Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

So Don you think that kind of reporting on the weather this week is appropriate??

 Whether “appropriate” reporting or not, #1 on MSM outlets is always the almighty $ and the ratings that lead to more $. Nothing new in that regard. Online MSM wants more views. TV MSM wants more viewers. If you were in the biz, wouldn’t you want more viewers? I’d think I would. One of the best ways to get more views/viewers is to sensationalize/make the news/wx seem more interesting and a bigger deal than it really is. 
 

 Remember when “Breaking News” really was a big deal? Not so much anymore since it occurs on a regular basis now.

 How about Joe Bastardi with his tendency to predict cold winters much more often than warm ones (though some of that is also likely due to his weenieism)? How many clicks is he going to get regularly if he predicts a warm winter? (which he has hardly ever done in the NE US)

 Was this sensationalized? It wouldn’t surprise me but I haven’t analyzed it. Don would know more.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So Don you think that kind of reporting on the weather this week is appropriate??

Reframing the message as a "major" or "severe" June heat event might have been more accurate from a meteorological standpoint than the NY Governor's claim that the heatwave would be "unprecedented." But the emphasis was on protecting health and lives. Even yesterday, parts of the Mid-Atlantic region into the Midwast experienced very high rates of heat-related emergency room visits. So, the heat not only set daily and even monthly records, but was also impactful on human health. A disaster specialist might be in a better position to address whether the tradeoff in somewhat overstating the heat risk paid off in reduced heat-related issues.

It should also be noted that some on Social Media actually attempted to dismiss the heat as essentially being ordinary for June. Those claims were far more inaccurate than the Governor's exaggeration. Ordinary heat doesn't set daily, much less monthly or even some all-time records.

One should ask oneself: If you were in the news media and were aware that extreme heat had already claimed hundreds of lives in other parts of the world, how would you respond to minimize the threat to human health and lives? Would you be willing to gamble that the heat might be less intense at the risk that if you are incorrect, a much larger share of your audience could wind up exposed to higher-than-expected heat risks?

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Funny Don the difference in those summer charts in my section of the Northeast USA.... if we eliminate the after the fact computer adjustments to chill those nagging hot summers in the US back in the 1930s and 1940s in blue....now if we allow for altered data in red- there is the warmth you speak of.

All that chart shows is that you don't understand how to analyze weather station data. Below is a recent blog article that provides good background. As described in the article, Its very difficult to determine the average temperature of a geographic area. Move a non-aspirated shelter closer to a house or in the shade of a tree  and you get a different answer. Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do, determine the average temperature in Chester County. Furthermore you have collected a station population that changes dramatically with time making it unsuited for your task.  In particular the older station population is very limited and clearly too warm: south and east, low elevation, in towns, and with older equipment. Much different than your modern stations.

NOAA on-the-other-hand focuses on the change in temperature with time. Much easier to determine, as the changes with time are well correlated over hundreds of miles if the stations don't change. If the stations do change, the changes are easy to spot by inter-comparing stations.  NOAA takes advantage of the dense station network in the US. If it is a relatively warm month in Chester County, it is also relatively warm in the surrounding counties and  states. Hundreds of stations can provide information on the year-to-year change in Chester County's temperature.

In short there is a night and day difference between NOAA's methods and your own.  NOAA is informed by science and focusing on the easy with  proven methods and a large dataset. You are uninformed by science and trying to the hard with a much smaller and poorly constructed dataset.  It shows in the results.

https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/06/16/sticking-em-where-the-sun-dont-shine/

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Whether “appropriate” reporting or not, #1 on MSM outlets is always the almighty $ and the ratings that lead to more $. Nothing new in that regard. Online MSM wants more views. TV MSM wants more viewers. If you were in the biz, wouldn’t you want more viewers? I’d think I would. One of the best ways to get more views/viewers is to sensationalize/make the news/wx seem more interesting and a bigger deal than it really is. 
 

 Remember when “Breaking News” really was a big deal? Not so much anymore since it occurs on a regular basis now.

 How about Joe Bastardi with his tendency to predict cold winters much more often than warm ones (though some of that is also likely due to his weenieism)? How many clicks is he going to get regularly if he predicts a warm winter? (which he has hardly ever done in the NE US)

 Was this sensationalized? It wouldn’t surprise me but I haven’t analyzed it. Don would know more.

Bastardi long ago gave in to the almighty dollar and just forecasts cold every year to get the winter weenies to sign up!

