Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No one is really engaging in that thread, however, and so not liking that ... "the person" has wondered back here to resume. 

LOL

that thread is only for Chester County specific....for US or worldwide climate debate I am still here!!

[ChescoWx]

The below for the entire US sure looks a lot like Chester County PA - chill the past and warm the recent......

[Cobalt]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

The below for the entire US sure looks a lot like Chester County PA - chill the past and warm the recent......

What's the source for this?

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

that thread is only for Chester County specific....for US or worldwide climate debate I am still here!!

The impetus here is that you are an outlier mentality, one that most either have, or are, tiring to engage with, because frankly ... you do not seem to resonate with logic nor sound reason.  Your point and approach perspectives to data handling and sources, and how it fits the the broader reality, are less than adequate.  Look up cherry picking...  you come across as a cherry picker, looking to support a narrative more so than researching truth.   However, because it's isolating, and doesn't fit objective reality, you're losing/lost your audience.

With all do politeness.  

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The impetus here is that you are an outlier mentality, one that most either have, or are, tiring to engage with, because frankly ... you do not seem to resonate with logic nor sound reason.  Your point and approach perspectives to data handling and sources, and how it fits the the broader reality, are less than adequate.  Look up cherry picking...  you come across as a cherry picker, looking to support a narrative more so than researching truth.   However, because it's isolating, and doesn't fit objective reality, you're losing/lost your audience.

With all do politeness.  

Thanks Tip! Always enjoy your thoughts!

Regarding the "cherry picker" comment - the reality is I use and show all of the available the actual raw NWS cooperative, automated and MADIS stations available for the County.     I will usually ad in the NCEI adjusted data so we can see the difference in trend lines comparing the actual and the altered data for analysis. I of course cannot change the actual raw data.....those required NCEI adjustments will as they are today be handled later. As long as I continue to include the raw data without any omissions it will continue to be the furthest thing from "cherry picking" of data.

With all do politeness.

[TheClimateChanger]

For lack of a better place to put this, holy cow. h/t @donsutherland1

 

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

For lack of a better place to put this, holy cow. h/t @donsutherland1

 

https://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/services/blog/2023/11/15/index.html#:~:text=The Northeast is getting wetter.&text=The Northeast has seen a,is also expected to continue.

Northeast is getting wetter.

Precipitation has increased annually and in all seasons (see figure above). The Northeast is expected to see more precipitation under all global warming scenarios.

The Northeast has seen a roughly 60% increase in the number of days with extreme precipitation, the largest increase of all the U.S. regions. The intensity of these events has also increased. This trend, along with an increased risk of flooding, is also expected to continue.

Extreme precipitation events have increased in frequency and intensity in the Northeast. Click to enlarge.

 

 

[forkyfork]

On 4/22/2024 at 10:49 AM, ChescoWx said:

Arctic sea ice extent is today higher (14.062 million km²) than it was 35-years ago back in 1989 (13.997 million km²), it is now the highest it has been in 11-years. SIE is now greater than 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the year experts predicted it would be “ice-free” by the summer of 2013. SIE should soon surpass 2002, 2008 and 2013 and is trailing behind 1995 and 1996, and has a chance at surpassing that as well.

bump. we're lower than 2012 on this date

[chubbs]

On 7/30/2024 at 11:15 AM, TheClimateChanger said:

For lack of a better place to put this, holy cow. h/t @donsutherland1

 

2024 running #1 warmest in Saint Johnsbury. Not unusual for interior northeast this year.

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-day-tomorrow-climate.html

[TheClimateChanger]

Looks like some very hot weather in New Orleans in the wake of Tropical Storm Debby. Current forecast would suggest 3 straight days of around 100F heat.

I would suggest the all-time record could be at jeopardy, but that appears unlike due to last summer reaching 105F. Still only 14 years since 1946 have reached 100 or better at New Orleans.

