July 2023 Forecasts and Discussions

[Hawk]

“June was the hottest ever in NOAA's ............."by a wide margin," according to England's Meteorological Office.”


I doubt these facts will change any minds but what the hell.

Those cold and snowy winters of the '70s and '80s will be a distant memory for the new generation. The West Coast will become the wet Coast with Winters like portland. Snow once in awhile and that's about it

[HarrisonSasquatchWx]

We reached 33c today @ the pond in south Sardis absolutely insanely hot and it's a stunning 23c at midnight.

[HarrisonSasquatchWx]

Anyone who says the planet hasn't warmed is an idiot and delusional. And to say that it wasn't 40 during the 2021 heat wave is beyond delusional. So many thermometers at well situated locations were way above 40 on the Lower Mainland that it was undeniable. At least you'd think.

At the same time, trying to link every hurricane, drought and flood to climate change that I see all the time is almost as stupid. There's no significant correlation between precipitation and climate change, especially when it comes to drought and hurricanes. Plus single events are weather not climate.

Both terrific valid points El Nino man and Glace, l for one don't buy the every severe weather event is correlated to a warming planet but you've got to believe there is something at work here with the frequency or pace that these events are beginning to take place l mean our 2 2021 major events within 4 months and this summers absolutely horrific heatwaves in so many locations globally now that's scary and when you see weather records broken again and again.

[HarrisonSasquatchWx]

https://twitter.com/frankiemacd/status/ ... QmneQ&s=19

Two l know of Frankie.

[Roberts Creeker]

Warm tonight, 19.6c at midnight! High of 29.9c in Sechelt, just 3c higher than forecast Another 27c day tomorrow then 24, 23, 25 and a cloudy 21c on Monday!

[Weather101]

“June was the hottest ever in NOAA's climate record: Earth's average global temperature in June was 1.89 degrees above average, making it the hottest June in the 174-years global climate record. It also marked the 47th-consecutive June and the 532nd-consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th-century average, according to the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration.
The past seven years have been the Earth's hottest: The years between 2015 and 2021 were Earth's warmest on record "by a clear margin," according to research by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, a group affiliated with the European Union. So far, 2021 was the planet's fifth-warmest year on record. The two warmest years, according to the Copernicus group, were 2020 and 2016.
2023 could be the warmest on record: “It is actually almost a certainty that this will be the warmest year globally,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told USA TODAY. The current record for the warmest year is 58.69 degrees over the global land and ocean, set in 2016, during the last El Niño. Last year's global average was just below that, at 58.44 degrees.
The Atlantic Ocean hit its highest temperatures since records began in 1850: Surface temperatures in the North Atlantic have hit "unprecedented" temperatures, almost 3 degrees warmer than typical for summer. The figure – the highest since in a series of temperature recordings that go back to 1850 – broke records "by a wide margin," according to England's Meteorological Office.”


I doubt these facts will change any minds but what the hell.

What's happening in Texas alone is just crazy been keeping tabs on that.

[Weather101]

Adding to a bit of what kells was saying this is what a warming climate will do to the human body.. explains how a sea breeze could turn into not a good thing you'd want to be around.
Not the full article so I'll link it here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in ... wFbfnjA8cA

When it comes to heat, the human body is remarkably resilient — it’s the humidity that makes it harder to cool down. And humidity, driven in part by climate change, is increasing.

A measurement of the combination of heat and humidity is called a “wet-bulb temperature,” which is determined by wrapping a completely wet wick around the bulb of a thermometer. Scientists are using this metric to figure out which regions of the world may become too dangerous for humans.

A term we rarely hear about, the wet-bulb temperature reflects not only heat, but also how much water is in the air. The higher that number is, the harder it is for sweat to evaporate and for bodies to cool down.



At a certain threshold of heat and humidity, “it’s no longer possible to be able to sweat fast enough to prevent overheating,” said Radley Horton, a professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Scientists have found that Mexico and Central America, the Persian Gulf, India, Pakistan and Southeast Asia are all careening toward this threshold before the end of the century.Humid heat risks are grossly underestimated today and will increase dramatically in the future,” Horton said. “As locations around the world experience previously rare or unprecedented extremes with increasing frequency, we run the risk that our previous messaging about extreme heat risk — already woefully inadequate — will fall further short of the mark.”

You might think that being closer to the beach would be a great way to catch that ocean breeze and cool off. But Horton said proximity to water in extreme conditions could make things worse. As warming temperatures cause the water to evaporate, it adds humidity to the air.

