Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[so_whats_happening]

12 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

What was the cause of that extreme cold between 2013 and 2015?  The super el nino of 2015-16 ended that.

The thing I remember about Pinatubo was the year without a summer (1992) and then the 1993-94 very cold and stormy winter.

Going back to the 80s we also had El Chichon and some very cold winters in the early and mid 80s.

 

Persistent Ridging in the Gulf of Alaska had a NW flow pattern for the general timeline of January 2013-December 2015.

Edit to add on this was the general pattern for 2010-2012 which showed our area in a relatively warmer pattern. I will say smoothing over year to year doesn't do it justice but gives you a general idea of why things happened that way.

[ChescoWx]

11 hours ago, pazzo83 said:

 

17 hours ago, bdgwx said:

I'm curious. How are you handling the time-of-observation changes, instrument changes, station moves, and other factors that cause discontinuities or changepoint/breakpoints in the timeseries?

 

 

those would make it more difficult for him to back into the conclusion he's already made and to which he's trying to force the data to conform, so I doubt he is handling those very real and significant issues at all.

 

Hi guys,

Thanks for the questions. For consistency I did not adjust any of the reported data for all of the long term Chester County PA sites. The assumption being all COOP sites were instructed to record obs at the same time during the periods based on the US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau directions as included in the bureau's monthly and annual footnotes . The same assumption was made for any potential instrument changes that the individual observer would have been instructed to make. There were no noted station moves for Phoenixville, West Chester or Glenmoore. The combined Coatesville (Coatesville 1 SW) data indicates 3 station moves during the period 1888 through 1982. These moves were within 1.5 NM with the ASL elevation variance being within 80 feet. A 4th move was made in 1983 (Coatesville 2W) with a move 1.5 NM north to an elevation of 640 feet. These readings continued through December 31, 2007 and were combined and reported by the PA State Climatologist.

The Coatesville 2W station ceased operations on 12/31/07. We then performed a detailed statistical analysis of the NWS Trained Spotter Data (mine) at East Nantmeal (9.2 NM to the NE and 45 feet higher in elevation). Both sites which both reported daily data in parallel from December 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007. This analysis of 1,492 daily average temperature observation points across 49 months of weather data supported a rejection of the null hypothesis. That hypothesis being the 2 data points are not the same and cannot be combined. The resulting p-value rejected that null hypothesis and in fact was highly significant and the similarity of the data was not attributable to chance. Importantly, this means the 2 data points (Coatesville 2W and East Nantmeal) have been determined to be scientifically one and the same and may be appropriately combined for analysis and reporting. I hope this helps!

[ChescoWx]

Below is an analysis of all Chester County PA data from all available sources with at least 6 complete decades of history. The most complete data sets have 13 complete decades of data. In the data below all decades that had temperatures fall from the previous decade are in blue and those that rose are in red. Data in black showed no change decade to decade. When averaging all reporting sites across the county we see that 6 decades trended colder from the prior decade and 6 decades trended warmer.  Overall the 1930's and 1940's were the warmest decades and we have still not returned to those warm levels

Five of the Top 10 warmest decades occurred prior to 1960. We have seen no more than 3 consecutive warming decades and no more than 3 consecutive cooling decades since the 1890's.

[bdgwx]

I think you need to do the changepoint/breakpoint analysis to see what affect it has on those COOP stations. For example Berkeley Earth found 16 breakpoints on Coatesville, 12 on West Chester 2NW, and 12 on Phoenixville. And I see at least 3 documented station moves including the one last year for Phoenixville. Chadds Ford, Honey Brook, and Glenmoore do not officially report temperature according to GHCN, HOMR, and BEST. For example, Glenmoore observer uses the Davis Vantage Pro and is not approved by the NWS. That's typical. COOPs can report temperatures for operational purposes, but they are not approved for climatological purpose. Anyway, I could only find climatological data for 3 of the stations (Coatesville, West Chester, and Phoenixville). All 3 of them show significant warming when the breakpoint adjustments are applied. This is why it is really important to apply some type of changepoint/breakpoint analysis. Both GHCN and BEST provide their source code so you can use them as a starting point if you want to roll your own. However, based on the literature I've read it looks like a significant and challenging effort.

