DAYS 1-5 (APRIL 23-27)
It’s weekend time! How’s the weather gonna be? Kind of typical springtime in New England, and in case you forgot that we here in the WHW forecast area live near a large body of water, the Atlantic Ocean, you’ll get a reminder. The set-up of weather systems we will see is fairly typical for this time of year. We have high pressure building in eastern Canada and a frontal boundary set to slip south southwestward across the region, but not before we have a decently mild day today (a touch cooler than yesterday). Sunday will end up noticeably cooler, most especially near the coastline. We’ll also see an abundance of high cloudiness sliding in from the northwest with the upper level winds today and these will thicken at times and thin at other times. Right now it looks like the thickest batch of cloud cover will move through tonight and in the pre-dawn hours of Sunday when some patches of light rain may fall. By the time we get to Monday, that boundary is going to try pushing back to the north and east as a warm front, and may succeed by later in the day, so I’m optimistic for breaking clouds, more sun, and warmer air, though it may be late-arriving the further east and north you are. When we get to Tuesday, we see a changing weather pattern start to take place with a low pressure area and frontal system arriving from the west during Tuesday then slowing down as it tries to exit Wednesday, when another wave of low pressure may become involved. This results in a period of unsettled weather, starting mild, then cooling down. There will be some details to fine-tune as we get closer.
TODAY: Sun/cloud mix, most abundant sun during the first half of the day. Highs 58-65. Wind NW to N up to 10 MPH but local coastal sea breezes.
TONIGHT: Mostly cloudy. Spotty light rain late evening-overnight. Lows 38-45. Wind N to NE up to 10 MPH may start to gust higher near the coast.
SUNDAY: Lots of clouds, periodic sunshine. Highs 47-54 NH Seacoast, eastern MA, and immediate South Coast, 55-62 elsewhere. Wind NE to E 5-15 MPH.
SUNDAY NIGHT: Mostly cloudy. Lows 40-47. Wind E 5-15 MPH.
MONDAY: Partly sunny. Highs 55-62 southern NH and eastern MA as well as South Coast, 63-70 interior MA, northern RI, and northeastern CT. Wind variable 5-15 MPH, becoming S to SW.
MONDAY NIGHT: Mostly cloudy. Lows 48-55. Wind S 5-15 MPH.
TUESDAY: Mostly cloudy. Showers likely. Highs 57-64. Wind S 10-20 MPH.
TUESDAY NIGHT: Cloudy. Showers likely. Patchy fog. Lows 45-52. Wind variable 5-15 MPH.
WEDNESDAY: Mostly cloudy with showers likely during the morning. Partly sunny with a chance of a shower in the afternoon. Highs 52-59. Wind N to NW 10-20 MPH.
DAYS 6-10 (APRIL 28 – MAY 2)
We will see some atmospheric blocking and slower-moving weather systems. Right now it looks like the system from Tuesday/Wednesday will be far enough east to keep our area dry but breezy/cool as we head through the final few days of April before the next low pressure system threatens with more unsettled weather by the first couple days of May. This is not a high confidence forecast, however, in terms of the day-to-day weather.
DAYS 11-15 (MAY 3-7)
Blocking pattern potential with near to below normal temperatures, near to above normal precipitation at least early part of period. Block may break down mid to late period with zonal flow returning.
Thanks TK.
Thanks TK !
This is a very long write-up by a friend and long time colleague of mine. I’ll be sharing many of these going forward. They have asked to remain anonymous so that wish will be respected…
Apologies for the format oddities, as this is a direct copy from email and I’m not going to bother to fix it… 😉
“As I have noted, the more I look at historical records, the more I
find truly high-end extremes in wx/climate that pale in comparison
to recent decades.
What occurred from 1876-1878 was nothing short of catastrophic for
society and was induced by natural SST variability. Something
like this would be unthinkable today, and puts into perspective what
true “extremes” really are. The full paper from the Journal and
Climate is attached. I summarize it below.
