donsutherland1

A fresh shot of cool air is now overspreading the region. Parts of the region could experience their coolest temperatures so far this fall tomorrow and Friday morning. Dry conditions will likely prevail through the remainder of the week. Milder air should begin to return during the weekend. In the 18 past years where Central Park saw at least two 80° or above highs and Newark saw at least two 84° or above highs during the first week of October, the temperature returned to 70° or above on at least one day during the second half of October in 17 (94.4%) of those cases. For all other cases, 84.1% saw at least one such high temperature during the second half of October. Therefore, the sharp cool spell very likely won't mean that New York City has seen its last 70° or above high temperature. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.1°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around October 8. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.12°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.42°C. La Niña conditions will likely continue through mid-winter. The SOI was -3.10 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.731 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 60% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal October (1991-2020 normal). October will likely finish with a mean temperature near 58.7° (0.8° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 1.8° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.

I agree that it was overplayed.

Exceptional events are low probability events. One can't continually call for low probability events and expect anything but a low probability of verification. Unfortunately, social media is populated by sites and accounts that seek clicks and attention, many of which have little or no understanding of model limitations, local/regional climatology, what is an extreme solution/outlier, the general nature of outliers, etc. That's a big problem for the weather community, as credible forecasters are drowned out by the noise and the credibility of the community is undercut when the extreme ideas typically don't verify. But, at least for now, social media is the "Wild West" of forecasting with no barriers to entry and no screening for quality.

"Scary" is your description. "Sobering" is mine. But that's where the science is. On your point about verification, sea level forecasts have fared very well, so far. A paper that was published this past summer revealed: With an acceleration of global sea-level rise during the satellite altimetry era (since 1993) firmly established, it is now appropriate to examine sea-level projections made around the onset of this time period. Here we show that the mid-range projection from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995/1996) was strikingly close to what transpired over the next 30 years, with the magnitude of sea-level rise underestimated by only ∼1 cm.

The body of science is what it is. Citing it doesn't make one an "alarmist." By the way, from the Oxford English Dictionary: And for those who are interested in sea level rise, NASA provides a great site for seeing the projections. Images for one location from one scenario:

Recognizing cyclical/natural causes for climate change, alone, is insufficient. Climate change can be driven by cyclical/natural and human causes. "Climate change denial" or "climate denial" is a term that was developed to describe a position that rejects human-induced climate change. The Oxford English Dictionary defines climate denial as follows: "Rejection of the idea (or the evidence) that climate change caused by human activity is occurring, or that it represents a significant threat to human and environmental welfare."

