donsutherland1

I expect a warmer to much warmer than normal March (probably 3°-4° above normal overall) with below to much below normal snowfall. I don't think March will quite reach the extremes seen in such cases as 1945 or 2012. In terms of probabilities, my guess is that 2012-type warmth would have about a one-in-four chance this March (exceptionally high relative to climatology, but still not the most likely outcome).

Back on February 17, there was chatter that 1960 was an analog for the upcoming March. That's an example of the kind of extreme suggestions that periodically show up on Social Media despite a lack of evidence (the most common extreme idea remains calls for imminent sudden or major stratospheric warming events). For illustrative purposes, I posted maps showing that the area of cold for the first half of February was much less expansive than it was during the same timeframe in 1960 and that there was an absence of a mechanism to deliver the cold air into the CONUS for an extended period. These were two enormous and highly visible "red flags" that argued against the kind of severe cold seen during March 1960 e.g., monthly average temperature of 33.3° in New York City where the coldest March since then was 1984 with a mean temperature of 36.7°. Nationwide, March 1960 was the 3rd coldest March on record in the contiguous United States with a mean temperature nearly 5.6° below the 1901-2000 average. February 1960 was also the 18th coldest February on record in the contiguous United States. In terms of the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the February 16-29, 1960 average was -2.566. The preliminary February 16-28, 2020 average is +3.906. Put another way, had one asked, "What would it take to produce a March outcome similar to that in 1960?" one would have been hard-pressed to invoke such a comparison. With February nearing a conclusion, it's useful to examine and compare how the second half of February has fared relative to that in 1960. Spoiler alert: there's no meaningful similarity in terms of the development of widespread and severe cold.

Morning thoughts... 1. Despite low temperatures in the 20s this morning in much of the Middle Atlantic region, a warm and nearly completely snowless February is concluding. Through February 27, New York City had received a trace of snow and Philadelphia had received no snowfall. 2. February 2020 will rank as New York City's 7th warmest February on record and Philadelphia's 11th warmest on record. 3. February 2020 will be New York City's 9th February on record where the temperature averaged 40.0° or above. 7 (78%) of those years have occurred since 1990 and 4 (44%) have occurred since 2010. Records go back to 1869. 4. The raw February temperature averages for the forthcoming 1991-2020 base period will be as follows: New York City: 35.7° +0.4° from the current base period Philadelphia: 36.3° +0.6° from the current base period 5. The increase in the February mean temperature will be somewhat ahead of the increase in the global February temperature for those two cities. The global increase will be approximately +0.32°. 6. March will likely be warmer to much warmer than normal across the region with widespread temperature anomalies of 2°-4° above normal.

Snow was falling this evening and the landscape was coated in a thick and thickening blanket of white. A blustery wind added to the chill. That's if one were in the lake effect areas off Lakes Erie and Ontario and parts of northern New England. Through 6 pm, more than 6.0" snow had fallen in Caribou, surpassing the daily record of 6.0" set in 2008. In addition, Caribou had surpassed 100" seasonal snowfall for the 4th consecutive winter. Back in the Middle Atlantic region, snowfall has been difficult to come by. The clock is now winding down on a February that has been defined by warmth and an near total absence of snowfall. Monthly snowfall totals through today include: Allentown: Trace; Baltimore: None; Bridgeport: Trace; Harrisburg: Trace; Islip: None; New York City-Central Park: Trace; New York City-JFK: None; New York City-LGA: None; Newark: Trace; Philadelphia: None; Washington, DC: Trace. Colder air has now returned to the region. However, as has been the case throughout January and February, this latest round of cold will likely be short-lived. Much milder air will move into the region early next week. Consistent with the pattern and supported by most of the guidance, no significant snowfalls (6" or more) are likely in the major Middle Atlantic cities through the remainder of February. There is a greater but still fairly low probability for Boston to see such a snowstorm. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.6°C for the week centered around February 19. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.17°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.40°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely prevail through March. The SOI was +15.90 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.969. No significant stratospheric warming is likely through March 6, but the upper stratosphere above 3 mb will likely be warm. Wave 2 activity will likely diminish during the first week of March. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS through the end of February. On February 26, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 0.379 (RMM). The February 25-adjusted amplitude was 0.734. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is a near 100% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal February and an implied near 100% probability that February 2020 will be among the 10 warmest such months on record. The mean monthly temperature will likely finish near 40.1° tying February 2020 with February 1954 as the 7th warmest February on record. Since 1869, New York City has had nine prior cases where the temperature averaged 40.0° or above in February. Seven (78%) of those cases occurred in 1990 or later and four (44%) occurred in 2000 or later. Three (33%) occurred in 2010 or later. Finally, a sizable majority (>80%) of years during which the AO has been, on average, strongly positive during the first 15 days of February were followed by a warmer than normal March. The preliminary February 1-15 AO average was +2.758. Only 1989 (+3.336) and 1990 (+2.948) had higher AO averages during this period. Recent rapid warming in ENSO Region 1+2 has also typically preceded a warmer than normal March and spring in the Middle Atlantic region. The most recent C3S multi-system blend favors a somewhat warmer than normal spring in the region. A warmer than normal March and spring remain the base case.