“From 1876 to 1878, concurrent multi-year droughts in Asia,
Brazil, and Africa, referred to as the Great Drought, caused
widespread crop failures, catalyzing the so-called Global Famine,
which had fatalities exceeding 50 million people (3% of global
population at the time) and long-lasting societal consequences.”
“It was arguably the worst environmental disaster to ever
befall humanity and one of the worst calamities of any sort in at
least the last 150 years, with a loss of life comparable to the
World Wars and the influenza epidemic of 1918-19. Severe or
record-setting droughts occurred on continents in both
hemispheres and in multiple seasons, with the ‘‘Monsoon Asia’’
region being the hardest hit, experiencing the single most
intense and the second most expansive drought in the last 800
years. The extreme severity, duration, and extent of this global
event was associated with an extraordinary combination of
preceding cool tropical Pacific conditions (1870–76), a
record-breaking El Niño (1877–78), a record strong Indian Ocean
dipole (1877), and record warm North Atlantic Ocean (1878)
conditions.”
Nothing even remotely close to this has occurred since, and the event
occurred well before CO2 was an issue.
As I have also noted before, every so often through natural variability,
the law of averages, and elapsed time, everything will line up just right
for an extraordinary event from the planetary scale to the mesoscale,
something that seems to elude many these days, never mind just
typical wx events somehow being “unusual.” It is cognitive
dissonance of the worst kind to ignore history. We are so
focused on the future and what models show, we forget to look
back and see what has happened in the past and see what
occurred well before CO2 was an issue. This can be applied to
everything, and why studying history is so important. We can learn
from it, and avoid making the same mistakes and/or new mistakes.
This is not a new concept, and any practical, logical, and reasonable
person would recognize and respect this wisdom.
And I often talk about how casually the words “catastrophic” and
“catastrophe” are thrown around these days. A catastrophe is defined
as a large-scale disaster with far reaching and long-lasting effects on
society. Other than the crop failures and global famine caused by the
1815 Mt. Tambora eruption (1816 – The Year Without a Summer), this
one is among the few other natural events that can truly be called a
“catastrophe” IMHO. Two others would be the 2004 and 2011
earthquakes and tsunamis. The 1918 and 2020 pandemics are other
examples.
Look at social, political, and economic impacts the 1876-1878 drought had:
“The Great Drought and the Global Famine cast a long shadow
on the politics and economy across the tropics. The
demographic disruption cast by the famines often lasted for
generations. In the Chinese province of Shanxi, for example, it
took until 1953 to regain 1875 population levels (Davis 2001).
In a very real sense, the El Niño and climate events of 1876–78
helped create the global inequalities that would later be
characterized as ‘‘first world’’ and ‘‘third world.’’ ”
The last sentence is most interesting. It goes to show that the reason
things evolve and are the way they are today, can and do come about,
at least in part, by things that have nothing to do w/ society itself
and how it is run. Wx/climate has dictated history a number of
occasions since the dawn of civilization, and what happened in
1876-78 is no different. Sometimes you have to ask, “who is in
control here, the human race or nature itself, or who calls the shots
and is the prevailing dominant factor?” Our own arrogance often says
we are, but nature itself has forces that far exceed anything we can
muster in terms of power and influence.
And the El Niño event during this time?
The El Niño of 1887-88 has been calculated to be among strongest in
history and caused global turmoil. The unprecedented El Niño of the
late 1870s reshaped world history. The scale and impacts are
unfathomable — an existential crisis to 50 million+ holding back the
global population for 75 years.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/
https://dnr.state.mn.us/climate/journal/1877_1878_winter.html
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“Existential crisis” then, and the world recovered. Given our better
technology and better ability to adapt to any change in climate today,
why would anything now or in the future be worse to society as a
whole? Serious climate change has been in full swing for 25 years more
or less (since it really took off anyways), but you have stats like this
are simply ignored.
https://twitter.com/rogerpielkejr/status/1397346823937748994
https://twitter.com/blockbain/status/1497258738281066498
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1505518277551960070
Single major TC strikes used to kill over 100,000 in Bangladesh. 8000 lives
lost in the Galveston hurricane of 1900. The list is long. Nothing like this
occurs today. This is despite a much larger population and it proves that
advances in technology and communication are huge in lessening impacts
of wx/climate. I got back to adaptation and how that reaps tremendous
benefits for our species. Our ability to think in the abstract and problem-solve,
never mind technology, makes us far more resilient than we are given credit for.”
