July 2025 Discussion-OBS - seasonable summer variability

[LibertyBell]

19 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Dust storms were mostly from autumn through spring. I don't think there were many dust storms during the summer. A review of the Nebraska Monthly Weather Review for July 1936 reports only once instance of dust which lasted for a couple of hours ahead of an advancing cold front on the 19th.

Looks like 1912 was an isolated stretch. 14 of the last 15 days of the month were below 80F in Boston that month, resulting in the 4th coldest stretch on record for that timeframe.

7-9-1912 when Boston hit 99, NYC might have hit 100 on that day.

7-9 is a popular day for extreme heat, I think that was the last day of a 3 day 100+ stretch at NYC in 1993, when we hit 102 degrees.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

7-9-1912 when Boston hit 99, NYC might have hit 100 on that day.

7-9 is a popular day for extreme heat, I think that was the last day of a 3 day 100+ stretch at NYC in 1993, when we hit 102 degrees.

 

Looks like Central Park topped out at 97F. Much cooler than Boston with only 5 days in the 90s that month.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

Looks like Central Park topped out at 97F. Much cooler than Boston with only 5 days in the 90s that month.

Weird, Boston had 10 90 degree days in July 1912, it must have been over the top heat.

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Wannabehippie said:

I saw this article, listened to the 12 min podcast about ocean currents fading, due to climate change, decreases in salinity, etc. What are your thoughts on it?

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/1255296716/oceans-temperature-currents-climate-change

IMO, it does a good job providing an overview of one of the major consequences of humanity's collective choice to continue to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I believe that Matt Luongo, one of the climate scientists on the interview, said it correctly when he stated that it is "a political and social decision on how much we want to not emit CO2." I believe a combination of motivated reasoning, cognitive psychological biases, limited leadership capacity, and structural realities of complex societies (built on a status quo foundation, poor capacity to make rapid changes due to the complex relationships involved, etc.) have shaped humanity's collective decision. 

There is some debate over whether the AMOC will completely break down or merely slow. In one recent surprise, scientists found that the SMOC (southern meridional overturning circulation off Antarctica has actually reversed. That outcome could lead to the oceans releasing some of the CO2 that they have absorbed. Moreover, because the ocean and atmosphere is coupled, the changes related to ocean currents have synoptic implications. The rapid warming of the Western Pacific Ocean's negative PDO-type circulation that is enhancing drought in the Southwest is one example. 

 

[SACRUS]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Weird, Boston had 10 90 degree days in July 1912, it must have been over the top heat.

 

 

Quick 2 week hot period the rest of the summer was cooler even for Boston standards

 

July 1912 Boston Weather

Day	High (°F)	Low (°F)	Precip. (inches)	Snow (inches)
July 1	71	56	0.00	0.0
July 2	85	61	0.00	0.0
July 3	92	65	0.00	0.0
July 4	94	67	0.00	0.0
July 5	91	68	0.00	0.0
July 6	90	68	0.00	0.0
July 7	93	70	0.00	0.0
July 8	94	72	0.00	0.0
July 9	99	78	0.00	0.0
July 10	97	76	0.02	0.0
July 11	90	70	1.14	0.0
July 12	72	64	0.00	0.0
July 13	81	63	0.00	0.0
July 14	81	68	0.00	0.0
July 15	85	71	0.00	0.0
July 16	92	69	0.00	0.0
July 17	70	64	0.00	0.0
July 18	70	63	2.52	0.0
July 19	79	62	0.00	0.0
July 20	79	57	0.00	0.0
July 21	70	61	1.03	0.0
July 22	79	62	0.00	0.0
July 23	73	57	0.00	0.0
July 24	79	57	0.00	0.0
July 25	75	58	0.00	0.0
July 26	79	62	0.00	0.0
July 27	78	63	0.00	0.0
July 28	84	58	0.00	0.0
July 29	78	67	0.45	0.0
July 30	70	61	0.00	0.0
July 31	72	61	0.00	0.0

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

 

Quick 2 week hot period the rest of the summer was cooler even for Boston standards

 