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

All that chart shows is that you don't understand how to analyze weather station data. Below is a recent blog article that provides good background. As described in the article, Its very difficult to determine the average temperature of a geographic area. Move a non-aspirated shelter closer to a house or in the shade of a tree  and you get a different answer. Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do, determine the average temperature in Chester County. Furthermore you have collected a station population that changes dramatically with time making it unsuited for your task.  In particular the older station population is very limited and clearly too warm: south and east, low elevation, in towns, and with older equipment. Much different than your modern stations.

NOAA on-the-other-hand focuses on the change in temperature with time. Much easier to determine, as the changes with time are well correlated over hundreds of miles if the stations don't change. If the stations do change, the changes are easy to spot by inter-comparing stations.  NOAA takes advantage of the dense station network in the US. If it is a relatively warm month in Chester County, it is also relatively warm in the surrounding counties and  states. Hundreds of stations can provide information on the year-to-year change in Chester County's temperature.

In short there is a night and day difference between NOAA's methods and your own.  NOAA is informed by science and focusing on the easy with  proven methods and a large dataset. You are uninformed by science and trying to the hard with a much smaller and poorly constructed dataset.  It shows in the results.

https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/06/16/sticking-em-where-the-sun-dont-shine/

I guess if you call that machine algorithm application to chill the past and warm the present science.....have at it!

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

All that chart shows is that you don't understand how to analyze weather station data. Below is a recent blog article that provides good background. As described in the article, Its very difficult to determine the average temperature of a geographic area. Move a non-aspirated shelter closer to a house or in the shade of a tree  and you get a different answer. Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do, determine the average temperature in Chester County. Furthermore you have collected a station population that changes dramatically with time making it unsuited for your task.  In particular the older station population is very limited and clearly too warm: south and east, low elevation, in towns, and with older equipment. Much different than your modern stations.

NOA

ttps://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/06/16/sticking-em-where-the-sun-dont-shine/

Charlie you still choose to ignore that the current NWS MADIS station mix is actually still stilted more to the warmer lower elevation sites not the cooler higher elevation sites.....just as it was in the older observations. I can still compare relative apples to apples by segregating low vs high vs location which I have done. The only variable not included is the machine based adjustments to arrive at the altered data to get the warming answer.

[bluewave]

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Although the heat was not unprecedented, it was a notable June outbreak. Hundreds of daily high maximum and minimum temperature records were tied or broken. At least 19 monthly high temperature records and 24 monthly high minimum temperature records were tied or broken. Caribou tied its all-time highest temperature. Burlington and Caribou tied their all-time highest minimum temperatures. Fort Kent, where records go back to 1893, demolished its all-time minimum temperature record by 4°. Numerous additional cities came within 1°-2° of their monthly records.

Yeah, it was a very impressive heatwave for June. My take on what caused the unprecedented talk were some of the social media posts showing the ECMWF model output. It has been running too warm recently and had highs for the heatwave in excess of 105° which would have been unprecedented this early in June. I was posting on this in the local NYC Metro forum and was skeptical of the model output since none of the other models were close. This was almost like a warm season version of what happened when model snowfall output for our region was posted on social media several winters ago. The NWS had to come out and say these amounts were unlikely but the heavy snowfall images gained traction and the talk began on social media. So we have been seeing more and more examples of unlikely raw model output getting onto social media and then getting picked up by others as if it was an actual likely outcome. 
 

 

 

[ChescoWx]

From my friend Chris Martz some great perspective data!  "Well, it was hotter during June 1853 as an “unprecedented, climate-fueled heat dome” set up shop over the eastern half of the country. On June 20, 1853, Washington, D.C. hit 100°, which eclipses the “official” (since 1872) record high of 99° from 1931. The following day was 97°, and then on June 22, 1853, D.C. again topped 100°, capping off at 102°, which would break the “official” record of 101° from 1988, and eclipses Saturday’s 100° reading at DCA. The same day, Detroit, Michigan topped off at 106° and so did Fort Brady (present-day Sault Ste. Marie). The “official” daily record high for June 22 in Detroit (1874-present) is 98° from 1988 and Sault Ste. Marie’s (1888-present) is 90° from 1975, so the high of 106° on June 22, 1853 shatters those. It also eclipses Detroit’s “all-time” June record high of 104° from June 28, 1934 and June 25, 1988 and Sault Ste. Marie’s of 93° from June 27, 1901; June 30, 1927: and June 26, 1983. And, these 106° highs shatter Detroit’s “all-time” record high of 105° from July 24, 1934 and Sault Ste. Marie’s of 98° from July 30, 1916; July 3, 1921; and August 5 and 6, 1947."

