Thanks Jim. Good post. I am looking forward to the hot weather.

I've been taking records daily for Groton for 6 years now. This past May was the coldest of those 6 years, and the average high (64.0) was over 12 degrees less than last May! Not to mention we only hit 80 once on Memorial Day. Pretty chilly indeed!

like these outlooks, please keep them coming....

I hope there is some rain coming.  The streams are way too low for this time of year - more like August conditions.  

WOW!!! thats a lot of 90's on the seven day!!!

This past May the global warming frost killed my flowers plant in late May. Considering in the early 70's the experts said another ice age was going to be here. By the early 90's, I shouldn't complain. I'm lucky to be alive considering the world was going to end as we all starved, sounds familier?

Ha! Yeah that global warming killed my cukes too!  

If you believe Global Warming isn't real because there was frost in part of New York for a couple nights in May, then maybe you should check your facts a little more closely - and possibly take a look at a bigger picture than your own back yard. People have this misconception that Global Warming means it'll be hot all the time and everywhere, and that it can't possibly be cold for a couple days in May! It's GLOBAL Warming, afterall, which obviously means on a global scale. Average temperatures on the planet Earth have risen over a degree F in the last half of the twentieth century, and is predicted to rise between 2 and 11 degrees over the next 100 years (depending on the steps we take). Even 1 degree has a huge impact on our planet and throws off the touchy balance. Oceans will rise, diseases will spread, weather will become more violent more frequently, agriculture will change with the climates and then there really won't be enough food to feed many people. It's bad enough now; maybe you aren't starving, but many people are, even close to home. And the thing is - these are all man-made problems... and that's exactly why it is a problem and should be a concern. Rising fuel and energy costs, out-of-control population growth, Global Warming... but you go on worrying about your flowers. But it's okay, because we'll all be dead in 100 years regardless of what happens. So why worry? Right?

Wednesday Evening update...

As you can see in the Planning Forecast no real change in our expectancy for the heat the next few days.  That's not to say we didn't debate a few things internally before making our forecast.  First, there is Friday.  It looks like the warm front will be hung up close to us early in the day.  That means clouds and maybe even a few thunderstorms early in the day.  That makes us a little nervous about us ultimately getting to 93 (which would be a record) The push of warm air headed our way is impressive so we think even that murky start may not hold us back.

Over the weekend a couple of weak excuses for a cold front will come through central New York.  It may not be enough to drop us into the upper 80s Saturday.

Finally, the GFS says temperatures cool a bit early next week but it may be breaking down the ridge too quickly.  We sided with the European which holds onto the ridge longer and doesn't bring a true cold front through until later Tuesday.

Jim

Chris:

A very quick post to counter your false information:

Rising Temps 1: Temperatures usually come up after coming out of a Little Ice Age (1300-roughly 1850)

Rising Temps 2: Temperatures since 1998 have been falling more than rising. In fact, over the past year, the temperature has plummeted, globally taking us to levels we were at in the 1930's.

Predicted Temperatures: Our computer models can't accurately predict temperatures even 5-7 days out (I did a study, ask me if you want it)...how can they do so well 100 years out?

Rising Oceans: The arctic ice doesn't matter because its already floating and most of the antarctic ice sheet is breaking maximum, not minimum, area coverage records.

Disease: Most of your predicted warming is supposed to happen at the high latitudes, meaning the low latitudes won't change much and the diseases won't spread.

Weather: You need clashes of warm and cold to make severe storms. If you warm the high latitudes, you take away the fuel. As for hurricanes, even NOAA has jumped ship on that and said there is no link. Physics has it that centripetal force (ie: winds around the eye of a storm) can only be so great before the storm tears itself apart.

Food: I suppose you would support using ehtonal to counter carbon footprints? Why don't you take that land and grow corn to feed people with?

Man-made Global Warming: If we are causing global warming, care to explain to me why Mars has also been warming up? Must be those little green men driving their SUV's too much....and don't even say there is a "scientific consensus" that says there is. A petition just went around that THOUSANDS of scientists, many with PhDs, signed to say we are not causing Global Warming. But...the reason there appears to be a consensus is 2 fold. 1: The media hypes everything it gets its hands on. 2: The people with the money *cough*Al Gore *cough* aren't about to give funding to someone who is going to disagree with them.

By the way...I am pursuing a degree in meteorology...what is your field of study Chris?

I might be going a little off topic here, and I am also pursuing a degree in Meteorology, but, if I am correct, even if we do reduce carbon emissions and go to economically friendly fuels, like hydrogen, what is the exhaust?  Water Vapor.  What is one of the most abundant GREENHOUSE GASSES in our atmosphere?  Water Vapor.  Now, don't quote me if I am wrong, but even IF there is this so called "Global Warming,"  don't you think that we would continue to pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses?