July 1912 Boston Weather

Day	High (°F)	Low (°F)	Precip. (inches)	Snow (inches)
July 1	71	56	0.00	0.0
July 2	85	61	0.00	0.0
July 3	92	65	0.00	0.0
July 4	94	67	0.00	0.0
July 5	91	68	0.00	0.0
July 6	90	68	0.00	0.0
July 7	93	70	0.00	0.0
July 8	94	72	0.00	0.0
July 9	99	78	0.00	0.0
July 10	97	76	0.02	0.0
July 11	90	70	1.14	0.0
July 12	72	64	0.00	0.0
July 13	81	63	0.00	0.0
July 14	81	68	0.00	0.0
July 15	85	71	0.00	0.0
July 16	92	69	0.00	0.0
July 17	70	64	0.00	0.0
July 18	70	63	2.52	0.0
July 19	79	62	0.00	0.0
July 20	79	57	0.00	0.0
July 21	70	61	1.03	0.0
July 22	79	62	0.00	0.0
July 23	73	57	0.00	0.0
July 24	79	57	0.00	0.0
July 25	75	58	0.00	0.0
July 26	79	62	0.00	0.0
July 27	78	63	0.00	0.0
July 28	84	58	0.00	0.0
July 29	78	67	0.45	0.0
July 30	70	61	0.00	0.0
July 31	72	61	0.00	0.0

wild, nothing like what NYC had in 1953

 

[SACRUS]

 

For reference BoS 90 degree leaders 

 

Year	Rank	Days >= 90 °F
1983	1	30
1955	2	28
2002	3	27
1991	3	27
2010	5	25
1988	5	25
2021	7	24
2018	8	23
2016	9	22
1994	9	22
1980	9	22
1959	9	22
1949	9	22
2022	14	21
1944	14	21
1993	16	20

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, it does a good job providing an overview of one of the major consequences of humanity's collective choice to continue to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I believe that Matt Luongo, one of the climate scientists on the interview, said it correctly when he stated that it is "a political and social decision on how much we want to not emit CO2." I believe a combination of motivated reasoning, cognitive psychological biases, limited leadership capacity, and structural realities of complex societies (built on a status quo foundation, poor capacity to make rapid changes due to the complex relationships involved, etc.) have shaped humanity's collective decision. 

There is some debate over whether the AMOC will completely break down or merely slow. In one recent surprise, scientists found that the SMOC (southern meridional overturning circulation off Antarctica has actually reversed. That outcome could lead to the oceans releasing some of the CO2 that they have absorbed. Moreover, because the ocean and atmosphere is coupled, the changes related to ocean currents have synoptic implications. The rapid warming of the Western Pacific Ocean's negative PDO-type circulation that is enhancing drought in the Southwest is one example. 

 

Our society is just too dependent on fossil fuels.  Even with lessening of emissions as fuel, there is still the matter of plastic being created from toxic petrochemicals.  The fossil fuel cartel does not want to be retired from existence, there's just too much money in it.  We will probably eventually be completely done with it, but I don't foresee that happening for the next 50 years.

 

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

 

For reference BoS 90 degree leaders 

 

Year	Rank	Days >= 90 °F
1983	1	30
1955	2	28
2002	3	27
1991	3	27
2010	5	25
1988	5	25
2021	7	24
2018	8	23
2016	9	22
1994	9	22
1980	9	22
1959	9	22
1949	9	22
2022	14	21
1944	14	21
1993	16	20

very similar to JFK and NYC, 2010, 2002, 1991 and 1983 place prominently in the top 5!

 

1983	1	30
1955	2	28
2002	3	27
1991	3	27
2010	5	25

[SACRUS]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

very similar to JFK and NYC, 2010, 2002, 1991 and 1983 place prominently in the top 5!

 

1983	1	30
1955	2	28
2002	3	27
1991	3	27
2010	5	25

 

And finally their strong heat 

 

Year	Rank	Days >= 95 °F
1949	1	14
1944	2	12
2018	3	9
1983	3	9
1955	3	9
2021	6	8
1953	6	8
1911	6	8
2022	9	7
2002	9	7
1988	9	7
1984	9	7
1963	9	7
1933	9	7
2016	15	6
2013	15	6
1993	15	6
1977	15	6

 

 

ear	Rank	Days >= 100 °F
1911	1	4
1952	2	2
1949	2	2
1944	2	2
1919	2	2
2025	6	1
2022	6	1
2021	6	1
2011	6	1
2010	6	1
2002	6	1
1995	6	1
1977	6	1
1975	6	1
1955	6	1
1953	6	1
1948	6	1
1926	6	1
1925	6	1

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, SACRUS said:

 

And finally their strong heat 

 

