Nor’easter – Climate- Science.press

A good old-fashioned weather debate on the “nor’easter”

I was involved in a weather debate on the so-called Nor’easter this weekend (you will see why I say so-called below), and it was refreshing to see there was no one blaming climate change for that storm.
I believe this storm should have been classified as such because it transitioned from a subtropical to a tropical system. I offered objective analysis to support my point. There was no question it was non-tropical at the start, but the system converted while over abnormally warm water (above the 26c threshold) that was so far north this year. What I do now, to try to avoid bias, is go to the AI, feed it the information, and see what it comes up with.

I believe this storm should have been classified as such because it transitioned from a subtropical to a tropical system. I offered objective analysis to support my point. There was no question it was non-tropical at the start, but the system converted while over abnormally warm water (above the 26c threshold) that was so far north this year. What I do now, to try to avoid bias, is go to the AI, feed it the information, and see what it comes up with.

Satellite image of a weather system affecting the northeastern United States, showing swirling clouds indicative of a hurricane or tropical storm. — Screenshot

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

Satellite image of a large storm system over the northeastern United States, showcasing thick clouds and a swirling formation indicative of a hurricane.

So here is just a bit of the evidence I fed the AI:

Presented with this 850mb (which shows the warm center)

Weather map showing 850mb temperature predictions for the northeastern United States, with varying color gradients indicating temperature ranges. A hurricane-like feature is visible off the coast.

700mb (10,000 feet; also, a warm center)

Weather forecast map showing 700mb temperature anomalies for the Northeastern United States on September 26, 2026, with varying temperature gradients depicted in shades of red and purple.

and 1000-500 mb thickness and surface pattern (circular warm core at the center)

Weather forecast model showing a map of the northeastern United States with precipitation and pressure systems, indicating a low-pressure center with heavy rainfall.

Is this a warm-core feature?

Yes — this is a warm-core feature. The 850 mb map shows a clear warm anomaly in the center of the circulation (yellow core, ~15–18 °C, versus much cooler air wrapping around it over the ocean). The 700 mb map is consistent with that structure: The core is relatively warm compared with the cooler air to the west and shows no cold-core signature. The 1000–500 mb thickness field and surface pattern reinforce this. Thickness values are locally higher near the center of the tight 992 hPa low, and the precipitation shield is wrapped around a compact, quasi-circular circulation rather than being displaced well ahead of a cold-core mid-latitude cyclone.

Note the actual pressure was lower, making the 1000-500 mb thickness even warmer. The higher the thickness, the warmer the column of air from the surface to 500mb (18000 feet)

Taken together, the mid-level temperature fields, thickness, and surface appearance indicate a warm-core (tropical or subtropical) cyclone rather than a cold-core extratropical low.

There has to be a reason the objective FSU cyclone phase evolution actually has a warmer look than Gonzalo.

No Name nor’easter:

Graph showing the transition of a weather system, indicating asymmetric and symmetric cold and warm core characteristics over time, with a track inset map of the system's projected path.

Gonzolo:

A weather analysis diagram showing the thickness symmetry and storm-relative features for an existing cyclone, labeled as Cyclone #15 with time markers and intensity scales.

I use AI to make sure I am not biased.

A recon report could have settled the argument. Yet no recon into a storm, in a year of no storms, to a feature that likely did 1-2 billion dollars of damage. I’m showing you all this to show I had my reasons to say this should have been classified.

Now, let’s look at the sat pics of all the storms this year at their strongest points and see which has the best presentation.

Our tropical season, so far, picture gallery (all are near the time of max intensity):

Arthur

Satellite image of Texas coastline depicting swirling clouds and weather patterns over land and the Gulf of Mexico.

This did have gales on the east side.

Bertha was interesting because its strong winds were associated with a feature that appeared southwest of the center.

Satellite image showing a large storm system over the Gulf of Mexico, with swirling clouds and a mix of land and water visible in the surrounding areas.

Cristobal. Slim pickings.

Satellite image of a developing storm system in the ocean, featuring swirling clouds and dark waters.