Ok, I understand that, but is this person saying they
don’t believe in climate change? Sure sounds like it to me.
Independent of this person’s views, we have been spewing shit into the atmosphere for nearly 200 years and getting worse.
To think it has zero effect is pure folly.
As you always say, this is the only planet we have, so best to take good care of it.
I understand completely that extreme events historically have taken place. I shudder to think what they would be like with
the added crap we have put forth into the atmosphere.
Just my gut response to what was posted.
That is pretty much how I read it also. If the person is the same who posted the tweet, there is mixed opinion on that. I found a couple of articles on the group I need to read before forming an opinion. This doesn’t seem to take the damage we have done into consideration. That said….the wording is a bit convoluted so requires reading a few times
I’m not a fan of folks who ride the fence or don’t own comments. Sorry TK. I appreciate your sharing this as other views are important but share JPDs view.
That’s fine but in terms of their wish to remain anonymous I have to honor that. I don’t require that people use their real names here so this is no different.
This person is a long time friend of mine and about as honest as you will ever find. But they have a reason for wanting to remain anonymous and I will respect that wish. 🙂
I didn’t question your not posting the name. I would be shocked it if a person asked to remain anonymous and you didn’t honor it. Typically, when a person takes the responsibility of summarizing an article, he or she also owns the views. It is different from folks just posting on a blog.
And as to Vicky’s point about staying anonymous, while I wish it were the case that the current state of discourse in society was such that people would feel confident in posting their views without fear of attack, but…. When the first thing said is “you must be a climate denier and why don’t you share your name so we can properly and publicly shame you”….. can you blame them?
Did someone here say that?
Felt very implied to me as I read your comments. I believe that from your perspective you will say only that you weren’t sure of their views on climate change and would expect the poster to name themselves so you could clarify. But as I read the tone it seemed much more that you had already a fairly well-formed opinion that you wished to confirm. Of course I could be wrong, but just wanted to share that your comments could be read that way.
Wow. I’m surprised you haven’t read enough to know I am forthcoming and don’t imply.
Did you read this “ I found a couple of articles on the group I need to read before forming an opinion. ”
I reread your comment and am confused. If the persons intent is to not deny climate change, the he ….yep I assume he also….has no reason to withhold a name
That said, it is also easy to see why there is confusion. The article can be taken too many ways. My gut feeling is that he may well not be a climate change denier, but the article is somewhat disjointed. It also gives some really good in depth information while touching loosely on equally important facts.
With my Managing Editor hat on, one of my goals was always to make sure the point of an article was absolutely clear.
Sorry, since there are three articles and a tweet linked in the post plus the post itself, I’m not sure which one you mean. I didn’t read the articles, just the post. I think the post is only confusing if you say “is the post about climate change”. Then the question becomes “do you believe in climate change or not, and if you don’t, you’re wrong, and if you do, why won’t you share your name? Because the only reason to not share your name would be to avoid being shamed as a climate denier”. If you read the post as “here is an interesting extreme and tragic weather event that was independent of climate change and that deserves attention for the lessons we need to learn from it that are independent from the lessons of climate change, and I choose not to share my name for reasons that are independent of climate change, but could (this part is pure speculation on my part) in part be because I don’t want to get into an argument about whether or not I believe in climate change”…. It doesn’t seem that vague to me.
It’s funny, I don’t read it as denying climate change at all. In fact, the poster says twice that CO2 levels are a problem now. I read it as saying we have become somewhat arrogant in assuming we can escape tragic loss of life, when history has shown us that no one is immune to tragedy. At the same time it offers hope that we are more able to adapt than we appreciate. The psychologist in me can confirm both of these, although I’m not a great meteorologist, so I defer to the poster’s scientific expertise there. As a fellow scientist I appreciate his (assuming it’s a he but maybe that’s stereotypical of me) use of data to inform and to try to look at complex issues independently. Take Covid- one can look at whether the event was “caused” by climate change or influenced by it or made worse due to globalization, or made better by the speed of our ability to develop vaccines, or made worse by our psychological inability to act for the common good… I could go on. It’s a complicated issue and looking at one aspect doesn’t deny that there are other aspects. It merely points out potentially overlooked factors.
