chubbs

Think we've seen enough to expect the same or bigger warming impact from this nino as 2015/16, i.e., roughly 0.3C warming. The two ninos combined have moved us quite a climate distance from the hiatus period, 2 or 3 decades of warming at 0.2C per decade. Going to take a while to sample enough weather in our new temperature range to see what the implications are.

This abstract for Dec AGU meeting has the best explanation I have seen for the unusual warmth since last summer. Per bar chart on right below about half of this nino's heat (atmosphere, AHC, and 0-100m ocean) came from the 100-300m layer in the ocean and half from the earth's energy imbalance. https://agu.confex.com/agu/agu24/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/1553238 Global and Regional Drivers for Exceptional Climate Extremes in 2023-2024: Beyond the New Normal Plain-language Summary In this study, we examined the 2023-24 global heating event, exploring whether it was exceptional in the context of global warming. We developed the Abnormal record-Breaking test (AB-test) to assess if global surface air and sea surface temperatures, along with atmospheric and upper ocean heat content, were exceptionally high. The results indicated these metrics were at record-breaking levels from June 2023 to June 2024. The significant rise in heat content was attributed to a strong El Niño event and an unprecedented Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI), which contributed to the extraordinary nature of this heating period. The EEI, in particular, was identified as a key factor making this event special. The study also highlighted regional factors, such as reduced cloud cover and unique atmospheric circulation patterns, that contributed to warming in specific areas like the southeastern tropical Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. These findings emphasize the combined influence of a strong El Niño and an unprecedented EEI, along with regional contributors, in driving the exceptional 2023-24 global heating event.

Consistent with the warm October temps above 80N, sea ice volume growth was slow in October and 2024 fell to 2nd lowest volume as of Oct 31. Only 2020 was lower.

One thing I've noticed recently, the cool SST area south of Iceland and west of Great Britian/Ireland, associated with a potential slowdown in the overturning circulation has warmed; and, a new cool SST area has developed to the SW east of the US. We'll have to see if the change persists long enough to be relevant to the ocean circulation discussion.

The chart below runs through Oct 30 and the last data point for 2024 is close to the October monthly avg. October will be a very warm month globally. Not that far from last year despite the transition to nina conditions and around 0.45C warmer than 2016. The gap between 2024 and 2016 has been steadily widening since early in the year. Both the beginning and end of this nino cycle are warmer than expected. However, this October is not quite as gobsmacking as last September which ran roughly 0.6C warmer than 2015.

I hear you, guess I should have added a "relatively" in front of the good. To add more context, the relatively good news is that NOAA version of ocean heat content is not accelerating. Last year, CERES satellite data showed that the earth was taking on heat at an increasing rate. That heat ends up mainly in the ocean and should result in an acceleration in ocean heat content. The recent satellite data is also relatively good news per this recent chart from Gavin Schmidt (data through July). There is a decade over decade increase, but hard to make a case for short-term acceleration, as some were doing last year. As I stated above I am keeping an open mind on the past couple of years. We are going to need more pieces to put this puzzle together.

Sorry that the raw data doesn't fit your expectations. If we had stations at the same locations as the early 1940s network, Phoenixville and the built up sections of Coatesville and West Chester, would you want to use those 3 for our current county average?

Recently updated ocean heat content data shows cooling in the last 6 months through June. This is consistent with the enso cycle and rise in global temperatures, as more heat is radiated from a warmer atmosphere. Good news, perhaps a sign that the recent string of warm months will moderate. We'll see, the data is noisy.

NOAA's results are completely driven by the raw data. When you complain about NOAA, you are complaining about what the raw data shows. After their moves both West Chester and Coatesville were colder than ABE on occasion, as is East Nantmeal, and other current Chesco stations as well. Phoenixville and the built-up sections of Coatesville and West Chester are warm stations, much warmer than the county as a whole. Their average is warmer than the Philadelphia airport at times in the early 1940s, before the Coatesville move. Not surprising that the NOAA county average is always cooler than those 3 stations.