And this is quite shocking. I didn't see much in the news about this. But last summer looks like it was totally insane there. From 1946 to 2022, there were a total of 20 days at or above 100F. Last summer alone had 17!

 

[Bhs1975]

Looks like some very hot weather in New Orleans in the wake of Tropical Storm Debby. Current forecast would suggest 3 straight days of around 100F heat.
I would suggest the all-time record could be at jeopardy, but that appears unlike due to last summer reaching 105F. Still only 14 years since 1946 have reached 100 or better at New Orleans.

And this is quite shocking. I didn't see much in the news about this. But last summer looks like it was totally insane there. From 1946 to 2022, there were a total of 20 days at or above 100F. Last summer alone had 17!

 

.

[chubbs]

Amplified warming of North American cold extremes linked to human-induced changes in temperature variability

"Here we show that cold extremes over North America have warmed substantially faster than the winter mean temperature since 1980. This amplified warming is linked to both decreasing variance and changes in higher moments of the temperature distributions. Climate model simulations with historical forcings robustly capture the observed trends in extremes and variability "

"It is important to note that despite our results, winter cold extremes over North America will continue to occur. Winter tem-
peratures over North America in the current climate have the highest variance57 and are some of the most strongly negatively skewed9,21 on Earth. This means that extreme deviations below the mean are expected to continue to occur in the future, even with rising global temperatures. However, because of the increasing mean temperatures, combined with the changes in temperature variability, cold extremes over North America will occur less frequently, and when they do occur, they will be less intense"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49734-8.pdf

[Typhoon Tip]

I dunno if this going to hold up to any kind of attribution review ... but, it sure smells like it.

Apparently a glacial ice failure sent the contents of a held back lake bursting.

I'm also not up to speed on Juneau's recent travails.  Apparently they've endured flooding recently, already.  Unsure if it is related.   

So there's much here I don't know about Juneau .. However, anytime I read or hear about glacial lake releasing, that's usually related to CC in geologic history - regardless of scale.

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I dunno if this going to hold up to any kind of attribution review ... but, it sure smells like it.

Apparently a glacial ice failure sent the contents of a held back lake bursting.

I'm also not up to speed on Juneau's recent travails.  Apparently they've endured flooding recently, already.  Unsure if it is related.   

So there's much here I don't know about Juneau .. However, anytime I read or hear about glacial lake releasing, that's usually related to CC in geologic history - regardless of scale.

Thank you for the update. I saw mention of the flash flood warning for that on my X (formerly Twitter) feed this morning, but wasn't sure if it was unusual or something that happens frequently there. Has this ever occurred before?

[TheClimateChanger]

On 7/29/2024 at 2:07 PM, Cobalt said:

What's the source for this?

I don't think he shares his sources... probably something Heller cooked up. Anyways, it piqued my curiosity enough to look into. 

I came across this "petrophysicist" who I would characterize as somewhat of a more cerebral skeptic than Heller. His conclusions are clearly wrong, but at least he provides context to determine what is being shown in this graphic. @chubbscan correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.

Recent USHCN Final v Raw Temperature differences – Andy May Petrophysicist

This image appears similar to the one presented above:

According to Mays, this shows the difference between the mean of the raw data and the mean of the final data by year. The orange trace shows the number of stations over time with raw data. Many stations with missing data are estimated using pair-wise homogenization.

If you look only at stations with raw data, the graphic is much different. There is substantially less difference in recent years from ~0 to ~0.2C [ending in 2020]. This purports to show the difference between the final average of all data [including estimated data] and the average of the station data for which actual raw data is available. I think you can see the problem with this - if the stations where the estimated data is from locations where the mean temperature is generally warmer than the US average, then it's going to look like there's some big discrepancy. And that appears to be what's going on.

May appears to anticipate this argument, implicitly, by claiming the stations dropped off are widely scattered. Although he does acknowledge Oklahoma appears to have a disproportionate number.