[chubbs]

11 hours ago, bdgwx said:

I think you need to do the changepoint/breakpoint analysis to see what affect it has on those COOP stations. For example Berkeley Earth found 16 breakpoints on Coatesville, 12 on West Chester 2NW, and 12 on Phoenixville. And I see at least 3 documented station moves including the one last year for Phoenixville. Chadds Ford, Honey Brook, and Glenmoore do not officially report temperature according to GHCN, HOMR, and BEST. For example, Glenmoore observer uses the Davis Vantage Pro and is not approved by the NWS. That's typical. COOPs can report temperatures for operational purposes, but they are not approved for climatological purpose. Anyway, I could only find climatological data for 3 of the stations (Coatesville, West Chester, and Phoenixville). All 3 of them show significant warming when the breakpoint adjustments are applied. This is why it is really important to apply some type of changepoint/breakpoint analysis. Both GHCN and BEST provide their source code so you can use them as a starting point if you want to roll your own. However, based on the literature I've read it looks like a significant and challenging effort.

Its not hard to find the most important breakpoints (station changes) on your own by comparing to nearby stations. Here's an example from Coatesville at the end of World War II. Roughly a 2F drop relative to other regional stations. That will help obscure the true warming trend.

The adjusted data is also available. Here is Coatesville raw vs bias adjusted. The difference is roughly 2F over the period mainly due to station changes before 1950. Manmade forcing began to dominate around 1970 before that natural variability and local air pollution were more important. Since 1970 the raw data doesn't need much bias adjustment and the warming rate for both series is around 3F.

[LibertyBell]

13 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

Persistent Ridging in the Gulf of Alaska had a NW flow pattern for the general timeline of January 2013-December 2015.

Edit to add on this was the general pattern for 2010-2012 which showed our area in a relatively warmer pattern. I will say smoothing over year to year doesn't do it justice but gives you a general idea of why things happened that way.

I also enjoyed the amazingly hot summers we had from 2010-13, I suppose the NW flow pattern also helped with that since we had downsloping and less of an oceanic impact on the east coast.

 

[bdgwx]

Here is Berkeley Earth's breakpoint analysis for Coatesville. Note that Coatesville is split into 3 separate stations. 1894-1982, 1982-2007, and 2007-2013. This is only the 1st timeseries. Notice how there are many breakpoints some creating upward biases and some creating downward biases. But the net effect of all breakpoints is for a downward bias. This has to be corrected otherwise you'll draw the wrong conclusion about the long term temperature trend. And the net downward bias is expected since the time-of-observation change is a downward bias, and modern instrument/shield packages have a low bias relative to liquid-in-glass instruments.

[Typhoon Tip]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05517-z

[donsutherland1]

Today, Joe Bastardi made a claim that parts of South America have been cooling during the past 20 years. He included a map that references 2001-2005 as the most recent 20-year period while cutting off the date against which it is compared (the political components are ignored). The claim about temperatures is so flawed that I address it below.

The actual data shows that warming has been strongest where the tweeted map alleges the strongest cooling has occurred based on comparing 2001-2005 to some earlier period (not the "last 20 years"). When one goes to the GISS maps for the 20-year comparison, one finds warming across much of South America, as well.

In sum, the actual data demonstrate that the tweeted claim is incorrect.

[etudiant]

Weird, the GISS map shows the Lat Am west coast areas that have the most cooling for Bastardi  and the most heating in the reanalysis to be essentially lukewarm.

If we can't even get agreement on the historical record, it seems unlikely that there can be agreement as to the future outlook.

[bdgwx]

It's been 12 years since Bastardi's prediction that temperatures would decline to where they were in the 1970's by 2030. According to Berkeley Earth the average temperature in the 70's was +0.04 C relative to 1951-1980. The 5 year centered average at 2020 was +0.95 C.  I'll give him until 2032 so that we have a 5 year centered average at 2030. That means in the next 10 years the planet needs to cool by 0.9 C. Now, I'm not one to proclaim a prediction wrong until the full period of time has elapsed. However, considering that the planetary energy imbalance is is about +0.8 W/m2 I think it is extremely unlikely that his prediction will verify. And I think it is very likely that his prediction error will continue to grow to over 1.0 C by 2030.

 

[chubbs]

Same old clown story from JB. On a more optimistic note. Solar is dominating electricity addition in the US. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels.

