Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

19 minutes ago, rcostell said:

 

 

Would you folks PLEASE keep this train of thought in the "Chester County" thread? The bickering keeps spreading back into this "Climate Change" thread.  Please.  Thank You!

They keep pulling me back in.....LOL!!!

[bdgwx]

On 8/8/2024 at 2:47 PM, ChescoWx said:

There is no fraud with facts my friend!!

And that is gaslighting behavior.

If you use raw data without correcting for known errors that is fraud. Plain and simple.

And depending on the context, authority, etc. this fraud could even qualify as criminal behavior. For example, think of an NHC forecaster who publishes an official hurricane intensity that is grossly under/over estimated because he "only and always uses raw data no matter what". I trust that you understand all the ways dropsondes, buoys, flight level winds, SFMR, ADT, etc. can under/over estimate a tropical cyclone's intensity and that this example will resonate with you.

 

[ChescoWx]

On 8/10/2024 at 10:03 AM, bdgwx said:

And that is gaslighting behavior.

If you use raw data without correcting for known errors that is fraud. Plain and simple.

And depending on the context, authority, etc. this fraud could even qualify as criminal behavior. For example, think of an NHC forecaster who publishes an official hurricane intensity that is grossly under/over estimated because he "only and always uses raw data no matter what". I trust that you understand all the ways dropsondes, buoys, flight level winds, SFMR, ADT, etc. can under/over estimate a tropical cyclone's intensity and that this example will resonate with you.

 

Facts will of course stand the test of time....now if you had different factual data from the same county....in this case NOAA has depressed temps for 80 straight years in most cases below any and all observation sites within the county. Relying on PHL or ILG as a control arm just does not hold water. Science is not science if fail to continually question it....especially as we have more and more data points with time. I will continue to do my part to consistently question the science!!

[ChescoWx]

Mr Mann and colleagues may want to focus on a new line of work.....they will need a near historic rest of the season to even approach this forecast. is this the worst forecast ever? Makes us feel real comfy on all of these climate forecasts we hear from alarmists like Mr. Mann!

[FPizz]

13 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Mr Mann and colleagues may want to focus on a new line of work.....they will need a near historic rest of the season to even approach this forecast. is this the worst forecast ever? Makes us feel real comfy on all of these climate forecasts we hear from alarmists like Mr. Mann!

 

 

I put about as much weight in these tropical forecasts as winter ones...none.  They are all just fun to read, thats about all.

[Prestige Worldwide]

https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1826707067618689392?s=46&t=j_-aw-4tjFwrt5AoXKNk5A

[Typhoon Tip]

[LibertyBell]

On 4/6/2024 at 9:02 PM, gallopinggertie said:

Okay but human agriculture has only been around during a very narrow range of global average temperature, which is much cooler than the vast majority of those 65 million years without reaching the coldest extremes of the current Ice Age. I don't think we want to see how our civilization would do at Eocene-like temperatures. And on top of that, it's the rapidity of the change that's so troubling. It would be much easier to cope with a ten foot sea level rise over 2,000 years than over 200 years. Not making any specific predictions here, just giving an example. Humans are adaptable, but we have our limits.

Makes a lot of sense, which is why this is an existential threat.

[rclab]

5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Tip, I wanted to respond to a post of yours that apparently is no longer here. It was, I think, about a 3 day beach vacation plus a hurricane plus a third day activity. 
I want to say, nothing can convince me that you would have waited till the third day. Please stay refreshed, as always ….

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[GaWx]

This image illustrates well how the headlines related to the record speed of cooling of the eastern Atlantic equatorial region is leading to confusion. It’s even now leading to at least one well-known pro met. to say it is likely related to decreased underwater seismic activity and means a significant drop in the average world temperature. I think he’s confused and doesn’t realize that this record cooling is for just a very small portion of the Atlantic. 
 Aside: This cooling is leading some pro mets to suspect that the current quiet of the tropical MDR is partially related to this along with record warmth in the middle latitudes of the E and C Atlantic.

[bdgwx]

22 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

The 14 C is in reference to the ESS (Earth System Sensitivity). From the publication they say ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) is 7 C. For those that don't know ESS is the amount the Earth warms after the slow feedbacks play out while ECS is only after the fast feedbacks play out. Fast feedbacks are on the order of 100 years while slow feedbacks are on the order of the 1000-10000 years. An example of a slow feedback is ice sheet melt out.

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, bdgwx said:

The 14 C is in reference to the ESS (Earth System Sensitivity). From the publication they say ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) is 7 C. For those that don't know ESS is the amount the Earth warms after the slow feedbacks play out while ECS is only after the fast feedbacks play out. Fast feedbacks are on the order of 100 years while slow feedbacks are on the order of the 1000-10000 years. An example of a slow feedback is ice sheet melt out.

Blog from Gavin Schmidt on this paper. As one might expect, the headline is overblown. Paper contains useful paleo data, but doesn't move the ECS/ESS needle.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/

[Typhoon Tip]

for me this study more reinforces what's already been known - or convincingly posited.