“If you’re sitting in a city along the Persian Gulf, the sea breeze could be a deadly breeze,” he said.

To better understand why these places are becoming too hot and humid for humans to endure, you have to first understand how the body cools itself

The wet-bulb temperature that marks the upper limit of what the human body can handle is 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 Celsius). But any temperatures above 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 Celsius) can be dangerous and deadly. Horton and other scientists noted in a 2020 paper that these temperatures are occurring with increasing frequency in parts of the world. To put things in perspective, the highest wet-bulb temperature ever recorded in the Washington region, known for its muggy, unbearable summers, was 87.2 degrees (30.7 Celsius).

“Extreme humid heat overall has more than doubled in frequency since 1979,” the study’s authors wrote.

[Typeing3]

00z GFS ensembles:

ens_image.png

00z ECMWF ensembles:

ens_image (1).png

00z GEM ensembles:

ens_image (2).png

[Typeing3]

20230720133830-ac899d9b11237e0151febea5ae3090f8fb95bf8a.png

20230720133858-44fb36905e5d3a0958496c7c535a29343b7e1e17.png

[Mattman]

No, Port Kells, I’m unimpressed. By comparison to what are these records? Objective comparisons that we don’t have would be the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period. It’s a very small window of time we have objective, day-to-day measurements. So no, I not on board. It’s such a tiny window of time with this kind of ability to make these observations.

Nito, more extreme storm development? So what storms do you mean? Explain further. Cyclones? Where’s the uptick in more and extreme typhoons and hurricanes? Provide objective data on that. Do you mean convective storms over a continent? Is there an uptick in the number and severity of tornadoes? If there’s an increased cost to storm damage that says more about the spread of urbanization in storm-prone areas. Do you mean stalled jet extensions that brought us the flood in Nov 2021? “Extreme storm development” is but one example of generalizations us “deniers” see as very sloppy reasoning that’s just to be accepted rather than questioned.

Cyclonic weather is evidence of climate change, anti-cyclonic weather is evidence of climate change, jet extensions are evidence of climate change, and jet retractions are evidence of climate change. It’s a gloss liberally applied to the point the reasoning is circular. Little wonder plebs like me who were follow-the-rules class pets now highly distrust institutional authority with an unapologetic middle finger. That trust was frittered away by such generalizations presented here that beg to be challenged but it's rather treated as above a challenge.

(Atheist and mathematician, Dr James Lindsay had shattered his religion of the academy, specifically STEM fields. He thought logical, academic rigour would win. He had a crisis of faith over an article in a STEM journal about how the study of glaciation needed feminist and indigenous perspectives. The pure, academic rationality he thought remained was breeched. Any academic field can become ideologically possessed by a god of the age.)

That trust I had was also depleted to see meteorology and climatology become increasingly cultic. It’s now orthodoxy to set emotion (fear, anxiety) over the merits. Step out of line with questions or observations about the orthodoxy of the day, out comes the slander that one is a flat-earther at best and a “denier” at worst with a deliberate attempt to implicitly link the word “denier” to odious Holocaust deniers. Good grief, kids have “climate anxiety.” If it were NOT cultic, objective contention would be rebutted with further points of objective contention rather than emotional, irrational implications were beyond questioning such things. If it were NOT cultic there would be open challenges to the "tipping points" that passed without a hitch and the inaccurate prognostications of yesteryear would be acknowledged rather than memory holed as though they never happened.

People smarter than me have questioned how you tease apart natural variability from anthropogenic causes. (I still haven’t seen that addressed here and it is the crux of the matter that is completely ignored). People also smarter than me question the cost-benefit of “reducing emissions,” how the poor especially would be pummelled by rising energy costs from boneheaded government policies (I.e UK and Germany), how we’re increasingly reliant on rare earth elements from regions with dubious practices in the silly name of “renewable energy”, how we can adapt as we always have rather than increase the cost of living in the name of “going green” or whatever vapid slogan is out there to increase government control. To all the anthropogenic-climate-change-is-catastrophic posters here (which is most of you), in this last paragraph at the risk of being arrogant, I know I’m making valid points. They’re pro-human points not swayed by the fear and anxiety of the news of day nor the limited data we have. They’re points about adapting without resorting to the bloated solutions posited that have zero cost-benefit to them. I’m anxious about many thing as that’s my default disposition. Climate change isn’t on the list. At the top of the list of anxieties is fear of government and special interest groups’ fear-based reactions, and the increasingly cultic feel to these sciences.