This caricature is the kind of narrative the climate change denial movement is pushing, with some success, due to the very limitations of human nature a number of us have discussed. This rhetorical move of labeling climate science as a “scary religion” and its communication as “fear mongering,” diverts attention away from measurable changes in temperature, sea level, atmospheric composition, and the role of human-induced greenhouse gas pollution in driving those changes. It reframes the issue as a matter of emotion or ideology, not science. By characterizing concern about climate change as exaggerated and predictions as “crying wolf,” it normalizes passivity and delays collective response. The premise of its strategy is to convince the public that the threat of climate change is overblown, if it exists at all. After all, if a threat is overblown or non-existent, then no change is necessary. Put another way, humanity can continue, even expand, its ongoing greenhouse gas-driven geoengineering project. Yet, sea level rise is not imaginary. Sea level rise is real. The notion that a reduction in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will result in no sea level rise whatsoever is fiction. The description of what sea level rise might look like can call attention to what will become a big problem in the future. Further, sea level rise and human futility in holding it back is not without historical precedent. Along the ancient seafront of Delos, generations of builders struggled to hold back the advancing sea. Beginning in the Classical era, they constructed an immense granite breakwater to protect the harbor from waves and erosion. Over the centuries, as the shoreline crept inland, new defenses were added: rockfills, seawalls, and massive boulders aligned along the coast. Each layer of construction, which now lies at depths of 3 to 4 meters below the modern sea, marks an episode of retreat and rebuilding, a record of determination in the face of encroaching waters. Roads and docks that once thrived with merchants and pilgrims were gradually overtaken by the rising tide. Today, the remains of these ancient defenses lie submerged beneath the Aegean Sea, preserved in successive bands of beachrock. Divers can trace their contours like pages in a drowned chronicle that bears the testimony to centuries of futile struggle against a force that could not be contained. The harborworks of Delos, once symbols of resilience and prosperity, now rest silent beneath the waves, their stones bearing witness to the city’s slow surrender to the rise of the sea. Doggerland, which now lies beneath the waters of the North Sea, provides another example of land that was reclaimed by a rising sea. Climate science has done its part. No one can even plausibly argue that "they didn't know," much less claim that the events projected by the science (more frequent heatwaves, more intense precipitation events, melting glaciers/ice sheets, rising sea levels) were matters beyond human control. Those outcomes will be a matter of choice, namely the choice to set aside the laws of physics, to continue to inject vast sums of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I think you sum things up quite well when you observe, "We ARE in a catastrophe, a slow moving one. Too slow to be seen in what we call 'real time', or human perception, but that slowness only beguiles us into a false sense of lessening urgency." The dismissive reply, “Sky is falling, sky is falling... no one believes our cyclical climate change is an issue anymore,” underscores the profound limits of human perception. Bound by the narrow window of our senses, humanity struggles to grasp processes that unfold across geological time. The fact that atmospheric CO₂ is rising at a rate an order of magnitude faster than during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum defies societal comprehension. Likewise, the speed and scale of modern warming — occurring over mere decades — eclipses even the most abrupt natural transitions of the past. Science, meanwhile, becomes abstracted: detached from daily life and stripped of moral urgency, reduced to statistics that fail to move those in power. One can imagine a future, perhaps later this century or the next , unfolding not unlike this: Along the crumbling coast of a small seaside town, the waves crept higher each year. First they lapped at the boardwalk, then at the porches of modest homes, and finally, with one furious storm, they tore entire houses into the sea. Families watched helplessly as their memories — photographs, heirlooms, childhood bedrooms — vanished beneath the rising tide’s insatiable pull. Erosion devoured the land faster than insurance adjusters could arrive. Those who stayed were left standing on smaller and smaller fragments of earth, surviving on borrowed time. Eventually, the ocean reclaimed even those last fragile remnants. When the survivors turned to their government and neighbors for help, the answer was chillingly simple: “You should have protected your property. It’s your problem, not ours.” The same indifference that once ignored melting glaciers now ignored the people who had lost everything. The moral is stark: indifference to climate change protects no one. It merely ensures that the destruction will spread. Some of this future has already arrived. Insurers are withdrawing from entire regions. Empathy is receding just as the waters advance. Even on today’s smaller scales, societal compassion erodes as swiftly as the land itself. One sees the draining empathy in rising Nativism in various parts of the world, including but not limited to the United States, which is a symptom a broader and deepening societal sickness. In the U.S., that societal infection is being compounded by a growing rejection of science. Sustainability breaks down when the rate of change exceeds the rate at which society, ecosystems, and organisms can adapt to that change. When the gulf between nonlinear environmental upheaval and our linear, incremental responses becomes too vast, a system reaches its inflection point. It breaks or finds a new stable regime, that is not necessarily compatible with human welfare. The tragedy of climate change is not merely the loss of stability. It is the squandering of agency. Humanity still possesses the ability to act, though less effectively than if it had done so earlier. Humanity can still limit the damage e.g., perhaps to 3°C by 2100 rather than 1.5°C, assuming no big positive feedbacks. But bound by the limits of human nature, weak leadership, and an economic model that treats a finite planet as an infinite resource to be exploited, humanity continues to squander its narrowing window. Catastrophe is not sudden. It is cumulative. Arguably, humanity is already in the midst of the early days of rising catastrophe.

Neutral-cool winters offer a mixed picture. There have been some good ones, one great one (the highly popular 2013-14), one horrible one, since 1980. 1980-81, 1981-82, 1989-1990, 2001-02, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2016-17. By late fall, there could be stronger hints. The coefficient of determination for the WPO begins to ramp up in November. A predominantly negative WPO is a good sign for the winter; a predominantly positive one is not. Finally, based on subsequent research, the rapid buildup of snow cover in Siberia is not a good thing, if one is looking for a lot of Atlantic blocking. This research has suggested that a higher Siberian Snow Advance Index (SAI) is correlated with a positive AO. It also notes that the early inverse relationship found by Cohen et al., was an exception, not a rule. Excerpts: The running decadal correlations between the SAI_OCT and AO and SAI_NOV and AO are shown in Fig. 7d and e, respectively. In the former, there are significantly more positive than negative values (Table 3), suggesting that the period of strong positive (negative as defined here) correlations that occurred in the 1990s and 2000s, as described by Cohen and Jones (2011), was a rather exceptional event, as previously noted by Peings et al. (2013). Indeed, the frequency of decades with significant SCA_OCT–AO correlations of either sign are not significant. In addition to the recent period in the 2000s, Fig. 7d reveals a period of significant negative correlations centred in the 1840s, also present in the 21-year data (Fig. S4d). Finally, the ERA5 data reveal that the recent period of the statistically significant negative relationship between SAI_OCT and the AO has ended: the most recent decades have positive r values.