Dolly. Tried to develop in the Main Development Region, and guess what, homie don’t play that (for all you In Living Color fans); it was dead a day later.

Satellite image of a tropical cyclone with swirling clouds over the ocean.

Eduoard. Give it another 6 hours and it would have been a hurricane. Good-looking storm.

Satellite image of a tropical storm or hurricane over coastal waters, featuring a spiral formation of clouds and varying weather patterns.

Fay. It will be interesting to see if either of these storms in post-analysis get their intensities upped, which would of course mean the record for no hurricanes through Oct 1 would no longer apply if either is upgraded to a hurricane. Point is, both of these looked good.

Satellite image of a tropical storm with swirling clouds over the ocean.

Gonzalo. This was almost laughable, but again, gales were off to the east in one quad.

Satellite image showing a tropical storm with swirling clouds over the ocean.

Hanna. The center is way behind the thunderstorms.

Satellite image of a tropical storm with swirling clouds over ocean waters.

No name Nor’Easter. Arguably the best-looking of the bunch. Plus, it was impacting people.

Satellite image of a large hurricane swirling over the Atlantic Ocean, with visible cloud patterns and storm structure.

We’ve seen the infamous winter bomb cyclones do this, though not as tight as this. But the difference is that a bomb cyclone is not over water that is still 80 degrees; it’s 20-30 degrees lower. The energy over the warmer water, once entrained in a system, can lead to rapid feedback and rapid conversion. Sometimes, when I see the gawking at how fast storms do this, I think it’s a lack of respect for what the weather is capable of. And the fact that it weakened over cooler water was a sign of its true nature.

There have been many storms over the years that fell between the cracks.

But the fact is, no recon went in, so there is plausible deniability. It’s like the whole geothermal argument. I get told I have no proof, yet they have no proof it’s not, because we have no idea how much heat input is coming from the bottom of the ocean from underwater activity. There are no observations there, and saturating the ocean floor near known vents would end the argument one way or the other. Until then, whoever controls the information wins, and the rest of us who question it get pushed aside.

But it was a good old weather fight with people disagreeing with me, and they all had reasons; they weren’t saying anything about climate change. It was all offering ideas that supported the non-naming. But again, because of my reputation as a Warren Zevon Excitable Boy when it comes to the weather, AI’s and actual profiles do a lot to either support or counter the arguments. And it was on my side.

I still think this whole naming thing can be simplified. If you have a closed rotary circulation attaining the required intensity over water at 25 °C or greater, name it and keep the name on it until it dissipates. No classroom arguments, which frankly are like theologians arguing over how many angels they can stick on the head of a needle.

But here is what this proved — something I have been saying for many years. No matter what occasional tiff I have with the NHC, they are completely above board on climate. Think about it: They could have named this. And it would have been the furthest north in that part of the ocean to get named — a real testament to the ocean’s warmth and the changing climate. That it did so much damage would have been a huge day for agenda-driven media, but NHC did not. And to show I am above board, I realize what a naming would have led to with people who simply want to prostitute any weather pattern for their own purpose, yet I thought it should have been named. But the real point is that we both had competing weather ideas, as we should, and it had nothing to do with climate change. They are the hurricane center, so no matter what, I am Western Michigan, and they are Michigan.

Of course, there are the usual rumblings that man-made climate change contributed to the storm being so strong. Here was a tweet Sept 18th on what was coming:

“Let’s see. Big highs moving off the East Coast. A disturbed weather area is developing off Florida this weekend; an upper trough is trying to pick it up next week over warm water. What could possibly go wrong with that? May get pulled back in for at least a nor’easter for the NE next weekend (if not a hybrid howler)”

What is more remarkable is that there have been no landfalling hurricanes on New England or Long Island in 35 years, and in the previous 53 years, there was an average of 1 every 7 years.