[chubbs]

54 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie you still choose to ignore that the current NWS MADIS station mix is actually still stilted more to the warmer lower elevation sites not the cooler higher elevation sites.....just as it was in the older observations. I can still compare relative apples to apples by segregating low vs high vs location which I have done. The only variable not included is the machine based adjustments to arrive at the altered data to get the warming answer.

You haven't provided any evidence that you are comparing "apples" to "apples". No maps of station locations. No plots of station data. None. All you are providing is meaningless rhetoric like "machine based adjustments". All the evidence I have seen in this thread says you are way off: your own Chescowx series, The Mt Holly climate sites. the obviously excessive number of 95+ days at Phoenixville, etc. You have Chester County warmer than the Philadelphia airport at times in the past. No wonder you can't find much warming. 

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, it was a very impressive heatwave for June. My take on what caused the unprecedented talk were some of the social media posts showing the ECMWF model output. It has been running too warm recently and had highs for the heatwave in excess of 105° which would have been unprecedented this early in June. I was posting on this in the local NYC Metro forum and was skeptical of the model output since none of the other models were close. This was almost like a warm season version of what happened when model snowfall output for our region was posted on social media several winters ago. The NWS had to come out and say these amounts were unlikely but the heavy snowfall images gained traction and the talk began on social media. So we have been seeing more and more examples of unlikely raw model output getting onto social media and then getting picked up by others as if it was an actual likely outcome. 
 

 

 

Yes, a hot week and the models were even hotter fueling the hype. Funny thing is, in our current climate it probably wasn't that hot. 

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Yes, a hot week and the models were even hotter fueling the hype. Funny thing is, in our current climate it probably wasn't that hot. 

We have been fortunate that in this part of the country the most extreme warm temperature anomalies in the last decade have occurred during the cold season. Having 9 warmer to record warm winters in a row here is unprecedented in the climatological record. Our first  +13 departure 50° December in 2015 was warmer than many Novembers. Plus our first winter 80° reading in February 2018 would have been the equivalent of around 112° had it occurred in a July. This isn’t to say that the summer warmth hasn’t been impressive since 15-16. This period has featured 7 out of 9 warmer summers with several ranking near the warmest on record. But the most extreme summer events have been the multiple 100 year to 1000 year rainfalls leading to serious flooding along with all -time rainfalls over shorter to longer intervals. 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, it was a very impressive heatwave for June. My take on what caused the unprecedented talk were some of the social media posts showing the ECMWF model output. It has been running too warm recently and had highs for the heatwave in excess of 105° which would have been unprecedented this early in June. I was posting on this in the local NYC Metro forum and was skeptical of the model output since none of the other models were close. This was almost like a warm season version of what happened when model snowfall output for our region was posted on social media several winters ago. The NWS had to come out and say these amounts were unlikely but the heavy snowfall images gained traction and the talk began on social media. So we have been seeing more and more examples of unlikely raw model output getting onto social media and then getting picked up by others as if it was an actual likely outcome. 
 

 

 

Yes. It seems that in the short range, the ECMWF can have some unrealistically high temperatures. The GFS sometimes has unrealistically high temperatures show up in the extended range.

[GaWx]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes. It seems that in the short range, the ECMWF can have some unrealistically high temperatures. The GFS sometimes has unrealistically high temperatures show up in the extended range.

 At least down here in the SE, I’ve seen on many occasions the GFS having unrealistically high temperatures in summer just a couple of days out. This has been occurring for a good number of years. There does seem to be a warm bias for summer highs on both models when skies are mainly sunny with the GFS seemingly being worse down here. I suspect it is related to daytime dewpoints being too cool thus lowering RHs too much and allowing for more rapid warming than reality. That being said, the heat indices may not be as far off.

[GaWx]

 This post is related to my prior post by showing a great example of afternoon summer hot/low dewpoint bias on the short term GFS here in the SE. The GFS from just 2 days earlier had these 2m temperature progs as of 18Z (2PM EDT) today:

 What verified? In SC, the 2PM temperatures are here:

https://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KCAE/2406241810.asus42.CAE.html

 So, the SC 2PM temperatures included: CAE 96 vs GFS’ 102 and FLO 94 vs GFS’ 102. All actuals of major stations were 91-97 vs GFS range of 95-102. The GFS averaged a ~5 too hot on a run from just 48 hours earlier.