In fact, a friend of mine has showed me a graph with the temperatures over the past million years or so, and before each ice age, there was a temperature spike.  The Dinosaurs were driving their SUV's too much as well.  Not only that, i can pretty much guarantee that there were no modern facilities like factories back then.

Think about that one!

Update:

Well...actually, i might have embellished a little bit.  Water vapor is NOT one of the greenhouse gases.  So, therefore, the first paragraph of my previous statement should be ignored.

Wow...the colleges must have lowered their entrance requirements.
Chuck M. and Global Warming Debunker, your professors must look forward to seeing you in their classes...
Thank you, Jim, for your patient posts.

I am sorry, but, I was right in my first statement in saying that Water Vapor IS a greenhouse gas...upon further review of my notes.  Please excuse me for this mistake, and ignore the Second post.

Well, for Debunker, consider the following:  
1. There is probably climatological data that indicates a correspondence between exits from so-called "Ice Ages" and rising temperatures, but why would that surprise anyone?  I'd be more concerned if there was anti-correlation.

2. Temperature observations over a limited area tell us nothing but local conditions.  The observations acros the globe and the modleing of heat content are what matter.  There may well be truth to a natural cycle influence on the warming process we observe, but so what?

3.  Arctic ice may indeed be floating, but the Antarctic shelf is not, and contains an impressive amount of wate rsuspended above the ocean.  Also, remember that ice, being about 0.9 of the density of water, displaces less than its equivalent liquid water.  One couldprobably compute the added volume from good estimates of actic ice volume.

Given that the physics of the greenhouse effect are well established, and that humans are converting fossil fuels back to their atmospheric components, including CO2, faster than the biological process can recapture them, we can expect that the natural process will be enhanced, i.e. occur faster.  Because the various environmental cycles do not readily adapt to rapid changes, there will be artifial effects.  I don't think the Harbingers of Doom are correct, but there will no doubt be more energy in the atmosphere as the "mirror" gases hold heat energy in.  That extra energy will result in a more active atmosphere, not necessarily a uniformly hotter Earth.  The oceans will play a role as well.

My main concern is that people will over-react and start doing the wrong things, e.g. using ethanol as fuel and disturbing the balance of trade between food crops and fuel crops, obsessing over one's "carbon footprint" (the new buzzword), or worse, pretending the problem doesn't exist and wishing it would go away.

I graduated with a degree in Mass Communication Production. But I have taken meteorology classes and it has been a hobby of mine since I was a kid, so don't pull the credentials card and pretend you are an expert because you are a student pursuing a degree. And I'm not sure how you can claim my information is "false" since it is widely available as fact.

Since the Industrial Revolution:

-CO2 concentrations have increased 36% in our atmosphere

-CH4 concentrations are up 148%

-N20 concentrations are up 18%

-O3 has increased 36%

- pesticides and other harmful substances have definitely increased.

As you know, these are "greenhouse" gases, which affect our surface temps by trapping more radiation into our atmosphere that the planet reflects off the surface. These increased levels are from human emissions, not from the Little Ice Age. Yes, volcanic activity and the sun's intensity also have an effect on temperature and emissions. But the fact is that we are in the warmest period ever recorded in the last 400 years, breaking out of a pattern, and that the last 25 years has recorded sustained record warmth in most places (a stretch that hasn't been matched going all the way back 1000 years). I don't see why people can't see a connection. Increased greenhouse gas = higher global temperatures. Man-made emissions = increased greenhouse gas. You don't need to be pursuing a degree in meteorology to figure that answer out.

It is true that computers used for forecasting can't accurately predict temperatures 7 days out. However, it is possible to look at larger patterns and see that the average temperature for the entire planet is in fact rising. It's not the same as saying next week is going to be 84 and then it turns out to be 77. Forecasters use general circulation models to predict climate change from both previous and current data.

Yes, you need heat rising into the atmosphere and clashing with cold to create moisture which creates a charge. But when did I say that the upper levels would warm up so much that they equal the temps at the surface? It'll still be colder higher up than at the surface, but if we have more 90 degree plus days, then there will be more daytime heating and pop-up severe storms. As for hurricanes, I'm not sure what you're point is exactly? That they can only be so strong before falling apart? A category three is enough to produce catastrophic damage, so we're not talking about how high the wind speed can get. We're talking about an increase in the quantity of storms. You might counter by saying we've been below average in 2006 and 2007, but then you'd be missing the big picture again (and only looking at the Atlantic). We've already seen the devastation that hurricanes can bring numerous times, and an increase in surface temps will mean an increase in ocean temps, which will fuel more hurricanes.

