop down the trees and thin them out a lot, you get rid of the trees you won't have the fires anymore.  He was only half joking- he's tired of them too and sees no other options.  Do you think it'll come down to that one day, Don, will they start thinning out the trees there to stop the fires?  No fuel, no more fires.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under brilliant sunshine, the temperature rose into the lower and middle 70s across the region. Another similar day is in store tomorrow before warmer air returns.

Out West, exceptional heat again toppled records. At Denver, the temperature rose to 99°, which smashed the old record of 93°. The old record was set in 1931 and tied in 1974, 1994, 1998, and 2018. Denver also saw the relative humidity fall to a daily record low 6%. At Cheyenne, the temperature peaked at 96°. That smashed the previous daily record of 88°, which was set in 2012. It also surpassed the September mark of 95°, which was set on September 1, 1995 and tied on September 2, 2019. The previous latest 96° or above temperature was recorded on August 10, 1969.   

Sunday could be unseasonably warm with temperatures rising into the upper 80s as far north as New York City. Thick wildfire smoke could again push into the region beginning late Saturday.

Despite a cooler than normal first 7-10 days, September will likely feature near normal to somewhat warmer than normal temperatures in much of the region. The second half of the month could feature above to perhaps much above normal temperatures. As a result, 2021 is increasingly likely to become the 6th out of the last 7 years during which September has had a mean temperature of 70° or above in New York City. Prior to 2000, New York City saw such warmth on average once every five years. In short, September has become more an extension of summer than a gateway to autumn in the New York City area.

Fall 2021 will likely be wetter to much wetter than normal in the northern Middle Atlantic region. Since 1869, there have been 9 August cases where New York City picked up 20.00" or more rainfall during the summer. Two thirds of those cases (and 4/5 of those with summer mean temperatures of 73.0° or above) had 17.00" or more fall precipitation in New York City. 2011 is probably the closest match in terms of precipitation and a nearly identical summer mean temperature. Mean fall precipitation for those 9 cases was 14.86". The median was 17.35". The 1991-2020 normal value is 12.27".

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.2°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around September 1. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.22°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.43°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely prevail through September. Afterward, La Niña conditions could begin to develop.

The SOI was -1.25 today.

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was -0.834 today.

On September 8 the MJO was in Phase 3 at an amplitude of 1.278 (RMM). The September 7-adjusted amplitude was 1.306 (RMM).

Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 69% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal September (1991-2020 normal). September will likely finish with a mean temperature near 70.4° (1.2° above normal).

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

It makes one wonder if it's even possible for them to ever not be very dry, they've been so dry for so long that I've thought that the area might no longer be able to support the vegetation it now has.

A physicist who lives in WA half jokingly told me you want to stop all these horrendous forest fires?  Chop down the trees and thin them out a lot, you get rid of the trees you won't have the fires anymore.  He was only half joking- he's tired of them too and sees no other options.  Do you think it'll come down to that one day, Don, will they start thinning out the trees there to stop the fires?  No fuel, no more fires.....

 

No. Reducing a natural carbon sink would be very short-sighted. If others imitated such a move, the world would be in a much worse position. Decarbonization is what is necessary. Shortcuts and gimmicks won’t address climate change or its increasingly extreme impacts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. Reducing a natural carbon sink would be very short-sighted. If others imitated such a move, the world would be in a much worse position. Decarbonization is what is necessary. Short-cuts and gimmicks won’t address climate change or its increasingly extreme impacts.

The problem is according to my physicist friend it will take too long (decades) to stop the fires even if we started reducing carbon and methane right now which is why he wants the trees thinned which would lessen the imminent fire threat that gets worse every year.

The area is probably going to be a vast desert soon enough anyway, Nature is headed in that direction over there and those trees would be very out of place in a desert.  It reminds me of the Sahara, which is expanding southward.

 

The other option is to simply make people move out of the urban-wildlife interface zone and not allow people to build homes there at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

The problem is according to my physicist friend it will take too long (decades) to stop the fires even if we started reducing carbon and methane right now which is why he wants the trees thinned which would lessen the imminent fire threat that gets worse every year.

The area is probably going to be a vast desert soon enough anyway, Nature is headed in that direction over there and those trees would be very out of place in a desert.  It reminds me of the Sahara, which is expanding southward.

 

The other option is to simply make people move out of the urban-wildlife interface zone and not allow people to build homes there at all.

 

 

The problem with that approach is the precedent it would set, in addition to its reducing a carbon sink. The U.S. retains high global visibility. If it moves dramatically to reduce some of its major forests, others will take license to do the same. One could witness an acceleration of the destruction of the Amazon, Burmese tropical rainforest, Congo rainforest. The rationale would be framed in self-interest.

With reduced carbon uptake, emissions would then need to decline even more rapidly, as a higher share would wind up in the atmosphere. The end result would be more weather extremes and such extremes are non-linear in nature. Potential game-changer tipping points would come up much faster. 