 In GA, the 2PM temperatures are here:

https://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KFFC/2406241810.asus42.FFC.html

 So, the GA 2PM temperatures included ATL 93 vs GFS’ 97, AGS 95 vs GFS’ 99, and SSI 95 vs GFS’ 100. Hottest in GA at major stations was 97 vs GFS’ hottest of 101. So, the GFS averaged ~4-5 too hot from just 48 hours earlier.

 These summer 2PM misses of 4-5+ too high are common down here. 
 
 I said above that I thought it was related to too low dewpoints. The GFS from just 2 days earlier had these 2m dewpoint progs as of 18Z (2PM EDT) today:

The actual 2PM dewpoints were these: CAE 68 vs GFS’ 61, FLO 72 vs GFS’ 65, ATL 64 vs GFS’ 54, and AGS 71 vs GFS’ 60. So, dewpoints were 7-11 too low.

 This combo of too hot temperatures and too low dewpoints on sunny summer afternoons is very common on the GFS in the short term at the very least down in the SE US.

@donsutherland1@bluewave@chubbs@ChescoWx

[GaWx]

 Here is the 6Z HRRR temperature map for 19Z (3PM EDT) tomorrow showing many non-mountain/non-coastal locations of VA/NC/SC/GA 101-104:

 

Here is the 6Z HRRR dewpoint map for the same hour showing the same locations with 43-58 dewpoints:

 

 Comparing to NWS forecasts, these HRRR temperatures are several degrees hotter and dewpoints are significantly cooler. The HRRR dewpoints of 43-48 in the Charlotte, NC, to Macon/Columbus, GA, corridor look especially way too low.

 I’ll compare to reality tomorrow to see how well this HRRR run ends up verifying in these 4 states’ non-mountain/non-coastal locations with temperatures/dewpoints. I expect this run will verify with temperatures several degrees too hot most locations and dewpoints significantly too cool most locations.

[ChescoWx]

17 hours ago, chubbs said:

You haven't provided any evidence that you are comparing "apples" to "apples". No maps of station locations. No plots of station data. None. All you are providing is meaningless rhetoric like "machine based adjustments". All the evidence I have seen in this thread says you are way off: your own Chescowx series, The Mt Holly climate sites. the obviously excessive number of 95+ days at Phoenixville, etc. You have Chester County warmer than the Philadelphia airport at times in the past. No wonder you can't find much warming. 

Once again Charlie I will produce the source data. Below is detailed map coordinates and elevation of all NWS/ AWOS / MADIS stations included in the data set. All of the data produced is derived exclusively from this data set. There is clearly a station mix like the older County data favoring the relative lower elevation sites with 16 of the 27 (67%) below 450 ft in elevation with just 11 at above that level. In addition of the current 15 stations moving forward 8 of those 15 are below 450 ft asl. A great go forward mix of higher and lower stations.

[Cobalt]

20 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Well, it was hotter during June 1853 

He had to go out of the official NWS data range to find a hotter example? Impressive

[ChescoWx]

56 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

He had to go out of the official NWS data range to find a hotter example? Impressive

No matter what climate alarmists find and post there is just nothing we observe happening in today's current climate that has not occurred before....no matter how often they say unprecedented etc.

[ChescoWx]

I was quoted for an article written last week for the Chester County Local (see below). Fortunately my thoughts downplaying the model outputs were correct...as I suggested that the county would not see a 100 degree day. This despite the many models (hello Euro) and on line weather sources hyping the century mark as a possible outcome. As we always say we don't sweat or shovel model output!!

Now, If the model was right....I would clearly not have posted this link!! LOL!!

 

https://www.dailylocal.com/2024/06/17/scorching-temps-on-way-for-chester-county-but-no-100-degree-days-says-observer/

[bluewave]

Several 100° readings in PA and NJ with this current heat wave as Reading had its 2nd warmest June high temperature on record.
 