Quote

Figure 4 makes it clear that the dropped stations (boxed in red) are widely scattered. The areal coverage over the lower 48 states is similar in 2010 and 2019, except perhaps in Oklahoma, not sure what happened there. But, in the final dataset, values were estimated for all the terminated weather stations and those estimated values apparently caused the jump shown in Figure 3.

Looking at this, yes, Oklahoma and the Delmarva region appear to have the most station dropoff [assuming this is accurate]. Oklahoma has a yearly mean of nearly 60F. The Delmarva is like 54-55F. The national average is 52F. In order to accurately gauge the impact of infilling, you would need to compare it to the trend generated only from the stations with raw data for the entire period. Mays never does this step. Instead, he just concludes without evidence that is causing a massive warming trend.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

I don't think he shares his sources... probably something Heller cooked up. Anyways, it piqued my curiosity enough to look into. 

I came across this "petrophysicist" who I would characterize as somewhat of a more cerebral skeptic than Heller. His conclusions are clearly wrong, but at least he provides context to determine what is being shown in this graphic. @chubbscan correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.

Recent USHCN Final v Raw Temperature differences – Andy May Petrophysicist

This image appears similar to the one presented above:

According to Mays, this shows the difference between the mean of the raw data and the mean of the final data by year. The orange trace shows the number of stations over time with raw data. Many stations with missing data are estimated using pair-wise homogenization.

If you look only at stations with raw data, the graphic is much different. There is substantially less difference in recent years from ~0 to ~0.2C [ending in 2020]. This purports to show the difference between the final average of all data [including estimated data] and the average of the station data for which actual raw data is available. I think you can see the problem with this - if the stations where the estimated data is from locations where the mean temperature is generally warmer than the US average, then it's going to look like there's some big discrepancy. And that appears to be what's going on.

May appears to anticipate this argument, implicitly, by claiming the stations dropped off are widely scattered. Although he does acknowledge Oklahoma appears to have a disproportionate number.

 

 

Looking at this, yes, Oklahoma and the Delmarva region appear to have the most station dropoff [assuming this is accurate]. Oklahoma has a yearly mean of nearly 60F. The Delmarva is like 54-55F. The national average is 52F. In order to accurately gauge the impact of infilling, you would need to compare it to the trend generated only from the stations with raw data for the entire period.

 

Anyways, anyone with half a brain knows recent years have been warm. Why would they be manipulating the data by adding to it? 

Moreover, NCEI and NOAA generate their anomalies from the nClimDiv dataset with way more stations, not USHCN. There is also a parallel network known as the Climate Reference Network (CRN) which has been operational since 2005. CRN sites are carefully monitored, mostly rural locations, with highly accurate equipment and quality control. The skeptics were the ones who lauded this effort.

The recent trends from nClimDiv, USHCN and the raw and undadjusted U.S. CRN data are nearly identical. In fact, CRN has a slightly greater positive trend in the period 2005-2024.

We can see this from May, himself, who created this graphic in 2020. Since that time, USCRN has continued to warm slightly faster than nClimDiv and USHCN. So obviously the homogenization and infilling are not creating spurious warming. If anything, those datasets have a slight cooling bias still.

Comparing USCRN and nClimDiv to USCHN – Andy May Petrophysicist

 

[TheClimateChanger]

I feel like when these people make these ludicrous claims [i.e., they are manipulating recent temperatures upward], they forget the US has had an independent, parallel network of high quality stations for two decades now.

[bdgwx]

54 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I feel like when these people make these ludicrous claims [i.e., they are manipulating recent temperatures upward], they forget the US has had an independent, parallel network of high quality stations for two decades now.

Which technically shows MORE warming than the traditional datasets during their overlap period.

And furthermore the net effect of all adjustments globally actually results in LESS warming relative to the raw data.

This is why I've asked @ChescoWx in the past if he really wants to hang his hat on the adjustment-bad argument and accept all of the consequences that go along with it.