Oh, and glaciers aren't all just free-floating in the oceans. Many melting glaciers are on land as well.

And I don't support ethanol, and agree we should be growing more corn to feed people. I'm not just talking about driving. I support wind power, solar energy, hydrogen, nuclear energy, electricity, tidal power, etc...  - alternative fuel sources that we can use to the maximum in order to cut down on fossil fuels.

And seriously, you think that global warming opponents don't have money and power backing them? Oh, they only have oil companies and most of Big Business behind them is all who want to protect their own interests and have billions of dollars to spend.

But I know you'll never agree with me and probably pull out your notes from class to prove me wrong point by point, so let's see it ;-)

Storm Team,
Guys you do an awesome job.  
If anyone can prove without a reasonable doubt that global warming is nothing more than normal cycles that the earth goes through than I will believe it.  Cover from Time Magazine in late 70's/ early 80's described how much cooler the earth is becoming.  

I'm just hoping the 90 degree days don't last too long. I can't handle the heat, when it gets over 75 degrees I start feeling sick. (I'll never understand the fascination some people have with sun-bathing.) I plan on staying inside in the air conditioning, as much as I can, for as long as this lasts.

Mr.  Deez - In the late 60's I was shooting down B-52's with SA-2's using a IBM 7094. B-52's are easy targets for a SA-2. Unfortunately the generals decided a better than 90% kill probability meant there was no real danger and the B-52's were sent over Hanoi.
By the late 70's/early 80's computing had improved 1000 fold. However the simulation programs were still unable to hit 100% even though computer performance had grown exponentially. During the Libyan crisis, the programmers were delighted to find out their programs could actually shoot something down. The simulation only gave them a 90% chance.
Several computer simulation lifetimes have passed since these episodes. The public (blue screen of death and all) still demands a 100% probability before calling an event slightly possible (if and only if it doesn't clash with their religious belief d'jour and doesn't require them to stop using their Hummers).
I think forecasting has reached to point that ignoring the issue of "global warming" is tantamount to saying "I'm tough, I can stick a 9mm Glock in my mouth, pull the trigger, and walk away laughing!"
I think we're in a whole world of hurt. Unfortunately, I'm old enough that I probably won't get to watch the sordid conclusion.

To Chris and anyone else who may be pursuing a meteorology degree: If you are attending SUNY Oswego, get out fast while you can!  I taught (with a PhD) at SUNY Oswego for 9 years and when I came up for tenure, I was unanimously endorsed by all 8 professors.  There was no question that I deserved tenure: I was the best Synoptic meteorologist that SUNY Oswego has ever had, but President Stanley had the audacity to reject all of those professors opinions and deny me tenure. Stanley also had the audacity to replace me with a graduate student with no formal college teaching experience. Who would you want teaching you: someone with 12 years college teaching experience, and former students working at National Weather Service Offices and TV stations across the country, or a graduate student?  The late Nancy Duffy, an investigative reporter for WSYR-TV9 in Syracuse looking into my story, tried contacting, but was rebuffed by Stanley.  Meteorology students who had had me as a professor and others who were looking forward to having me as a professor tried to meet with her for answers, but Stanley also turned them away without even meeting with them to address their concerns.   President Stanley is totally unconcerned about your education.  A college president who refuses to meet with students with respect to their educational concerns is guilty of educational fraud.  LEAVE OSWEGO NOW AND PASS THE WORD ALONG!!!  If you would like more info or have further questions, my email address is: keshishian92@yahoo.com
If you do not believe what I say, try contacting President Stanley and demand a full explanation as to why she would ignore the opinions and judgments of 8 professors who unanimously endorsed me for tenure, and then replace me with a graduate student, her email is: stanley@oswego.edu
If she says she offered me a 2-year visiting professorship, tell her it was nothing but a bribe, judge for yourself by carefully reading the following:  

Stanley offered me a 2-year visiting professorship in return for an agreement that “resolves any and all outstanding matters that exist, may have existed, or may have arisen between Dr. Len Keshishian and the State University of New York at Oswego, the State University of New York, and the State of New York; and, all parties to this agreement attest that they will not pursue any matters further via grievance or disciplinary procedures, outside administrative agencies, the courts, or any forum whatsoever”.  She was trying to deprive me of my right to freedom of speech in what I view as a bribe to cover-up all the violations (perhaps even other illegal actions) committed by Chancellor King and the SUNY Oswego administration during the appeal process.  

Sincerely,
 Len Keshishian, PhD