You are playing rhetorical games. Yes, we know that NOAA doesn't match the raw data, that's a positive because the raw data is biased. Coatesville and West Chester moved and cooled relative to nearby sites. This is very easy to see by comparing Coatesville, West Chester, and Phoenixville. For instance, Coatesville was 0.23F warmer than West Chester from 1941-45 and 1.98F cooler from 1948-52. Other stations outside of Chester County confirm the timing and impact of the moves. NOAA gets the timing and impact of the moves as reflected in the bias adjustments. For instance, the average bias adjustment for West Chester from 1895-1969 is -1.95 vs +0.02 for 1970-85 after the move in early 1970. The West Chester bias adjustment is primarily move-related. The moves are a good test for the analyst. You can't get an accurate picture of Chester County's climate without accounting for the station moves. We only have 3 stations with long-term data; and 2 of them had significant moves that biased the raw data, The science-based method that NOAA employs nails the moves, a good example of why bias adjustment is important.

Yes the 06z forecast for global temps over the next week is warm, hasn't changed much recently either.

The 2 main station moves can be spotted in your plot, but they are hard to see with all the other station changes. Those 3 stations should move in sync from year-to-year because they experience the same weather. When they don't a station change has occurred, which is why bias adjustment is needed. Much easier to see the station moves when the before-move and after-move sections are separated. The move-related cooling is clear by comparing to the 2 stations which didn't move (West Chester and Phoenixville 1946-47, and Coatesville and Phoenixville 1970). Looking at the before or after move periods individually, there is very little temperature trend at Coatesville or West Chester. The before-move portions are flat and the after-move portions are flat, just at different levels reflecting the site moves. The cooling in the 1941-75 period at those 2 stations is mainly due to the moves. Fortunately the moves occurred at different times which allowed their "chilling" effect to be identified. No move at Phoenixville, but as we saw previously, Phoenixville ran very warm in from the 1930s to 1950s. Phoenixville cooled significantly relative to the other two station at the end of the 1950s. Another station change. Since you want to look at data from outside Chester County, here are the Mt Holly NWS climate sites for this period (Atlantic City data is from the Weather Bureau Office on the roof of the Tuna Club building). Despite being further apart, these 4 station are much more in sync from year-to-year than the Chesco sites. Why? They are higher quality sites with fewer site changes. The overall trend over the period at these 4 stations is flat. There is a slight downtrend to the 1960s, but warming at the end brings 1975 up to 1941 levels. If these 4 stations are flat, you can be sure that Chester County is flat as well. All experience the same weather. Non weather effects, like station changes or heat island near the station, would impact each site differently and would be easily spotted by bias adjustment software. For the past several months you have been promoting a misleading denier strawman. The NOAA analysis uses only raw data as input, same as you; but, NOAA is doing a much better job of analyzing the raw data than you are. Well-proven science and a large database make the NOAA analysis bullet proof. We've confirmed that in our Chesco County deep dive. NOAA's individual Chesco station adjustments line up perfectly with station moves, time of day bias, warm sensors, etc. No its your analysis that produces a result that is far from our actual climate history.

Whether you can accept/understand or not, the raw temperature and other data is clear. When the stations moved, they cooled by roughly 2F relative to nearby stations. We know the locations of the stations before and after the moves. We know when the moves occurred. We know the temperatures at all the local stations. The photos are just the icing on the cake.

Glad you think I am not scientific. Puts me in good company with scientists and other experts. I find the site photos useful. In the case of Coatesville and West Chester: the photos, the NCDC site information, and the "actual" raw temperature data from multiple sites all paint a consistent picture. The stations moved from town-->rural and the temperatures cooled at the time of the move. We been discussing this for a long time and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Happy to correct the chart though if you have better information.

Of the stations over 550' only one is in Southern Chester County: West Grove (added in 2014) located at the top of the SECCRA landfill, well above the natural terrain. Another example of how the newer stations are different than the older COOPs. Glad you didn't find any problems with the chart. We know that the town-->rural changes are important because Coatesville and West Chester both warmed 2F when they were moved small distances from towns to more rural sites.