Year	Rank	Days >= 95 °F
1949	1	14
1944	2	12
2018	3	9
1983	3	9
1955	3	9
2021	6	8
1953	6	8
1911	6	8
2022	9	7
2002	9	7
1988	9	7
1984	9	7
1963	9	7
1933	9	7
2016	15	6
2013	15	6
1993	15	6
1977	15	6

 

 

ear	Rank	Days >= 100 °F
1911	1	4
1952	2	2
1949	2	2
1944	2	2
1919	2	2
2025	6	1
2022	6	1
2021	6	1
2011	6	1
2010	6	1
2002	6	1
1995	6	1
1977	6	1
1975	6	1
1955	6	1
1953	6	1
1948	6	1
1926	6	1
1925	6	1

Year	Rank	Days >= 95 °F
1949	1	14
1944	2	12
2018	3	9
1983	3	9
1955	3	9
2021	6	8
1953	6	8
1911	6	8
2022	9	7
2002	9	7   These years do match up with NYC well, what was going on in `1911 (the year before 1912 that we were discussing) that caused 4 100+ days in Boston in 1911?  Didn't NYC also have a very hot summer with 100+ days in 1911 too?

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

 

And finally their strong heat 

 

Year	Rank	Days >= 95 °F
1949	1	14
1944	2	12
2018	3	9
1983	3	9
1955	3	9
2021	6	8
1953	6	8
1911	6	8
2022	9	7
2002	9	7
1988	9	7
1984	9	7
1963	9	7
1933	9	7
2016	15	6
2013	15	6
1993	15	6
1977	15	6

 

 

ear	Rank	Days >= 100 °F
1911	1	4
1952	2	2
1949	2	2
1944	2	2
1919	2	2
2025	6	1
2022	6	1
2021	6	1
2011	6	1
2010	6	1
2002	6	1
1995	6	1
1977	6	1
1975	6	1
1955	6	1
1953	6	1
1948	6	1
1926	6	1
1925	6	1

ear	Rank	Days >= 100 °F
1911	1	4 a very hot summer, I wonder if NYC was similarly hot and had 100+ days in 1911 too?

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Our society is just too dependent on fossil fuels.  Even with lessening of emissions as fuel, there is still the matter of plastic being created from toxic petrochemicals.  The fossil fuel cartel does not want to be retired from existence, there's just too much money in it.  We will probably eventually be completely done with it, but I don't foresee that happening for the next 50 years.

 

It's a choice. It's actually no different from the choice made at Easter Island to cut down the trees leading to complete deforestation. Unfortunately, I expect that humanity will maintain its present course, so I don't see big reductions in the burning of fossil fuels anytime soon. Thus, we'll probably see 3°C of warming, and perhaps more given recent findings related to cloud feedbacks, by 2100.

[SACRUS]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

ear	Rank	Days >= 100 °F
1911	1	4 a very hot summer, I wonder if NYC was similarly hot and had 100+ days in 1911 too?

 

NYC had 2, 100 degree days in 1911, 6 at 95 or higher, and 15 at 90 or higher

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

It's a choice. It's actually no different from the choice made at Easter Island to cut down the trees leading to complete deforestation. Unfortunately, I expect that humanity will maintain its present course, so I don't see big reductions in the burning of fossil fuels anytime soon. Thus, we'll probably see 3°C of warming, and perhaps more given recent findings related to cloud feedbacks, by 2100.

Wait, Don, who cut down the trees at Easter Island? I thought only natives live there-- it's one of the most isolated places on the entire planet.

If we are on that trajectory, we might not have Venus level greenhouse warming, but we'll likely get at least partway there.

Is having the current generation of rich people die off going to be enough to end fossil fuels? I don't see anyone who is under 40 who would want to support or even run a fossil fuel company, so maybe we will be finally done with them when everyone who is currently over the age of 40 is dead?

 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

Wait, Don, who cut down the trees at Easter Island? I thought only natives live there-- it's one of the most isolated places on the entire planet.

If we are on that trajectory, we might not have Venus level greenhouse warming, but we'll likely get at least partway there.

Is having the current generation of rich people die off going to be enough to end fossil fuels? I don't see anyone who is under 40 who would want to support or even run a fossil fuel company, so maybe we will be finally done with them when everyone who is currently over the age of 40 is dead?

 

Nature is the final arbiter of all of the mistakes of humanity.  Those mistakes are finally erased when the people who made those mistakes are all dead....