"Nearly two-thirds of US generating capacity additions in the next three years will be fulfilled by solar, with the technology’s share of power generation in the country set to almost double, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). "

“Moreover, if the current trajectory persists or accelerates, generating capacity by the mix of all renewables should overtake that of natural gas before 2030 and possibly much sooner.”

https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-to-dominate-us-capacity-additions-73gw-expected-through-2025/

[etudiant]

25 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Same old clown story from JB. On a more optimistic note. Solar is dominating electricity addition in the US. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels.

"Nearly two-thirds of US generating capacity additions in the next three years will be fulfilled by solar, with the technology’s share of power generation in the country set to almost double, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). "

“Moreover, if the current trajectory persists or accelerates, generating capacity by the mix of all renewables should overtake that of natural gas before 2030 and possibly much sooner.”

https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-to-dominate-us-capacity-additions-73gw-expected-through-2025/

Not enough, unfortunately.

The actual baseline capacity of renewables is a fraction of their rating, so we need multiples of the rated levels to get reliable power from renewables.

An effective system for energy storage is desperately needed to make renewables economically viable.

 

[FPizz]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Same old clown story from JB. On a more optimistic note. Solar is dominating electricity addition in the US. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels.

"Nearly two-thirds of US generating capacity additions in the next three years will be fulfilled by solar, with the technology’s share of power generation in the country set to almost double, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). "

“Moreover, if the current trajectory persists or accelerates, generating capacity by the mix of all renewables should overtake that of natural gas before 2030 and possibly much sooner.”

https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-to-dominate-us-capacity-additions-73gw-expected-through-2025/

I've had solar for the almost 7 years since I moved into this house.  The system was 3 years old when I moved in.  When working it is awesome.  Zero bills and $1k+ dividend checks per quarter.  But the system now has had issues for almost 2.5 years and my output is only about 35% of what it was and still no fix and they are running more tests.  It is the most frustrating experience ever.  The main problem I see is the lack of companies to work on systems.  They pop up and are gone within 2 years or so.  The Sunpower umbrella is large as a parent company, but the companies that work for them stink, and you cant work with anyone else or it voids warranties.  We need tons more companies that can deal with system issues.  These issues with companies are on tons of forums.  The companies install, then it is pretty much see ya if you have an issue.  No one ever talks about that though.  If I have issues with pretty much anything else power related, there are tons of companies to call.  Solar, good luck, they are just as corrupt as anyone else! 

[chubbs]

10 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Not enough, unfortunately.

The actual baseline capacity of renewables is a fraction of their rating, so we need multiples of the rated levels to get reliable power from renewables.

An effective system for energy storage is desperately needed to make renewables economically viable.

 

Sure we will still be using a lot of fossil fuel in 2030. Its going to take decades to make a complete transition from fossil fuels. We should have started a long time ago. Still the trajectory is clear. According to FERC,between 2022 and 2025,  there will be virtually no net additions of natural gas and nuclear in the US as additions and shut-downs are nearly balanced, while coal capacity will continue to drop. Wind will also grow but not as fast as solar. All of the grid additions to 2025 will come from renewables, while at the same time shrinking coal. Furthermore solar will be even cheaper in 2025.

Here's a $6 billion investment in China. A 50GW per year PV manufacturing facility coming on-line in 2024. At a 15% use factor that's 5-10 nuclear power plants per year, from a highly automated facility. While the energy source is diffuse, solar is developing a massive scale advantage vs fossil and nuclear at the manufacturing plant. 

https://www.pv-tech.org/longi-to-invest-us6-7-billion-in-building-new-production-base-in-china/

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, chubbs said:

Sure we will still be using a lot of fossil fuel in 2030. Its going to take decades to make a complete transition from fossil fuels. We should have started a long time ago. Still the trajectory is clear. According to FERC,between 2022 and 2025,  there will be virtually no net additions of natural gas and nuclear in the US as additions and shut-downs are nearly balanced, while coal capacity will continue to drop. Wind will also grow but not as fast as solar. All of the grid additions to 2025 will come from renewables, while at the same time shrinking coal. Furthermore solar will be even cheaper in 2025.