Those are three month average anomalies. Broad-brushing or imposing such anomalies on a single month can lead one to incorrect conclusions. The risks of error are particularly high in a month like March when the wave lengths are changing (shortening). Here's how things worked out for the first and second half of March for NYC (1981-2019): March 1-15, 1981-2019: Mean temperature: 40.2°; MJO Phase 5 (amplitude 1.000 or above): 43.0° or 2.8° warmer than the mean for the whole period March 16-31, 1981-2019: Mean temperature: 45.1°; MJO Phase 5 (amplitude 1.000 or above): 46.3° or 1.2° warmer than the mean for the whole period I don't think it's any surprise that the EPS weeklies (and I expect the evolution to continue when the newest data becomes available later today) and CFSv2 have now moved aggressively toward a warm March outcome. One need only look back to late January/early February to see the perils of ignoring or discounting critical details. Discounting what appeared likely to be an exceptionally strong AO+ regime for February led to some forecasts calling for severe and sustained cold to develop. At last word, the severe cold that was touted over social media by some never materialized. Instead, cities such as Philadelphia, New York, and Boston are about to record among their 10 warmest February cases on record. The warm February was not unexpected. It was not unforeseeable. In tennis, it would be the equivalent of an unforced error. A similar situation now exists concerning March, though the changing wave lengths make the forecast more complex. Nevertheless, it's a higher confidence than usual one. IMO, pointing out such matters is useful for learning purposes. The general lesson is that one needs evidence that is reliable for drawing sound conclusions. While such an approach won't eliminate forecasting error, it can reduce the risk of error.

Phase 5 is not cold in March (one can't simply impose a three-month temperature anomaly onto a single month). Here's the 1981-2019 data for New York City: All dates: 42.7° All Phase 5 dates: 43.7° Phase 5 dates (amplitude 1.000 or above): 44.6° It's also warmer than normal across the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas.

Morning thoughts... 1. Prospects for a warmer to much warmer than normal March in the Middle Atlantic and New England areas have continued to increase. 2. The base case has long favored a warmer than normal March on account of such factors as the exceptionally strong polar vortex in February (which has a lingering influence on the March pattern), past strong AO+ regimes in February, and the recent warming of ENSO Region 1+2. 3. Modeling has evolved quite rapidly toward the warmer March idea (EPS weeklies and the CFSv2). Below is the evolution of the CFSv2 forecasts from February 19 through February 27 that illustrate this dramatic trend. 4. Evidence for an alternative cold scenario for March is almost non-existent. 5. March snowfall in the Middle Atlantic region remains on course to be below to much below normal.

On what basis? The CFSv2 moved away from the severe cold it had shown for March. The hemispheric pattern is not close to the 1960 pattern he had invoked previously. Typically, extremely strong polar vortices in February retain an influence on the pattern that lingers in March. The 2/26/2020 CFSv2 forecast for March:

Colder air will arrive in tomorrow with winds gusting past 40 mph. This latest round of cold will likely last several days before warmth returns. Winter 2019-2020 became the 11th winter on record that saw New York City receive less than 6" seasonal snowfall through February 26. Mean total snowfall for the 10 prior cases was 7.8" vs. the historic mean figure of 28.8". In addition, 70% of such winters wound up with less than 10" seasonal snowfall vs. 6% of winters in the historic record. 100% of such winters wound up with less than 20" seasonal snowfall vs. 31% of winters in the historic record. The snowiest case from those prior winters was 1928-29 with 13.8" seasonal snowfall. Winter 2019-2020 is the 6th winter on record that has seen Philadelphia receive less than 2" seasonal snowfall through February 26. Mean total snowfall for the 6 prior cases was 2.9" vs. the historic mean figure of 22.6". In addition, 100% of such winters wound up with less than 10" seasonal snowfall vs. 16% of winters in the historic record. The snowiest case from those prior winters was 1889-90 with 7.4" seasonal snowfall. Consistent with the pattern and supported by most of the guidance, no significant snowfalls (6" or more) are likely in the major Middle Atlantic cities through the remainder of February. There is a greater but still fairly low probability for Boston to see such a snowstorm. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.6°C for the week centered around February 19. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.17°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.40°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely prevail through March. The SOI was +16.04 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.550. No significant stratospheric warming is likely through March 5, but the upper stratosphere above 3 mb will likely be warm. Wave 2 activity will likely diminish during the first week of March. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS through the end of February. On February 25, the MJO was in Phase 8 at an amplitude of 0.736 (RMM). The February 24-adjusted amplitude was 0.850. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is a near 100% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal February and an implied 98% probability that February 2020 will be among the 10 warmest such months on record. The mean monthly temperature will likely finish near 40.2°. Since 1869, New York City has had nine prior cases where the temperature averaged 40.0° or above in February. Seven (78%) of those cases occurred in 1990 or later and four (44%) occurred in 2000 or later. Three (33%) occurred in 2010 or later. Finally, a sizable majority (>80%) of years during which the AO has been, on average, strongly positive during the first 15 days of February were followed by a warmer than normal March. The preliminary February 1-15 AO average was +2.758. Only 1989 (+3.336) and 1990 (+2.948) had higher AO averages during this period. Recent rapid warming in ENSO Region 1+2 has also typically preceded a warmer than normal March and spring in the Middle Atlantic region. The most recent C3S multi-system blend favors a somewhat warmer than normal spring in the region. A warmer than normal March and spring remain the base case.

The world is already more than half way to the 2°C goal and the warming has been occurring most recently at a rate of around 0.2°C per decade. That would mean the target would be reached or exceeded within five decades. The timing could be faster depending on the impact of amplifying feedbacks. Research into those feedbacks is continuing and there is some level of uncertainty. One feedback that would be potentially worrisome would be shortwave cloud feedback, which may have played a crucial role in the Eocene warming. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaax1874 My referencing to the aging shrinking climate change denial movement was never intended to define all older people. It referred to a subset. My reference to examples of misogyny in the climate change denial movement referenced a paper and highlighted one example (Anthony Watts--the tweet has yet to be deleted). There has been an increase in such tactics in recent years. The increased profile of Greta Thunberg has brought it out into the open. Watts is far from the only actor engaging in such conduct, though he is one with a fairly large following.

I haven't seen anything from Wells Fargo regarding moving away from funding fossil fuels.

JPMorgan Chase has also moved to eliminate most coal-related financing/assistance and financing for new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/pr/jpmorgan-chase-expands-commitment-to-low-carbon-economy-and-clean-energy.htm The notion that business, markets, and more broadly the economy are incompatible with addressing climate change is inaccurate. Companies are beginning to make the move. This movement is still in its early stages, but it is beginning to gather momentum, as climate change poses risks to companies, markets, and economies.

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc. That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs. As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/ "Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance. Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth. It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review. Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. It is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt. Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with). This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

Two quick things: 1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question. 2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

