69 F. average high on September 22.
74 F. high on September 22, 2013.
September 22 in Minnesota Weather History. Source: MPX National Weather Service:
1995: 0.2 inches of snow fell in the St. Cloud area.
1985: Early snow over portions of Minnesota and western Wisconsin. Just under a half inch (.4) recorded at the Twin City Airport. Most of it fell during the afternoon.
1937: From summer to winter. The temperature was 101 at Wheaton. Then a cold front came through causing the mercury to tumble below freezing.
Yes, there is a risk of relatives. On paper today is the first full day of autumn, but "meteorological fall", marking the end of the 90 warmest days of the year, on average, really began September 1.
Autumn tends to bring the lowest risk of severe weather here in Minnesota; far fewer floods, tornadoes and lightning deaths. Hurricane risk peaks in September as ocean water temperatures peak, but it's been supernaturally quiet in the Atlantic.
Which got me thinking about risk, something we all live with daily. Using seat belts is a no-brainer - so is booking a hotel room below the 9th floor (so fire equipment can reach you in an emergency).
I keep encouraging my youngest son, flying helicopters for the Navy, not to push the weather. With Doppler radar seemingly everywhere now you can SEE what's coming and take evasive action.
Radar may be speckled with a few blobs tonight & Wednesday as a weak trough of low pressure arrives; the atmosphere too cool & dry for anything severe. Expect a minor meteorological miracle Thursday into Sunday as a bloated ridge of high pressure expands into town: highs well into the 70s to near 80F.
Don't pack away the shorts (or boats) just yet.
Image credit: "This ultraviolet photograph of a massive solar flare, spanning a third of a million miles into space, was taken on Dec. 19, 1973." Flickr/NASA.
TODAY: Sunny start, clouds increase later. Winds: S 10-15. High: 73
TUESDAY NIGHT: Mostly cloudy with a few showers possible. Low: 58
WEDNESDAY: Unsettled, a few showers, stray T-shower. High: 70
THURSDAY: Patchy fog, then mild sunshine. Wake-up: 57. High: 75
FRIDAY: Warm sun, clock out early. Wake-up: 60. High: 78
SATURDAY: Blue sky, low humidity, few bugs. Wake-up: 58. High: 79
SUNDAY: Postcard-worthy. Warm sun. Dew point: 58. Wake-up: 59. High: 80
MONDAY: Fading sun, more humid. Dew point: 62. Wake-up: 61. High: 76
Ross S. Olson MD
Ross, I appreciate the note and question/comment. I continue to keep an open mind and I hope you do as well. I would also encourage you to visit scientific web sites from NOAA, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, NSF, the American Meteorological Society and links to other peer-reviewed scientific studies in the public domain vs. conspiracy theory sites. In my opinion this is not a conspiracy or cover-up, it's basic science. Scientists are always testing new theories and possible feedback effects, from not only solar activity but cloud formation and aerosols. However, the body of evidence linking CO2 and other greenhouse gases to observed changes, including arctic melting, the warming of the atmosphere and ocean warming/acidity and sea level rise is robust and growing daily. I shared your question with a few local scientists I know and trust. Here was their response to the issues/links/theories you raised:
1). “It has been postulated that cosmic rays can affect clouds which can, in turn, impact the Earth’s climate. This thesis is extremely hypothetical and has not been shown to occur in the real world. In fact, there has been no correlation with cosmic rays and global temperatures. So, we are left with the obvious. Human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main influence on climate, we simply cannot explain our observations any other way.” - Dr. John Abraham, University of St. Thomas.
2). "Sloan and Wolfendale tested this hypothesis. Basically, more cosmic rays make it to the relevant part of the atmosphere at the higher lattitudes, but there is no link between latitude, cosmic rays, and cloud formation. It might have been a good idea worth testing but it does not work out." - Greg Laden.
The Sloan/Wolfendale paper summarizes: "A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the presently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."
More details from Skeptical Science: www.skepticalscience.com/Do-cosmic-rays-cause-clouds.html
Image credit above: "The Enterprise Bridge passes over a section of Lake Oroville in 2011 (left) and 2014 (right) in Oroville, California, which is experiencing "exceptional" drought."
Climate Warning to World Leaders: Stick to 2C Limit or Face "Mayhem". The Guardian has the article; here's a clip: "...Scientists say that humans have now poured around 1,950bn tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – by burning fossil fuels – over the last 200 years. If that total reaches 3,670bn tonnes, they add, it will be hard to avoid a 2C rise in global temperatures and that would trigger a host of devastating changes to the climate. These would include major rises in sea levels, the melting of ice-caps, droughts in Africa, America and Asia, storms and ocean acidification. The trouble is that, at present rates of fossil fuel consumption, that 3,670bn-tonne limit will be reached in less than three decades..." (Image credit: NASA).