[ChescoWx]

3 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Which technically shows MORE warming than the traditional datasets during their overlap period.

And furthermore the net effect of all adjustments globally actually results in LESS warming relative to the raw data.

This is why I've asked @ChescoWx in the past if he really wants to hang his hat on the adjustment-bad argument and accept all of the consequences that go along with it.

There are no consequences to pure raw unaltered data sets....only when we introduce historical rewrites and current tweaks to we cloud the climate waters.

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Comparing USCRN and nClimDiv to USCHN – Andy May Petrophysicist

BTW...I had an absurd debate with Andy May over WUWT recently because he thinks global averages (whether sea level or temperature) are meaningless. Even when I pushed to get him to pull back from the claim he held firm. So his publishing of articles predicting that global warming had stopped is doubly ironic. 

[bdgwx]

4 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

There are no consequences to pure raw unaltered data sets....only when we introduce historical rewrites and current tweaks to we cloud the climate waters.

Let's test your resolve then. Post on your twitter account that the warming is worse than scientists say because those scientists rewrote history to obscure the true nature and higher rate of the warming.

[ChescoWx]

5 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Let's test your resolve then. Post on your twitter account that the warming is worse than scientists say because those scientists rewrote history to obscure the true nature and higher rate of the warming.

I have not seen any indication of that for Chester County PA....so I can't post it

[bdgwx]

17 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

I have not seen any indication of that for Chester County PA....so I can't post it

No worries. I was not suggesting that you should make that statement in regard to the Chester County average. I was suggesting you do it for the global average.

[ChescoWx]

22 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

No worries. I was not suggesting that you should make that statement in regard to the Chester County average. I was suggesting you do it for the global average.

Like we somehow know what a global average actually ever is....and how to historically compare it to previous warm and cold periods in our climate history....from thousands of years ago - c'mon man!

[ChescoWx]

Just a reminder for @bdgwxof how the NOAA altered data has resulted in the fake (but still not scary) cyclical warming trend in the Philly burbs of Chester County PA. There are clearly no consequences to the pure NWS raw COOP data for Chester County PA....we have had clearly no important warming at all in Chester County. Now with those little post hoc chilling of the old and warming of the new.....NOAA has now chosen to warm each and every year for the last 25 years!! That red line sure looks a wee bit different!! Per your suggestion @bdgwxI also posted it on my twitter feed.

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

BTW...I had an absurd debate with Andy May over WUWT recently because he thinks global averages (whether sea level or temperature) are meaningless. Even when I pushed to get him to pull back from the claim he held firm. So his publishing of articles predicting that global warming had stopped is doubly ironic. 

Such commentary only shows that May does not understand the concept of a mean or average, even as it’s one of the most basic elements of statistics.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Just a reminder for @bdgwxof how the NOAA altered data has resulted in the fake (but still not scary) cyclical warming trend in the Philly burbs of Chester County PA. There are clearly no consequences to the pure NWS raw COOP data for Chester County PA....we have had clearly no important warming at all in Chester County. Now with those little post hoc chilling of the old and warming of the new.....NOAA has now chosen to warm each and every year for the last 25 years!! That red line sure looks a wee bit different!! Per your suggestion @bdgwxI also posted it on my twitter feed.

 

You are the guy who is altering our local climate. Phoenixville, the city of Coatesville, and the town of West Chester are a poor representation of Chester County. Much warmer than the county as a whole. No wonder you are so far off before the Coatesville and West Chester station moves.

[ChescoWx]

6 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You are the guy who is altering our local climate. Phoenixville, the city of Coatesville, and the town of West Chester are a poor representation of Chester County. Much warmer than the county as a whole. No wonder you are so far off before the Coatesville and West Chester station moves.

We can only use the data we have Charlie.....the real data does not lie I am not off on anything as I only can report the actual factual data and not some after the fact.....alternate facts you like to show!

[Brewbeer]

junk data = junk conclusions