I will have another blog on the lack of Atlantic hurricanes this year. Again, we have to think globally. The EPAC is likely to break its ACE record for the most ACE units. People have not been watching the Western Pacific, which has averaged about the same number of below-normal ACE units over the past 5 years (100) as the Atlantic will this year. The point is that a large-scale shutdown pattern is evident and is showing up in other basins. This year, the combination of an unfavorable SST configuration in the Atlantic and, of course, El Niño has shifted it down.

Meanwhile, the EPAC is going wild, and as we said in the preseason, recurving features are helping dent the Southwest drought (the appetizer before winter, as the El Niño will continue to do that). There is likely to be a strong Pacific hurricane later this week hitting Mexico again, which, when it rains itself out, will try to help the drought.

And the Atlantic is down. But I am sure if we get another big hitter in Mexico, no one will say boo.

See, look at that: already two positive aspects of the big bad Niño. Though no one is going to bring that up. They will with Mexico, though.

BTW, watch the Gulf this week. Not over yet.

Wrong, TIME, One Nor’easter Isn’t Proof of Climate Change

There is no evidence that the recent nor’easter was at all unusual or represents a long- term climate change induced shift in the occurrence or strength of such storms.

Illustration depicting a severe nor'easter storm with flooded streets and road closures, emphasizing the impact of climate change on weather patterns. The scene includes dialogue between two characters discussing climate change and referencing historical storms, alongside a chart showing long-term records of storm intensity.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Satellite image showing a storm system off the East Coast, illustrating the impact of climate change on Nor'easters.

In their article How Does Climate Change Impact Nor’easters? TIME magazine claims that a nor’easter which struck the northeastern United States in mid-September illustrates how climate change is making powerful storms more intense. That’s false. There is no evidence that the recent nor’easter was at all unusual or represents a long-term climate change induced shift in the occurrence or strength of such storms. TIME’s claims go well beyond what the evidence can establish about an individual storm and lacks support in data and meteorological records.

“While September nor’easters aren’t unheard of, they are uncommon,” states TIME. “And as the climate warms, research suggests that the strongest storms are also going to become more intense.” TIME then uses speculative sleight of hand to link the recent storm to increasing number of billion-dollar disasters.

The historical record and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show substantial natural variability in extratropical storms and low confidence in observed trends in their intensity, making TIME’s attempt to turn a single weather event into a climate-change story scientifically unjustified.

The basic problem with TIME’s article is right there in its premise. A nor’easter is a weather event. Climate is the statistical behavior of weather measured over decades.

As Climate at a Glance has explained, individual hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, and storms are weather. Long-term changes in their frequency or intensity can potentially constitute evidence of climate change, but one storm cannot establish such a trend. See the graphic below from the European Space Agency to visualize this.

Infographic comparing weather and climate, highlighting that weather refers to short-term atmospheric changes while climate describes average conditions over 30 years or more. Includes visuals of Earth, daily weather icons, and a graph showing climate change data.

That distinction is fundamental to climate science, yet it increasingly disappears when a dramatic weather event presents an opportunity for a climate headline.

TIME reports that this particular nor’easter produced heavy rain, flooding, winds exceeding 60 mph, and coastal flooding in New Jersey. Those facts establish that a strong storm occurred. They do not establish why it occurred, much less demonstrate that human greenhouse gas emissions made it unusually powerful.

TIME even acknowledges that nor’easters are nothing new. The article notes famous storms including the New England Blizzard of 1978, the 1993 “Superstorm,” and the severe Boston snowstorms of 2015. Let’s not forget the Great Blizzard of 1888. Nor’easters are a normal feature of East Coast weather and have battered the region throughout its recorded history.

More revealing is an admission buried halfway through the article: “Scientists are still not 100 percent clear about how nor’easters are changing due to climate change.”

That should have been the beginning of TIME’s analysis, not a caveat quickly brushed aside before returning to claims of worsening storms.

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report on climate change provides no findings that extreme weather events, such as nor’easters, are increasing in number of intensity.

Nor’easters are extratropical cyclones, and Chapter 11 of IPCC AR6 specifically examines these storms. The IPCC reports “low confidence in past changes of maximum wind speeds and other measures of dynamical intensity of extratropical cyclones.”