 

[TheClimateChanger]

24 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

wild, nothing like what NYC had in 1953

 

 I wonder how much some of these extremes, even in otherwise cooler summers, were aided by extreme deforestation. I think we've added something like 50-100 million acres of forest since 1920.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

 I wonder how much some of these extremes, even in otherwise cooler summers, were aided by extreme deforestation. I think we've added something like 50-100 million acres of forest since 1920.

possibly also nuclear testing, there was a big cluster of heat between 1944 and 1955 that could be linked to testing of nuclear weapons (both fission and fusion.)

[winterwarlock]

getting quite warm and uncomfortable late in the afternoon....88/76/97

[LibertyBell]

Just now, winterwarlock said:

getting quite warm and uncomfortable late in the afternoon....88/76/97

I'm just glad the sun is finally here.

[donsutherland1]

15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Wait, Don, who cut down the trees at Easter Island? I thought only natives live there-- it's one of the most isolated places on the entire planet.

If we are on that trajectory, we might not have Venus level greenhouse warming, but we'll likely get at least partway there.

Is having the current generation of rich people die off going to be enough to end fossil fuels? I don't see anyone who is under 40 who would want to support or even run a fossil fuel company, so maybe we will be finally done with them when everyone who is currently over the age of 40 is dead?

 

The Polynesian civilization prior to the arrival of Europeans in the early 18th century. 

I suspect that today’s teens will be among the leading edge of a generation or generations that won’t view fossil fuels as indispensable and will see the vast planet-scale harm they have inflicted and then will move aggressively to curb their burning, even if the short-term effect is disruptive.They won’t believe the past generations who propped up the fossil fuels-centric society have the standing to object, much less complain about disruptions. After all, had they pursued a very gradual phaseout, the warming would have been limited and the societal burden on the younger generations would have been much less than that which they will inherit. 

[donsutherland1]

The first 10 days of July have been very warm across the New York City area. 

New York City-Central Park: 79.0° (27th warmest)
New York City-JFK Airport: 79.7° (8th warmest)
New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 81.0° (11th warmest)
Newark: 82.2° (7th warmest)

Mean monthly temperatures for cases with July 1-10 mean temperatures at or above the 2025 figures ere as follows:

New York City-Central Park: 78.8° 
New York City-JFK Airport: 78.4° 
New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 81.1° (8th warmest)
Newark: 80.8°

Warm weather will continue through the weekend with temperatures reaching mainly the lower and middle 80s through the weekend. 

Some of the guidance suggests that another round of heat could develop early next week with temperatures returning to the upper 80s and perhaps lower 90s.

No widespread and sustained excessive heat appears likely through mid-July.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around July 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.58°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer.

The SOI was +16.68 today. 

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.962 today. 

Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 70% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal July (1991-2020 normal). July will likely finish with a mean temperature near 79.0° (1.5° above normal). 

 

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

whats causing all the stalled fronts and cloudy weather in July which we did not have in the 90s especially?

 

More onshore flow due to the rising 500mb heights to the north and east of New England since around 2018. Those older summers had higher 500mb heights over the Great Lakes. So we would get more persistent westerly flow during those summers.
 

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

16 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The first 10 days of July have been very warm across the New York City area. 

New York City-Central Park: 79.0° (27th warmest)
New York City-JFK Airport: 79.7° (8th warmest)
New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 81.0° (11th warmest)
Newark: 82.2° (7th warmest)

Mean monthly temperatures for cases with July 1-10 mean temperatures at or above the 2025 figures ere as follows:

New York City-Central Park: 78.8° 
New York City-JFK Airport: 78.4° 
New York City-LaGuardia Airport: 81.1° (8th warmest)
Newark: 80.8°

Warm weather will continue through the weekend with temperatures reaching mainly the lower and middle 80s through the weekend. 

Some of the guidance suggests that another round of heat could develop early next week with temperatures returning to the upper 80s and perhaps lower 90s.

No widespread and sustained excessive heat appears likely through mid-July.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around July 2. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.58°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue through the summer.

The SOI was +16.68 today. 

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +0.962 today. 

Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 70% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal July (1991-2020 normal). July will likely finish with a mean temperature near 79.0° (1.5° above normal). 

 

Interesting how JFK is running 0.7 degrees hotter than NYC.

By the way today and tomorrow are Manhattanhenge days!!

 

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, bluewave said:

More onshore flow due to the rising 500mb heights to the north and east of New England since around 2018. Those older summers had higher 500mb heights over the Great Lakes. So we would get more persistent westerly flow during those summers.
 