When you say I am reading the post with a bias when I’ve made it clear I do not find it clear and want to know more to understand, then you misinterpret my comments, it gives me pause
If you follow one of the tweets, many commenters on this are also unsure of the intent.
I thought TK posted it to share an opinion. I mistakenly assumed we could share one also.
Have a great day. The weather is glorious.
Sorry, I really didn’t mean to insult, I genuinely thought I was just sharing an opinion as well. I can get spirited in my views on people understanding other perspectives, but I didn’t mean anything personal by it. I’ll be sure to think carefully before commenting on anything in the future. Our weather is also glorious (though it often is, albeit dry, thanks climate change 😉 ) so I will be sure to enjoy it.
No worries. Thank you for the apology. It is water over the dam and easily forgotten. I will spend more time looking into this. But for now I have grandkids to pick up 🙂
Your first post, exactly. I also did not read the articles.
🙂
Rants, aside, many thanks TK.
Another nice day on tap.
Very typical Spring this year so far imho.
In fact, if anything, it has been a bit milder than normal. 🙂
I had a feeling that some might interpret it that way. They’re not saying that at all.
They are bringing other things into the picture that are often left out. This is important in science too. I fully agree with that. Comparison and perspective is very important. It’s not a recommendation of losing sight of any current problems. I would never deny their existence and neither would this person. This is just completing the picture. All of the things brought up in that message are true.
I have known this person since 1982. Believe me when I tell you they are not a climate change denier. But they are a well-rounded scientist.
I’m not sure anyone took it one way or the other. Not speaking for JPD, but he asked if that was the authors intent. I was also careful to say that I was unsure too and because of that am waiting until I read more….which is hard to do when a person hides identity. And it is also easy to see why the wording can be misinterpreted since it is convoluted.
I absolutely agree that comparison and perspective are important. I mentioned that in my comment also. But…and it is a big one…..the author mentions events of the past yet there is no mention of the pollution that didn’t exist then. The damage we have done and continue to do is at the point where we won’t be able to turn back. I have read the post twice and it seems to me the author does not agree.
If you want to see something cool this afternoon watch how the mountains of northern New England are shaping the cloud cover. Real meteorology at work. Visible satellite loop is the best way.
JP, Logan’s departure since March 20 is about +3F. Mild early spring. For precipitation, March was about a -1.25 departure, so it was dry. April is on pace based on current and expected to finish close to normal for precip and on with a cooler stretch for temp but not enough to flip the sign from + to – as they are at about +3 now. So assuming that is the case, spring from equinox to April 30 will be mild & dry.
And I will be wearing my winter coat and knit hat tomorrow. I don’t dare put them away just yet. It will be anything “but” mild. Such is spring. 😉
The closer one is to the coast, you’ll feel that chill tomorrow! We haven’t actually had a lot of that really raw/cold ocean wind feel so far this spring – just a couple of short-lived episodes. But tomorrow will remind anybody who forgot that yup, the ocean is still there. 😉
Ocean is currently 46.22. 2.37 above average for the date.
It “should” mitigate the cooling effect just a tad. 🙂 Most especially the farther inland one goes.
Definitely will take the edge off a little bit compared to normal or below ocean temperatures.
I’ll try to remember that while I’m waiting for my bus tomorrow morning and afternoon commutes to/from work. 😉
I saw a halo of the sun on my way home from work this afternoon. I remember Dickie’s (Dick Albert) on-air saying about “rain or snow soon.” 😉
“A halo of the sun or moon means rain or snow soon.” 🙂
And the saying works every time! Get ready for “something” I suppose.
That’s the general idea but it only works about 2/3 of the time.
New weather post…