[Weather101]

No, Port Kells, I’m unimpressed. By comparison to what are these records? Objective comparisons that we don’t have would be the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period. It’s a very small window of time we have objective, day-to-day measurements. So no, I not on board. It’s such a tiny window of time with this kind of ability to make these observations.

Nito, more extreme storm development? So what storms do you mean? Explain further. Cyclones? Where’s the uptick in more and extreme typhoons and hurricanes? Provide objective data on that. Do you mean convective storms over a continent? Is there an uptick in the number and severity of tornadoes? If there’s an increased cost to storm damage that says more about the spread of urbanization in storm-prone areas. Do you mean stalled jet extensions that brought us the flood in Nov 2021? “Extreme storm development” is but one example of generalizations us “deniers” see as very sloppy reasoning that’s just to be accepted rather than questioned.

Cyclonic weather is evidence of climate change, anti-cyclonic weather is evidence of climate change, jet extensions are evidence of climate change, and jet retractions are evidence of climate change. It’s a gloss liberally applied to the point the reasoning is circular. Little wonder plebs like me who were follow-the-rules class pets now highly distrust institutional authority with an unapologetic middle finger. That trust was frittered away by such generalizations presented here that beg to be challenged but it's rather treated as above a challenge.

(Atheist and mathematician, Dr James Lindsay had shattered his religion of the academy, specifically STEM fields. He thought logical, academic rigour would win. He had a crisis of faith over an article in a STEM journal about how the study of glaciation needed feminist and indigenous perspectives. The pure, academic rationality he thought remained was breeched. Any academic field can become ideologically possessed by a god of the age.)

That trust I had was also depleted to see meteorology and climatology become increasingly cultic. It’s now orthodoxy to set emotion (fear, anxiety) over the merits. Step out of line with questions or observations about the orthodoxy of the day, out comes the slander that one is a flat-earther at best and a “denier” at worst with a deliberate attempt to implicitly link the word “denier” to odious Holocaust deniers. Good grief, kids have “climate anxiety.” If it were NOT cultic, objective contention would be rebutted with further points of objective contention rather than emotional, irrational implications were beyond questioning such things. If it were NOT cultic there would be open challenges to the "tipping points" that passed without a hitch and the inaccurate prognostications of yesteryear would be acknowledged rather than memory holed as though they never happened.

People smarter than me have questioned how you tease apart natural variability from anthropogenic causes. (I still haven’t seen that addressed here and it is the crux of the matter that is completely ignored). People also smarter than me question the cost-benefit of “reducing emissions,” how the poor especially would be pummelled by rising energy costs from boneheaded government policies (I.e UK and Germany), how we’re increasingly reliant on rare earth elements from regions with dubious practices in the silly name of “renewable energy”, how we can adapt as we always have rather than increase the cost of living in the name of “going green” or whatever vapid slogan is out there to increase government control. To all the anthropogenic-climate-change-is-catastrophic posters here (which is most of you), in this last paragraph at the risk of being arrogant, I know I’m making valid points. They’re pro-human points not swayed by the fear and anxiety of the news of day nor the limited data we have. They’re points about adapting without resorting to the bloated solutions posited that have zero cost-benefit to them. I’m anxious about many thing as that’s my default disposition. Climate change isn’t on the list. At the top of the list of anxieties is fear of government and special interest groups’ fear-based reactions, and the increasingly cultic feel to these sciences.

Lol no worries we will keep seeing increasing temps, Rising sea levels, Destructive storms, Extreme heat, Destroyed crops, Rising food prices all backed by science and still somehow argue about this in 2040 for no reason.

Yay !

[Weather101]

I find it wild that the smartest people in the world say we are in danger, AND we are literally experiencing it as we speak, and yet people say " meh not real" lmao

[Weather101]

This must be all fake

[Roberts Creeker]

Can we move the climate change talk to the climate change discussion thread please. It's here: viewtopic.php?t=571

[Hawk]

No, Port Kells, I’m unimpressed. By comparison to what are these records? Objective comparisons that we don’t have would be the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period. It’s a very small window of time we have objective, day-to-day measurements. So no, I not on board. It’s such a ................... At the top of the list of anxieties is fear of government and special interest groups’ fear-based reactions, and the increasingly cultic feel to these sciences.

Tell em Mattman!!! and