This is true for many weather events, as seen in the table below.

Table listing various weather events with columns for detection and attribution status, all marked as 'No'. — *Table. Summary table showing lack of weather event attribution from Chapter 11 of the IPCC AR6 report.*

The IPCC also finds that there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest Northern Hemisphere extratropical cyclones because of large year-to-year and decadal variability and limitations in the historical data.

Even more directly, the IPCC states that studies attributing changes in the most extreme extratropical cyclones are not available and that there is “overall low confidence” in attributing changes in individual extreme extratropical cyclone events to human influence.

Somehow, TIME missed the IPCC’s conclusion on this topic.

TIME blurs those two very different propositions.

Dollar losses are not a physical measurement of storm intensity. A storm striking today’s heavily developed East Coast encounters vastly more homes, businesses, roads, vehicles, utilities, and expensive infrastructure than the same storm would have encountered decades ago. Inflation alone also increases nominal losses. Increasing billion-dollar disaster counts do not, therefore, demonstrate that storms have become meteorologically more severe.

Climate Realism has repeatedly addressed this error in media reporting: increasing economic exposure and wealth can increase disaster losses even without a corresponding increase in the underlying weather hazard.

There is an additional irony in TIME publishing this story in September 2026.

While TIME cites a single nor’easter to suggest that storms are intensifying, the Atlantic tropical basin has been experiencing an extraordinary lack of hurricanes.

As of September 21, the Atlantic had produced six named tropical storms but not a single hurricane. It was the first time since 1914, 112 years ago, that the basin had gone that far into the official Hurricane season without producing one. The climatological peak of Atlantic hurricane activity occurs around September 10, so this historic quiet occurred during what normally is the busiest part of the season.

NOAA National Hurricane Center records confirm the unusually weak activity, with the storms through mid-September remaining below hurricane strength. A strengthening El Niño and associated wind shear have been identified as important factors suppressing Atlantic hurricane development this year.

Does that remarkably quiet hurricane season prove climate change has stopped affecting storms? Of course not. It’s weather. And that is precisely the point.

A quiet Atlantic hurricane season cannot disprove long-term climate change, just as one powerful September nor’easter cannot prove that climate change is making storms worse. Climate trends require decades of data, not whichever storm happens to dominate this week’s headlines.

Indeed, TIME’s own expert undermines the article’s framing. Professor Mathew Barlow acknowledges that researchers are “not seeing any changes in the overall average” number of nor’easters and that the total number of storms “might actually be going down a little bit.”

That admission deserves considerably more attention than TIME gives it.

TIME starts with a storm, asks how climate change made it worse, and then assembles quotations supporting that premise while relegating contradictory evidence to a few sentences. That’s not how climate science is supposed to work. Nor is it how science journalism should work.

A nor’easter struck the Northeast. It produced heavy rain, strong winds, flooding, and disruption, all facts making the storm worthy of significant news coverage. But, there is no evidence whatsoever that climate change had any influence on the recent nor’easter. Since neither data nor historical records suggest any significant changes in the formation or behavior or nor’easters, TIME should make no such connection to climate change. The story goes beyond the news to disaster story telling. Based on this report, perhaps it would be more accurate to file TIME on the fiction rack at bookstores and newsstands.

Climate Fact-Check February 2026

Editor’s note: This compilation serves as a fact check on the top false claims made about climate change by the media in February, 2026.

Climate Change Is NOT Worsening Wildlife Viruses – NOT Harming Coffee Production – ‘Global Warming’ NOT Causing More Snow – Sea Level Rise NOT a looming catastrophe

From ClimateRealism

Guest Post by: The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, The Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.

Editor’s note: This compilation serves as a fact check on the top false claims made about climate change by the media in February, 2026.

Climate Change Is NOT Worsening Wildlife Viruses – NOT Harming Coffee Production – ‘Global Warming’ NOT Causing More Snow – Sea Level Rise NOT a looming catastrophe