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-reveals-crucial-role-atlantic-arctic.html

the 'thermo-haline cycle' was a topic of either formulation or speculation dating back to the 1990s.   t

.. be that as it may, the warming surface waters then mixing with freshwater means less densification. lighter water doesn't sink as much - the downward 'chimney's that transport into deep depths have lesser amount of mass, such that there is less pull n of surface water to replace what is no longer falling.  

in the simplest sense, this cuts the circuitry ... slowing the amoc. 

 

[CaryWx]

Saw this on the news tonight.  I think possibly more related to our pop (heat island) growth though.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

13 hours ago, CaryWx said:

Saw this on the news tonight.  I think possibly more related to our pop (heat island) growth though.

 

 

The Raleigh-Durham Airport temperature has been warming in line with the data at the Durham 11W USCRN site, which would rule out a largely UHI expansion argument. However, records for the common reference period only go back to 2008, so more data is needed for greater confidence.

[TheClimateChanger]

16 hours ago, CaryWx said:

Saw this on the news tonight.  I think possibly more related to our pop (heat island) growth though.

 

 

Not so sure about that. 2024 has been the hottest year to date at many locations in the eastern U.S.

Including very low population density sites, such as Elkins, West Virginia:

And Bradford, Pennsylvania:

[TheClimateChanger]

1 minute ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Not so sure about that. 2024 has been the hottest year to date at many locations in the eastern U.S.

Including very low population density sites, such as Elkins, West Virginia:

And Bradford, Pennsylvania:

Not quite a record for Caribou, Maine or Mount Washington, New Hampshire, but pretty close.

Caribou

Mount Washington, NH

[donsutherland1]

Following among their hottest summers on record (particularly in the West), numerous locations have exceeded annual records for a variety of hot weather metrics:

In addition, through September 6th, six locations had ongoing streaks of 100 more consecutive days with 100° or above high temperatures: Blythe, East Mesa, Needles, Phoenix, Tacna 3 NE, and Yuma. On September 7th, Phoenix's streak reached 104 consecutive days, which is four weeks longer than the previous record. East Mesa and Phoenix are the first U.S. population centers with 500,000 or more people to record such a streak.

Summer Rank:

Baltimore: 4th hottest
Bishop: 2nd hottest
Blythe: Hottest on record
Boise: 2nd hottest
Daggett: Hottest on record
Fresno: 2nd hottest
Las Vegas: Hottest on record
Needles: Hottest on record
Palm Springs: Hottest on record
Phoenix: Hottest on record
Raleigh: 3rd hottest on record
Redding: Hottest on record
Reno: Hottest on record
Salem: 3rd hottest on record
Tacna 3 NE, AZ: Hottest on record

Anthropogenic climate change has made the above outcomes more likely. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect has amplified the impacts of climate change.

[ChescoWx]

[ChescoWx]

1 minute ago, ChescoWx said:

It's not just in Chester County PA that the altered maxes are inventing warming.....be afraid friends - be very afraid!!!!

[chubbs]

17 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

It's not just in Chester County PA that the altered maxes are inventing warming.....be afraid friends - be very afraid!!!!

You are going to be the last guy to realize its warming in Chester County.  Warming is clear as can be in the raw Chester County data. If you are willing to look at it carefully.

[Bhs1975]

Records being broken by several degrees at a time is a pretty obvious sign of extremely rapid warming on a geological timescale.


.

[bluewave]

Reading, PA just had their warmest summer on record with total of 4 top 5 warmest since 2021.

 

Time Series Summary for Reading Area, PA (ThreadEx)
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2024	76.7	0
2	2020	76.6	0
3	2022	76.4	0
-	2010	76.4	0
-	1966	76.4	0
-	1949	76.4	0
4	1955	76.3	1
-	1943	76.3	0
5	2021	76.1	0
6	2016	76.0	0
7	2011	75.9	0
-	2005	75.9	0
-	1952	75.9	0
8	1959	75.6	0
-	1900	75.6	0
9	2012	75.3	0
-	1944	75.3	0
10	2002	75.0	0
-	1968	75.0	0

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

again ..another site where the record surpassed the penultimate by full degree unit(s).   it's something when the previous several are mere decimals ... then a leap

this large d(extreme) is going off all over the planet.   probably the recent global temperature burst coming home to thermometers

[ChescoWx]

Per our friend Chris Martz

"Stare at it 'til your eyeballs are strained and they fall out of your sockets. Then, when they do, finger them back in and stare some more. The plot below shows the Conterminous U.S. average mean temperature by year from 1895 to 2023. The blue curve shows the average computed from the raw (measured) thermometer data. The red curve shows the average computed from the reported (adjusted) thermometer data. The actual temperature data indicate that there has been a statistically insignificant warming trend in the U.S. since 1895. The reported data suggest that there has been a very large warming trend by almost 2°F since 1895. Nearly all of the warming is a result of arbitrary adjustments due to the supposed “Time of Observation Bias,” or T.O.B.S. for short."