I strongly agree. Data adjustment is essential, because without accounting for station moves, observer/observation changes, and changing local environments e.g., urbanization, the record would reflect human and site variability rather than true climate trends. The Coatesville 1SW example clearly demonstrates why homogenization techniques are both necessary and effective.

If one is looking for a reliable climate record, adjustments are necessary whenever a station moves. Here's an illustration. Envision a case where one is measuring the temperature in Queens, NY. Assume that the climate record starts in 1990 for purposes of illustration. Temperatures are taken at LaGuardia Airport through 2014. After that, the Queens station moves to JFK Airport. Temperatures are then recorded at JFK Airport through 2024 for purposes of this illustration. If one relied only on raw, unadjusted data, here's what the Queens climate record would look like: There would essentially be no trend in temperatures. Those arguing for the use of unadjusted data would argue that warming is an artifact of statistical adjustments. But here's what things would actually look like: JFK: LaGuardia: The graphs reveal a clear discontinuity in the temperature record when switching from LaGuardia Airport (1990–2014) to JFK Airport (2015–2024), even though they are only 10.9 miles apart. The resulting trend is artificially altered by the change in station location, not by climate. In fact, both stations were warming at similar rates. This simple illustration demonstrates that without adjusting for such moves, the integrity of the climate record ceases to exist. The synthetic station trend is lower than either station individually. In other words, threading the raw data to maintain a continuous climate record creates a badly biased outcome. In sum, station moves introduce biases. To maintain an accurate climate record, data must be homogenized. The data must be corrected for site changes, if one wants an accurate climate signal.

Tomorrow will be partly sunny and milder with highs reaching the middle 60s. However, a fresh shot of cool air will move into the region late in the day or at night. Following the frontal passage, parts of the region could experience their coolest temperatures so far this fall. Dry conditions will likely prevail through the remainder of the week. In the 18 past years where Central Park saw at least two 80° or above highs and Newark saw at least two 84° or above highs during the first week of October, the temperature returned to 70° or above on at least one day during the second half of October in 17 (94.4%) of those cases. For all other cases, 84.1% saw at least one such high temperature during the second half of October. Therefore, the sharp cool spell very likely won't mean that New York City has seen its last 70° or above high temperature. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.1°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around October 8. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.12°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.42°C. La Niña conditions will likely continue through mid-winter. The SOI was -3.48 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.487 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 66% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal October (1991-2020 normal). October will likely finish with a mean temperature near 58.9° (1.0° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 2.0° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.

Three-day rainfall totals for the New York City area:

Probably less than that in most places, but a few areas could still see another 0.25". Favored areas for the heavier amounts are on Long Island.

The nor'easter that brought heavy rainfall to the coastal plain is now poised to pull away. Some additional showers, periods of rain, and drizzle are likely overnight. Following the nor'easter, tomorrow will be mostly cloudy and mild. Clouds could break from west to east during the afternoon. Temperatures will top out in the lower 60s in many parts of the region. Wednesday will be partly sunny and milder with highs reaching the middle 60s. However, a fresh shot of cool air will move into the region late Wednesday or Wednesday night. Following the frontal passage, parts of the region could experience their coolest temperatures so far this fall. Dry conditions will likely prevail through the remainder of the week. In the 18 past years where Central Park saw at least two 80° or above highs and Newark saw at least two 84° or above highs during the first week of October, the temperature returned to 70° or above on at least one day during the second half of October in 17 (94.4%) of those cases. For all other cases, 84.1% saw at least one such high temperature during the second half of October. Therefore, the sharp cool spell very likely won't mean that New York City has seen its last 70° or above high temperature. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.1°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around October 8. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.12°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.42°C. La Niña conditions will likely continue through mid-winter. The SOI was +7.15 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.345 today. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 63% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal October (1991-2020 normal). October will likely finish with a mean temperature near 58.8° (0.9° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 1.9° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.