Here's a $6 billion investment in China. A 50GW per year PV manufacturing facility coming on-line in 2024. At a 15% use factor that's 5-10 nuclear power plants per year, from a highly automated facility. While the energy source is diffuse, solar is developing a massive scale advantage vs fossil and nuclear at the manufacturing plant. 

https://www.pv-tech.org/longi-to-invest-us6-7-billion-in-building-new-production-base-in-china/

 

Honesty we should have been transitioning beginning in the 80s.

Why does computer tech develop so fast and these other industries don't?

 

[donsutherland1]

19 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Honesty we should have been transitioning beginning in the 80s.

Why does computer tech develop so fast and these other industries don't?

 

One day, there will be case studies on the energy industry. It will be an example of a very low innovation industry. The principal factor responsible is likely the subsidization of fossil fuels that takes place. No industry has ever received the scale of subsidization (direct and indirect) that is enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry. Annual subsidies exceed more than $5 trillion per year globally (IMF estimate of externalities borne by society). Had the fossil fuel producers been responsible to cover the full costs of their hazardous products, the prices would have been much higher. That, alone, would have provided powerful incentives for innovation away from the hazardous burning of fossil fuels, as the industry would face the existential need of either innovating or perishing as substitutes arose.

[etudiant]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

One day, there will be case studies on the energy industry. It will be an example of a very low innovation industry. The principal factor responsible is likely the subsidization of fossil fuels that takes place. No industry has ever received the scale of subsidization (direct and indirect) that is enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry. Annual subsidies exceed more than $5 trillion per year globally (IMF estimate of externalities borne by society). Had the fossil fuel producers been responsible to cover the full costs of their hazardous products, the prices would have been much higher. That, alone, would have provided powerful incentives for innovation away from the hazardous burning of fossil fuels, as the industry would face the existential need of either innovating or perishing as substitutes arose.

Agree on the basic premise, think the problem is that it is a public service, so the political priority is for it to be 'lowest possible cost'.

Gasoline of course can be taxed freely, while blaming the oil companies, but juice is from public utilities. They don't like to make waves.

[donsutherland1]

On 1/20/2023 at 7:33 AM, chubbs said:

Same old clown story from JB. On a more optimistic note. Solar is dominating electricity addition in the US. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels.

"Nearly two-thirds of US generating capacity additions in the next three years will be fulfilled by solar, with the technology’s share of power generation in the country set to almost double, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). "

“Moreover, if the current trajectory persists or accelerates, generating capacity by the mix of all renewables should overtake that of natural gas before 2030 and possibly much sooner.”

https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-to-dominate-us-capacity-additions-73gw-expected-through-2025/

I am not sure what happened to Bastardi. It seems that he has become so consumed by climate change denial that he no longer has a grasp on actual facts--not forecasts, but facts--about the weather. For example, today he tweeted a reference to a post he made on a climate change denial site. He wrote, "Greta protesting coal plants in Germany blissfully unconcerned about the amount of cold left there this winter."

Big problem. Germany has had an extraordinarily warm winter in what has been a "non-winter" in Europe.

[LibertyBell]

43 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I am not sure what happened to Bastardi. It seems that he has become so consumed by climate change denial that he no longer has a grasp on actual facts--not forecasts, but facts--about the weather. For example, today he tweeted a reference to a post he made on a climate change denial site. He wrote, "Greta protesting coal plants in Germany blissfully unconcerned about the amount of cold left there this winter."

Big problem. Germany has had an extraordinarily warm winter in what has been a "non-winter" in Europe.

Yeah what the hell is he talking about?  My friends in Germany have told me they have not seen a single snowflake fall in Berlin and the Alps are barren of snow with only small patches in Austria and Switzerland where people are being sent to the ER because they are "skiing" on small patches of snow and getting severely injured (as in dislocated spine injuries!)

On the plus side the problems they could have faced with a cold winter and fuel shortages have not materialized.

[LibertyBell]

43 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I am not sure what happened to Bastardi. It seems that he has become so consumed by climate change denial that he no longer has a grasp on actual facts--not forecasts, but facts--about the weather. For example, today he tweeted a reference to a post he made on a climate change denial site. He wrote, "Greta protesting coal plants in Germany blissfully unconcerned about the amount of cold left there this winter."

Big problem. Germany has had an extraordinarily warm winter in what has been a "non-winter" in Europe.

and those same places also had historic  heat in the summer.

 

[LibertyBell]

Sell these redneck states to Cuba and Mexico and be done with them.