In sum, there is no “free lunch.” The long-term consequences would vastly outweigh short-term localized benefits.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

The problem with that approach is the precedent it would set, in addition to its reducing a carbon sink. The U.S. retains high global visibility. If it moves dramatically to reduce some of its major forests, others will take license to do the same. One could witness an acceleration of the destruction of the Amazon, Burmese tropical rainforest, Congo rainforest. The rationale would be framed in self-interest.

With reduced carbon uptake, emissions would then need to decline even more rapidly, as a higher share would wind up in the atmosphere. The end result would be more weather extremes and such extremes are non-linear in nature. Potential game-changer tipping points would come up much faster. 

 

 

Yes that would be a horrible precedent especially when we're trying to get nations like Brazil to stop cutting down the Amazon but I was led to believe that tropical rain forests are more important than temperate rain forests are?  Preserving the Amazon always seems to take precedence over everything else.

The only short term modification we can do that I can think of is to simply restrict people from building in that area and forcing those who already have to move out.  It's too dangerous for people to live in those areas and puts firefighter lives at risk when they have to come rescue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, definitely a little cooler than I expected the past 4 days. 

Not starting any new threads yet. SPC has northern part of forum in Marginal Risk Sunday (my guess is a shower or thunderstorm Sunday night) and possible thunder on Monday (again late Monday or Monday night).  Pair of tropical PWATS head north next week from near 30N (FL Atlantic coast to Gulf Coast) and could mean some larger scale rain action later next week but far too early for me to thread, confidently.

CPC has odds favoring normal,  or possibly above normal qpf next couple of weeks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next 8 days are averaging 78degs.(71/86), or +8.

5" next weekend?

Month to date is  71.0[-1.6].        Could be 74.1[+2.7] by the 19th.

64*(60%RH) here at 6am, m. clear.          70* at Noon.      73* by 1pm.        Reached 80* at 5pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wdrag said:

Yes, definitely a little cooler than I expected the past 4 days. 

Not starting any new threads yet. SPC has northern part of forum in Marginal Risk Sunday (my guess is a shower or thunderstorm Sunday night) and possible thunder on Monday (again late Monday or Monday night).  Pair of tropical PWATS head north next week from near 30N (FL Atlantic coast to Gulf Coast) and could mean some larger scale rain action later next week but far too early for me to thread, confidently.

CPC has odds favoring normal,  or possibly above normal qpf next couple of weeks.

The threat of a tropical system hugging the coast is growing. This will be followed by additional threats from MDR systems. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning thoughts…

Today will be mostly sunny and warm. High temperatures will likely reach the upper 70s and lower 80s in most of the region.  Likely high temperatures around the region include:

New York City (Central Park): 78°

Newark: 82°

Philadelphia: 80°

Normals:

New York City: 30-Year: 78.0°; 15-Year: 78.5°

Newark: 30-Year: 79.5°; 15-Year: 80.0°

Philadelphia: 30-Year: 80.7°; 15-Year: 81.0°

Tomorrow and Monday will be very warm days.

At Denver, the temperature could reach 95° or above for the third consecutive day. That would surpass the daily record of 93° from 2018. It would also set the record for the latest stretch of three consecutive days at or above 95°, which occurred on September 5-7, 2013.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes that would be a horrible precedent especially when we're trying to get nations like Brazil to stop cutting down the Amazon but I was led to believe that tropical rain forests are more important than temperate rain forests are?  Preserving the Amazon always seems to take precedence over everything else.

The only short term modification we can do that I can think of is to simply restrict people from building in that area and forcing those who already have to move out.  It's too dangerous for people to live in those areas and puts firefighter lives at risk when they have to come rescue them.

Thinning out the forests does not mean eliminating them.  I have read from many sources that forest management is severely lacking.  Also need to keep power lines, windmills, etc. away from these areas.  All power lines should be underground.  It's also amazing how many arsonists there are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Star said:

Thinning out the forests does not mean eliminating them.  I have read from many sources that forest management is severely lacking.  Also need to keep power lines, windmills, etc. away from these areas.  All power lines should be underground.  It's also amazing how many arsonists there are...

I'm for power lines being underground...earthquake areas are screwed no matter if they are above or below ground...

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 51 now up to 70 with bright sunshine.  Just a gorgeous day ahead.  We Warm things up tomorrow Sun (9/12) through Thu (9/16) with chance for 90s in the warmer spots adding to those 90s totals.  Will have to deal with more rain from as low cut off under ridge brings rain and stiff onshore breeze later Fri (9/17) into next weekend 9/19.  beyond there warmer overall and woudlnt shock me for a run at some more late 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes that would be a horrible precedent especially when we're trying to get nations like Brazil to stop cutting down the Amazon but I was led to believe that tropical rain forests are more important than temperate rain forests are?  Preserving the Amazon always seems to take precedence over everything else.

The only short term modification we can do that I can think of is to simply restrict people from building in that area and forcing those who already have to move out.  It's too dangerous for people to live in those areas and puts firefighter lives at risk when they have to come rescue them.

Yes, the tropical rainforests are more significant, but a precedent based on expediency would only give further cover for Brazil to continue to develop the Amazon rainforest area.

Better building codes, reduced development in highest risk areas (current and modeled) and sustained decarbonization are needed. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...