 

 

 

Yes and much better weather, sunnier, less humid, etc.

We were lucky to get four summers in a row like that from 2010-2013

By the way, you left out 1980, 1991 and 2002, those were some dry and hot summers too!!!

Could also add in 1944, 1948, 1949 and 1953 although that's before my time lol.

 

[Wannabehippie]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, it does a good job providing an overview of one of the major consequences of humanity's collective choice to continue to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I believe that Matt Luongo, one of the climate scientists on the interview, said it correctly when he stated that it is "a political and social decision on how much we want to not emit CO2." I believe a combination of motivated reasoning, cognitive psychological biases, limited leadership capacity, and structural realities of complex societies (built on a status quo foundation, poor capacity to make rapid changes due to the complex relationships involved, etc.) have shaped humanity's collective decision. 

There is some debate over whether the AMOC will completely break down or merely slow. In one recent surprise, scientists found that the SMOC (southern meridional overturning circulation off Antarctica has actually reversed. That outcome could lead to the oceans releasing some of the CO2 that they have absorbed. Moreover, because the ocean and atmosphere is coupled, the changes related to ocean currents have synoptic implications. The rapid warming of the Western Pacific Ocean's negative PDO-type circulation that is enhancing drought in the Southwest is one example. 

 

I am looking forward to the next in this series of podcasts that they are putting out this summer. Very informative.

[bluewave]

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes and much better weather, sunnier, less humid, etc.

We were lucky to get four summers in a row like that from 2010-2013

By the way, you left out 1980, 1991 and 2002, those were some dry and hot summers too!!!

Could also add in 1944, 1948, 1949 and 1953 although that's before my time lol.

 

The reason the 1995 summer was so humid with the nearly 130° heat index around 7-15 was due to corn sweat pooling under the inversion and getting transported to the East Coast.

[donsutherland1]

45 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Interesting how JFK is running 0.7 degrees hotter than NYC.

By the way today and tomorrow are Manhattanhenge days!!

 

JFK has been warmer than Central Park on a number of occasions in July. The last such time was 2009 (JFK: 73.68° and Central Park: 73.66°) The largest difference was 0.3° in 1969 (JFK: 75.0° and Central Park: 74.7°). It's only happened during cool July cases. 2025 would be the first very warm July case where JFK was warmer.

[Sundog]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Polynesian civilization prior to the arrival of Europeans in the early 18th century. 

I suspect that today’s teens will be among the leading edge of a generation or generations that won’t view fossil fuels as indispensable and will see the vast planet-scale harm they have inflicted and then will move aggressively to curb their burning, even if the short-term effect is disruptive.They won’t believe the past generations who propped up the fossil fuels-centric society have the standing to object, much less complain about disruptions. After all, had they pursued a very gradual phaseout, the warming would have been limited and the societal burden on the younger generations would have been much less than that which they will inherit. 

I'm very gung ho on switching to clean energy, but I don't think we'd even be in a position to DO the switch and have as advanced a civilization as we currently have if it wasn't for fossil fuels to begin with. 

I'm also very skeptical of any plans that clean energy advocates have that involve delaying the switch over for less advanced countries and that are anti nuclear. 

Since the technology exists today for EVERY country to switch over, then we should all do so. The Earth doesn't care where pollution comes from or how many years a particular nation has been industrialized. 

And any solution that doesn't involve expanded nuclear is not a serious one. 

 

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, Sundog said:

I'm very gung ho on switching to clean energy, but I don't think we'd even be in a position to DO the switch and have as advanced a civilization as we currently have if it wasn't for fossil fuels to begin with. 

I'm also very skeptical of any plans that clean energy advocates have that involve delaying the switch over for less advanced countries and that are anti nuclear. 

Since the technology exists today for EVERY country to switch over, then we should all do so. The Earth doesn't care where pollution comes from or how many years a particular nation has been industrialized. 

And any solution that doesn't involve expanded nuclear is not a serious one. 

 

I suspect that had society gone down the very gradual path of phaseout beginning around 1995-2000 when the issue first gained clarity, considerable progress could have been made. Had society pursued the effort along the lines of a Manhattan or Apollo Project, I suspect substantial and rapid progress would have occurred. Those pathways were foregone.

I do agree that nuclear power is part of the solution. I'd also like to see a really aggressive R&D project into fusion, as it offers the greatest potential in the medium- and long-term.