 

[HailMan06]

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Sell these redneck states to Cuba and Mexico and be done with them.

 

I was just thinking a couple nights ago… why don’t we just merge states with N/S cardinal directions in their name to get rid of some redundancy (ie. N./S. Dakota, N./S. Carolina)? While we’re at it give statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C. to balance out the states lost.

[bdgwx]

On 1/21/2023 at 1:11 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I am not sure what happened to Bastardi. It seems that he has become so consumed by climate change denial that he no longer has a grasp on actual facts--not forecasts, but facts--about the weather.

He is also listed as a member of Principia Scientific International. For those that don't know PSI is an anti-science site owned, operated, and founded by John O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan got wrapped up in the Mann court case against Tim Ball, Frontier Centre of Public Policy, and others. Apparently O'Sullivan was "defending" Ball in court without actually having a license to practice or even a degree in law. And he has a questionable past as well. You can pay a nominal fee to download the court documents for the Supreme Court of British Columbia case #VLC-S-S-111913. Fair warning...I've read the court documents; they are NOT work or school appropriate. And this is who Joe Bastardi chooses to support. Dude...Bastardi...if you stumble on this post take my advice and do yourself a favor and revoke your membership from PSI...like immediately.

[donsutherland1]

Just now, bdgwx said:

He is also listed as a member of Principia Scientific International. For those that don't know PSI is an anti-science site owned, operated, and founded by John O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan got wrapped up in the Mann's court case against Tim Ball and others. Apparently O'Sullivan was "defending" Ball in court without actually having a license to practice or even a degree in law. And he has a questionable past as well. You can pay a nominal fee to download the court documents for the Supreme Court of British Columbia case #VLC-S-S-111913. Fair warning...I've read the court documents; they are NOT work or school appropriate. And this is who Joe Bastardi chooses to support. Dude...Bastardi...if you stumble on post do yourself a favor and revoke your membership from PSI.

Yes, he’s fallen far.

[BTRWx's Thanks Giving]

Any climate scientists on these forums?  I would like their thoughts about this study. https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/IJESNR.MS.ID.556039.php "The Relationship Between Mid-Ocean Spreading Zone Seismic Activity and Global Temperatures Remains Strong Through 2018"

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, BTRWx's Thanks Giving said:

Any climate scientists on these forums?  I would like their thoughts about this study. https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/IJESNR.MS.ID.556039.php "The Relationship Between Mid-Ocean Spreading Zone Seismic Activity and Global Temperatures Remains Strong Through 2018"

It’s very likely not credible. The journal is listed among predatory journals.

https://beallslist.net

[bdgwx]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:01 PM, BTRWx's Thanks Giving said:

Any climate scientists on these forums?  I would like their thoughts about this study. https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/IJESNR.MS.ID.556039.php "The Relationship Between Mid-Ocean Spreading Zone Seismic Activity and Global Temperatures Remains Strong Through 2018"

Arthur Viterito is a member of the Heartland Institute which is an anti-science institution known for its denial of many scientific conclusions that are broadly accepted and supported by the consilience of evidence. It is my understanding that they even still reject the link between smoking and cancer which is as settled as anything in science can be settled. Anyway, he was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS.  OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement with the predatory journal he ran.

And his "scientific" positions defy credulity. He allowed an article that stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude. 

My thoughts...the article author is as shady as they get.

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Arthur Viterito is a member of the Heartland Institute which is an anti-science institution known for its denial of many scientific conclusions that are broadly accepted and supported by the consilience of evidence. It is my understanding that they even still reject the link between smoking and cancer which is as settled as anything in science can be settled. Anyway, he was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS.  OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement with the predatory journal he ran.

And his "scientific" positions defy credulity. He stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Yet somehow the publication in which that statement appeared got accepted into a predatory journal anyway. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude. 

My thoughts...the article author is as shady as they get.

What...that reminds me of what a science "teacher" in North Carolina said about why solar power shouldn't be used, that it "takes away" from the energy that plants need for photosynthesis.

 

[Fantom X]

As AGW progresses, one item I find interesting (at least from my vantage point) is that as temperature averages increase,  we still are maintaining the growing zones over the past decade or so with these cold blasts still happening.  This may, in the future, lead to early starts to growing seasons only to have it damaged by an spring arctic outbreak- which I know happened recently in 2020.