Tomorrow will remain unseasonably mild. However, colder air will arrive late Thursday night or Friday. This latest round of cold will likely last several days before warmth returns. Consistent with the pattern and supported by most of the guidance, no significant snowfalls (6" or more) are likely in the major Middle Atlantic cities through the remainder of February. There is a greater but still fairly low probability for Boston to see such a snowstorm. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.6°C for the week centered around February 19. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.17°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.40°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely prevail through March. The SOI was +12.34 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +2.263. No significant stratospheric warming is likely through March 4, but the upper stratosphere above 3 mb will likely be warm. Wave 2 activity will likely diminish during the first week of March. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS through the end of February. On February 24, the MJO was in Phase 8 at an amplitude of 0.850 (RMM). The February 23-adjusted amplitude was 0.985. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is a near 100% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal February and an implied 93% probability that February 2020 will be among the 10 warmest such months on record. The mean monthly temperature will likely finish near 40.0°. Since 1869, New York City has had nine prior cases where the temperature averaged 40.0° or above in February. Seven (78%) of those cases occurred in 1990 or later and four (44%) occurred in 2000 or later. Three (33%) occurred in 2010 or later. Finally, a sizable majority (>80%) of years during which the AO has been, on average, strongly positive during the first 15 days of February were followed by a warmer than normal March. The preliminary February 1-15 AO average was +2.758. Only 1989 (+3.336) and 1990 (+2.948) had higher AO averages during this period. Recent rapid warming in ENSO Region 1+2 has also typically preceded a warmer than normal March and spring in the Middle Atlantic region. The most recent C3S multi-system blend favors a somewhat warmer than normal spring in the region. A warmer than normal March and spring remain the base case.

Thanks for sharing this information. Cook has done a lot of good work in trying to combat climate change denial. Hopefully, this book will do well in helping address what remains a real problem.

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg. Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic: https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20 Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics. Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Is this the article to which you were referring? https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/02/19/polar-vortex-is-approaching-record-strength-thats-not-scary-thing/

Morning thoughts... 1. The CFSv2 continues its evolution toward a warmer outlook for March as it moves deeper into its skillful range. 2. As of 8 am, Atlanta has received 18.59" precipitation this year. Only 1883 (19.04") and 1936 (18.80") had more through February 25. Atlanta's trace of snow this winter also exceeds last winter's figure of 0.0". 3. Over the next 72 hours, Caribou will reach and then exceed 100" seasonal snowfall for the 4th consecutive winter. 4. With a 51° high temperature earlier today, New York City remains on track for its 3rd February in the last 4 years with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above.

Tomorrow and Wednesday will remain unseasonably mild, though nowhere near as warm as today was. Afterward, cooler air will arrive. This latest round of cold will likely last several days before warmth returns. Consistent with the pattern and supported by most of the guidance, no significant snowfalls (6" or more) are likely in the major Middle Atlantic cities through the remainder of February. There is a greater but still fairly low probability for Boston to see such a snowstorm. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.6°C for the week centered around February 19. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.17°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.40°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely prevail through March. The SOI was +7.25 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +3.667. No significant stratospheric warming is likely through March 3, but the upper stratosphere above 3 mb will likely be warm. Wave 2 activity will likely diminish during the first week of March. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS through the end of February. On February 23, the MJO was in Phase 7 at an amplitude of 0.986 (RMM). The February 22-adjusted amplitude was 0.818. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is a near 100% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal February and an implied 85% probability that February 2020 will be among the 10 warmest such months on record. The mean monthly temperature will likely finish near 40.0°. Since 1869, New York City has had nine prior cases where the temperature averaged 40.0° or above in February. Seven (78%) of those cases occurred in 1990 or later and four (44%) occurred in 2000 or later. Finally, a sizable majority (>80%) of years during which the AO has been, on average, strongly positive during the first 15 days of February were followed by a warmer than normal March. The preliminary February 1-15 AO average was +2.758. Only 1989 (+3.336) and 1990 (+2.948) had higher AO averages during this period. Recent rapid warming in ENSO Region 1+2 has also typically preceded a warmer than normal March and spring in the Middle Atlantic region. The most recent C3S multi-system blend favors a somewhat warmer than normal spring in the region. A warmer than normal March and spring remain the base case.

It's unfortunate if the choice is to leave things as it is. I ran a regression analysis for Jamaica Plain (JP) and Boston's January-February average temperature (1963-2017, excluding 2004-08 where no Jamaica Plain data is available). The resulting equation for Boston's January-February mean temperature was (0.923*JP)+4.129. The coefficient of determination was 0.936. The mean error during the 1963-2017 period was 0.6° (same as the median error). The minimum error was 0.0°. The maximum error was 1.9° in 1965. Based on where things currently stand, the 2020 error would be 2.1°. As noted above, should the choice be made to leave the ASOS where it is, that outcome will undermine the integrity of Boston's climate record. It would amount to a bad scientific decision. Finally, Jamaica Plain is on track for its 3rd warmest January-February period (34.0° through 2/23 vs. 34.9° for January-February 2002).