[donsutherland1]

8 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Per our friend Chris Martz

"Stare at it 'til your eyeballs are strained and they fall out of your sockets. Then, when they do, finger them back in and stare some more. The plot below shows the Conterminous U.S. average mean temperature by year from 1895 to 2023. The blue curve shows the average computed from the raw (measured) thermometer data. The red curve shows the average computed from the reported (adjusted) thermometer data. The actual temperature data indicate that there has been a statistically insignificant warming trend in the U.S. since 1895. The reported data suggest that there has been a very large warming trend by almost 2°F since 1895. Nearly all of the warming is a result of arbitrary adjustments due to the supposed “Time of Observation Bias,” or T.O.B.S. for short."

This is another example of where Martz goes against accepted understanding in climate or meteorology. Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is not a "supposed" phenomenon but a real one. TOBS has been documented in the literature as far back as the mid-1970s.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/apme/14/4/1520-0450_1975_014_0471_eootom_2_0_co_2.pdf

The adjustment to compensate for TOBS, which has been refined over the years, is not intended to skew temperatures, but to correct the climate record for the impact of TOBS. Martz may not see or understand the issue with using raw data as is, even where clearly-documented structural biases exist, but the the field of meteorology does.

[chubbs]

8 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Per our friend Chris Martz

"Stare at it 'til your eyeballs are strained and they fall out of your sockets. Then, when they do, finger them back in and stare some more. The plot below shows the Conterminous U.S. average mean temperature by year from 1895 to 2023. The blue curve shows the average computed from the raw (measured) thermometer data. The red curve shows the average computed from the reported (adjusted) thermometer data. The actual temperature data indicate that there has been a statistically insignificant warming trend in the U.S. since 1895. The reported data suggest that there has been a very large warming trend by almost 2°F since 1895. Nearly all of the warming is a result of arbitrary adjustments due to the supposed “Time of Observation Bias,” or T.O.B.S. for short."

As usual there is no beef in Martz' criticism. Of course you get a different answer for raw vs adjusted. That's why the adustments are made; to correct known bias in the raw obs.  Here's a better task for Martz or yourself: find a bias adjustment that is NOT justified by raw data collected at other sites. There are thousands of stations in the US, with multiple bias adjustments per station. If they are "arbitrary", surely you can find one that isn't justified.

We didn't find any problems with bias adjustment  in our Chester County deep dive. We focused on the  larger, most important,  bias adjustments; and didn't find any that weren't completely supported by the raw data. Quite the contrary, bias adjustments were needed to get an accurate estimate of Chesco's recent climate. 

Finally, one interesting finding in our Chester County deep dive:  station moves had a much bigger biasing effect than TOBS. That probably happened elsewhere in the US as cars replaced horses and people moved out of towns to more remote sites. 

[TheClimateChanger]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is another example of where Martz goes against accepted understanding in climate or meteorology. Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is not a "supposed" phenomenon but a real one. TOBS has been documented in the literature as far back as the mid-1970s.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/apme/14/4/1520-0450_1975_014_0471_eootom_2_0_co_2.pdf

The adjustment to compensate for TOBS, which has been refined over the years, is not intended to skew temperatures, but to correct the climate record for the impact of TOBS. Martz may not see or understand the issue with using raw data as is, even where clearly-documented structural biases exist, but the the field of meteorology does.

Martz has previously said the observers were "smart off" to reset the high temperature on the following day. But apparently they weren't smart enough to follow instructions and conform to the observational standards that were in place at the time. 

[TheClimateChanger]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

As usual there is no beef in Martz' criticism. Of course you get a different answer for raw vs adjusted. That's why the adustments are made; to correct known bias in the raw obs.  Here's a better task for Martz or yourself: find a bias adjustment that is NOT justified by raw data collected at other sites. There are thousands of stations in the US, with multiple bias adjustments per station. If they are "arbitrary", surely you can find one that isn't justified.

We didn't find any problems with bias adjustment  in our Chester County deep dive. We focused on the  larger, most important,  bias adjustments; and didn't find any that weren't completely supported by the raw data. Quite the contrary, bias adjustments were needed to get an accurate estimate of Chesco's recent climate. 

Finally, one interesting finding in our Chester County deep dive:  station moves had a much bigger biasing effect than TOBS. That probably happened elsewhere in the US as cars replaced horses and people moved out of towns to more remote sites. 

I don't even believe Martz's graphic is accurate. There's no way even the raw data would show 2019 as one of the coldest years. A so-called meteorology student really wants to claim 2019 was colder than the late 70s or some of the other historically cold years in the 19th century and early 20th century. Where was the feet of snow, days and days of below zero weather, etc.? What a joke! I don't even need a thermometer to tell me that's a load of bullcrap. 2019 wasn't even close to the coldest of that decade - years like 2014 & 2015 were obviously colder, which is what the actual data shows.

Moreover, deniers used to say in the 1990s and early 2000s, that we were in a warm cycle comparable to the 1930s to 1950s, and it would soon start cooling. Obviously, it has instead continued to warm. But what even was the point of that discussion if that era was actually not warm and instead about the same as the so-called "cold cycle" in the late 1950s to 1980 era? It's laughably stupid.

I suspect there's something else going on in that chart - not just TOBs. Like not factoring in station changes [location, elevation, makeup] and/or not properly gridding the data, but instead just taking a mean of whatever station data is available.