Monthly Data for June 2024 for Pennsylvania
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

SHIPPENSBURG	COOP	101
READING REGIONAL AIRPORT	WBAN	101
Reading Area	ThreadEx	101
BIGLERVILLE	COOP	100
CONNELLSVILLE 2 SSW	COOP	100
CARLISLE WATER PLANT	COOP	100
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT	WBAN	99
LANCASTER 2 NE FILT PLANT	COOP	99
MIDDLETOWN HARRISBURG INT'L AP	WBAN	99
HARRISBURG CAPITAL CITY AP	WBAN	99
Middletown-Harrisburg Area	ThreadEx	99
CASHTOWN 1S	COOP	99
PHILADELPHIA INTL AP	WBAN	98
YORK AIRPORT	WBAN	98
LANCASTER AIRPORT	WBAN	98
BLUE MARSH LAKE	COOP	98
ALLENTOWN LEHIGH VALLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT	WBAN	98
SCHENLEY LOCK 5	COOP	98
WILLIAMSPORT REGIONAL AP	WBAN	98
NEW HOLLAND 2 SE	COOP	98
HERITAGE FIELD AIRPORT	WBAN	98
SELINSGROVE 2 S	COOP	98
Allentown Area	ThreadEx	98
Williamsport Area	ThreadEx	98
Philadelphia Area	ThreadEx	98

 

Monthly Data for June 2024 for New Jersey
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Newark Area	ThreadEx	100
NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP	WBAN	100
HARRISON	COOP	100
SOUTH JERSEY REGIONAL AIRPORT	WBAN	100

 

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

1	1952	102	0
2	2024	101	6
-	1925	101	0
-	1923	101	0
3	2021	99	0
-	1943	99	0
-	1934	99	0

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, Cobalt said:

He had to go out of the official NWS data range to find a hotter example? Impressive

That figure came from a handwritten observation sheet. Interestingly enough, while the June 1851 data from that Washington, DC site at Foggy Bottom has been incorporated into the GHCN database, the 1853 one hasn't been entered. The Foggy Bottom site experiences less of a cooling effect from the Potomac River than does Reagan National Airport.

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Here is the 6Z HRRR temperature map for 19Z (3PM EDT) tomorrow showing many non-mountain/non-coastal locations of VA/NC/SC/GA 101-104:

 

Here is the 6Z HRRR dewpoint map for the same hour showing the same locations with 43-58 dewpoints:

 

 Comparing to NWS forecasts, these HRRR temperatures are several degrees hotter and dewpoints are significantly cooler. The HRRR dewpoints of 43-48 in the Charlotte, NC, to Macon/Columbus, GA, corridor look especially way too low.

 I’ll compare to reality tomorrow to see how well this HRRR run ends up verifying in these 4 states’ non-mountain/non-coastal locations with temperatures/dewpoints. I expect this run will verify with temperatures several degrees too hot most locations and dewpoints significantly too cool most locations.

Looks like the models did pretty well. Lots of triple digits. I saw a cousin was in Birmingham and posted a picture of his car thermometer reading 110!

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

Looks like the models did pretty well. Lots of triple digits. I saw a cousin was in Birmingham and posted a picture of his car thermometer reading 110!

And it looks like dewpoints did in fact drop into the 40s and 50s, at least in the places I looked at. Good work by the HRRR!

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

And it looks like dewpoints did in fact drop into the 40s and 50s, at least in the places I looked at. Good work by the HRRR!

 The HRRR maps being analyzed are for 3PM tomorrow (6/26), not today. I’ll compare them after then to see how they did. But indeed, low dewpoints and high heat were there today as you said. Will dewpoints be low enough and temps high enough tomorrow for the comparison? We’ll see!

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Saw this tweet on the paper

[chubbs]

23 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Once again Charlie I will produce the source data. Below is detailed map coordinates and elevation of all NWS/ AWOS / MADIS stations included in the data set. All of the data produced is derived exclusively from this data set. There is clearly a station mix like the older County data favoring the relative lower elevation sites with 16 of the 27 (67%) below 450 ft in elevation with just 11 at above that level. In addition of the current 15 stations moving forward 8 of those 15 are below 450 ft asl. A great go forward mix of higher and lower stations.

Instead of "apples to apples" I see a lot of station changes that you aren't analyzing properly. The chart I posted previously illustrates the point. There are other differences between these stations besides elevation. For one thing the older data is from Coop stations, while the modern data is predominantly non-Coop. As an example Glenmoore Coop and your house are very similar in location and elevation, but differ by almost 2F on average. Simply taking an average of a group of stations skews the results if the stations operated over different periods. Per chart below all the "elevated" stations are warming but the average is flat.

[Bhs1975]

[Bhs1975]

.

[ChescoWx]

29 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

 

 

 

.

Because we are all still waiting for the first actual weather event attributed to climate change that has not occurred before.... or even if you could point to more frequency of scary climate events that never occurred before. Boy that cried wolf syndrome in full force here!