donsutherland1

This is getting to absurd "twilight zone" alternate reality territory. Wild claims are made. No scientific literature is cited to support the thesis of doom. Comparing CO2 mitigation to “stopping continental drift” is rhetorically clever but scientifically irrelevant. Continental drift operates over tens of millions of years, not the decades/centuries/millennia under discussion with climate change and the responses to changes in forcing. It’s incorrect to suggest that halting or reversing CO2 rise would have no effect. If CO2 concentrations stabilize or decline, global temperatures would likely follow over decades to centuries, as radiative forcing equilibrates (equilibrium climate sensitivity). The system’s inertia is large but not infinite. "Doomed no matter what” has little or no scientific support. It is nothing more than a rallying cry to stick with an unsustainable status quo. To be sure, a degree of melt/sea-level rise is baked in. However, there is no evidence that an inflection point has been reached where the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are doomed to disappear. The latest estimate for an inflection point for Greenland is 1.7°-2.3°C. For Antarctica, the latest estimates for the West is 1°-3°C and 2°-6°C for the East. One recent study suggested that an additional 0.25°C ocean warming could reach the inflection point for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Mitigation can reduce the extent of warming. Society is not helpless. The problem is largely not technical or technological. It's largely political. It's about societal choice, specifically a choice to stick with the status quo while fully aware of the consequences of that choice. The "Doomist" characterization deployed to argue against mitigation is what's foolish, particularly as human agency exists. Alternative paths away from the status quo of dumping some 40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year do exist.

Correlations with teleconnections e.g., the PNA, provide one perspective in addressing questions e.g., will it snow? But to get a better understanding, one needs to look more deeply. For example, the spread of PNA values for snow events can result in a low correlation. However, if one categorizes events by PNA- or PNA+, one can get distinctive differences in the frequency of events e.g., just over two-thirds of New York City's measurable snow events during winter occur when the PNA is positive. Here's daily snowfall and PNA data for New York City's Central Park:

Currently, I am playing with a three-step analog construction method that incorporates ENSO evolution, forecast winter ENSO, and major teleconnections, using root mean square error (RMSE) values to rank potential 500 mb analogs. I am using the 1990-present period to represent the contemporary climate state with its increasingly widespread warm SSTAs and growing incidence of marine heatwaves. I had been considering just using the last 30 years of data but decided to start a little earlier at 1990. Below are maps using the top three analogs. Interestingly enough, 2021-22, which I discussed previously, was among them. Fall 2025: Winter 2025-2026: Fall to Date (through October 14): So far, there are some big differences in the Pacific domain with the most anomalous trough and ridge displaced well north of what the analog group suggests. But this early data covers just over 48% of the fall season. Winter 2025-2026 ECMWF Forecast: Personally, I do not like the use of 2011-12, but I didn't exclude it from this analysis, because this exercise is aimed at developing cases objectively without human subjectivity. One case that I have among my current mix 2024-25 didn't come up in this exercise. This exercise is for purposes of illustration and learning. It will not affect my final choices. Unless there are some big changes, I won't include 2011-12. In contrast, 2024-25 still seems worth including to me. The common reference to 2021-22 gives me added confidence that its emergence as a strong example is real. Ultimately, this exercise is about trying to develop a more objective approach toward picking seasonal cases. If there is promise, I might try adding some additional variables e.g., QBO. Finally, it should be noted that even zonal-looking 500 mb patterns do not preclude periods of synoptic differences e.g., blocking. I suspect that there will be several periods of blocking this coming winter.

Your claim misses the larger point of my examples. It does not matter whether the sea rises or the land subsides. The result is the same. The water line advances relative to human settlements and ecosystems. At Delos, the submerged temples and quays bear witness to centuries of the intertwined forces of subsidence compounded by accelerating global sea-level rise from thermal expansion and melting ice. These processes do not cancel each other. They reinforce one another. Delos, like Doggerland, stands as a warning of what coastal cities around the world may face as relative sea level climbs ever faster through the 21st century under humanity's choice to continue to inject massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Sea-level rise is incremental in pace but cumulative in consequence. It undermines foundations, salinizes water tables, and devours shorelines. The crisis is not measured in centimeters per year, but in the permanence of its trajectory. The seas will continue rising for centuries, long after the emissions that drive them have ceased, because the response of the ice caps to the warming is a slow feedback. Calling it “ludicrous” to treat Delos as a cautionary crisis misunderstands the lesson. The near one-meter rise projected by the end of the 21st century and several meters by 2300, will erase vast stretches of today’s coastal infrastructure. Miami, New York, Jakarta, Shanghai, and Bangkok are among vulnerable cities. To apply the dismissal of Delos' lessons and accordingly view the eventual partial inundation of the major cities I listed, among others, as a “non-crisis” is the kind of short-sighted thinking that is produced by the limits of human nature that Tip and I had been discussing.

We agree that it’s a large adjustment. Unfortunately, I don’t have the specific details.

Such lows are occurring later. Central Park: 1961-1990: 10/19; 1991-2020: 10/22; 2000-2025: 10/24 JFK: 1961-1990: 10/17; 1991-2020: 10/21; 2000-2025: 10/22

Statistical adjustments are involved. The numbers aren't raw averages. https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/understanding-climate-normals

There's been virtually no change. Central Park: 1961-1990: 10/6; 1991-2020: 10/5; 2000-2025: 10/6 JFK: 1961-1990: 10/10; 1991-2020: 10/9; 2000-2025: 10/11

The 1981-2010 normals can be found here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/

He's wrong. The paper documents sea-level rise that began some 6,000 years ago.

It was much warmer last October than is likely this time around. Last October had a mean temperature of 60.9° in New York City.

Tomorrow morning will again be very chilly. Lows in New York City will be in the middle 40s. 30s will be common outside the City with colder spots falling into the 20s. It will turn milder during the weekend. Partly to mostly sunny conditions should prevail. 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 +3.54 today. The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.697 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 58.5° (0.6° above normal). Supplemental Information: The projected mean would be 1.6° above the 1981-2010 normal monthly value.

I hyperlinked the paper regarding sea level rise at Delos. A key chart: There was more to the story than war. Moreover, the historic site continues to be reclaimed by the sea. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/12/6/870 In short, I made sure that the information was verifiable.

There's one day that's listed with a high of 72° (10/2) that actually had a high of 66°. I'm not sure how the 72° got into the climate record. Every other NYC area location ((BDR: 63, ISP: 67, LGA: 66, NYC: 66, EWR:68, HPN: 64)) + the hourly data shows < 70° for 10/2. During late September/early October, there were recurring issues at the JFK station.

I agree. It's possible that other variables contributed, too, beyond the two utilized e.g., PNA. During the AO+/NAO+ days, 61.8% had a PNA+; for AO+/NAO- days, 56.5% had PNA+.

Yes, I made it. Here it is for Washington, DC (KDCA):

I agree. The NAO does matter more when one goes farther south in the Mid-Atlantic region especially for the Baltimore-Washington areas, though.

At least for NYC, the AO is a bigger factor. Red text=% of days e.g., AO-/NAO-; blue text: % of days in the quadrant with measurable snowfall; black text: percentage of total days with measurable snowfall. This is December-February/winter data.

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.