All Activity

If people are not aware I wanted to let them know about the PEMN Network Penn state's putting a lot of places that are rural. We're talking about many thousands of dollar professional stations that put out excellent one minute data that can be seen in real time. If you go to the Pennsylvania climate website and look for PEMN viewer Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

I read it. It just seems like a weird way to word it. "as things stand right now worst case...". Thats like saying day 14 on the GFS looks stormy so as things stand right now, best case we get showers, worst case it floods. And then when day 14 becomes day 0 and its dry, cant say you misspoke, but it wasnt anything close the expected scenarios 2 weeks earlier.

Very weak signals outside of Maine and the cape.

The desert SW is obviously the fastest warming region and we see it year in and year out. Its going to continue to warm the conus mean no matter what happens elsewhere. A cold winter in the east (in fact, DCs coldest winter in 30 years) and all we hear on an east-heavy forum is "conus conus conus". Well, the conus mean temp rising really doesnt mean a damn to people who live in the north and get frozen or buried in the winter. Many northern cities temp rise from 1896-2026 is 0F to +3F, yet the desert SW, Tuscon is +4.9F and Phoenix is +6.5F. What a marvelous idea to urbanize a desert.

Maybe I'm being dense and he was being sarcastic... but I'd think you'd want to see a longer period of record to compare to. But if 1950 onward are random dates and then change it to a not random 1995-2025, maybe I'm just missing something. I always thought we liked long period of records on here.

Did you miss or simply ignore the .."as things stand right now"....part of my post?, Keep in mind the weather records that are available are a mere blip on the radar screen..there is no way of knowing how many super Ninos have actually occurred because weather records arent available beyond a certain point.

LOL @ Jeff,you know i was thinking the same thing a couple days ago,that damn MS River,but its the SER like you said,convection into our parts stops west of the River,im still kinda surprised a good chunk of ARK is worse off than we are in TN with the drought Nothing eye popping the next week,some parts should flirt with record temps upcoming the next few days. But there is light at the end of the tunnel,a pattern change is upcoming seemingly ATM The MJO should strenghten into the WH as it looks like Rossby/Kelvin waves interact with each other to strenghten the MJO signal sorta speaking as it heads into Africa

I don't think there is anything wrong with using a shorter period or using a longer period, but like I stated the user and readers just need to be aware and any conclusions being drawn need to factor this in. Quite a bit of information can be gained using both. Comparing to a shorter period and a longer period, you are more likely to see areas of higher anomalous values and when compared to the longer mean, you can get a sense of where "change" may be occurring more rapidly.

It wouldn't

https://abc11.com/post/drought-places-strain-central-north-carolina-farmers-rural-communities/18862407/ This video was taken from the farm adjoining ours in Franklin county and that is our farmer in the video.

So show us the exactly which "other stations" you are referencing that were used for the calculation? You say Coatesville 1SW results/raw vs the NCEI adjusted figures above for Coatesville 1SW don't provide evidence about the adjustments. Agreed that is what I am looking for evidence and the underlying calculation based on the "other stations" you reference so we can tie down those annual adjustments from the raw to the adjusted/altered figures. Those adjustments above are unique to the Coatesville 1SW station so show us the reference stations used to make the call to adjust lower than Morgantown and in many cases lower than any reporting station at all in Chester County. You never show any of that data...you simply keep saying just believe that NCEI "could be right"

Why would that be better than going from 1950 onward like Tip’s original post?

Point click has 92-93 here midweek

Growing up in NNJ I saw exactly one tick, probably in 1971, definitely a dog tick. Began seeing dog ticks in Maine mid-1990s; one western Maine excursion (Lovell, Denmark) in June 1996 I picked 24 off my clothes/skin and brushed a dozen-plus from the pants - 100% dog ticks. Deer ticks began appearing about 10 years later, and my personal "best" is 26 on a state lot near Merrymeeting Bay in Topsham, late October 2019, 100% deer ticks. I was flipping ticks out the window onto I-295 going back to AUG, found the final 3 (tiny nymphs) at home that evening. Haven't seen any yet this year but will likely bag a couple the next time I walk thru our woodlot. I pick them up mostly May-June and Oct-Nov. For reasons unknown to me, the horrible little beasts seem to disappear in late summer here. In mid-August of 2019, our annual two-day peer-review field trip had 40+ attendees visiting Newcastle, Swan Island (huge deer herd there), Hebron and Skowhegan. Not a single tick was reported.

I don't think he was using anything incorrectly but you do do bring up a good point about data use. (The rest of this statement is speaking in generalized terms, not directed towards anyone here). Data use can be extremely fickle and sensitive, particularly when using reanalysis data. It's always important that 1) The user has a strong understanding of the strengths/weaknesses of the dataset and 2) If the user is presenting writing a paper, the user clearly state these strengths/weaknesses. There was a paper I was reading late last fall which was looking at the different versions of the ERSST dataset and I think comparing v6 versus v5 and a few previous versions and certain areas of the globe where there were noticeable discrepancies. And these discrepancies also had an impact on OLR anomalies and so forth. So its always important to understand strengths, weaknesses, limitations, etc. when dealing with datasets. I've really learned this the hard way doing so much with datasets and reanalysis from years as far back as 1900

2007-2016?

I did not use it incorrectly. Those are the straight up global anomalies, using an expanded data set because in scientific principle, denser sample sizes are better - when also stretched out over the longer term, exposes trends that have more confidence. UNLIKE what you are providing in your poorly thought out rebuke, using scanter sizes.

They have v6 and v7 options

Notice when you combine land and sea anomalies and use a 1995 to 2025 climo base Tips anomaly for March drops from .9 to .04. Data use is important but data can be sometimes not used correctly

I remember reading your post with your thoughts on the March map. I would have shared your thoughts...but pretty interesting to see. whoops, I read past it I saw it just after Steve posted the link

Lmao. That is ridiculous to say in April that the best case for the following winter is strong. That makes it sound like a foregone conclusion, and its not even close. Its going to be hilarious to see this thread if it doesnt even hit strong. The biggest surprise imo will be if it actually IS a "SSSSUUUUPPPPEEEERRRR" super nino, you just dont get supers that close. Itll be even funnier if the eastern troughing pattern continues or at the very least a 3rd year in a row where the winter turns out much colder in the east than the wishing of some here.

Dude, I put that same link in my post! people just glance over these posts... miss stuff. But definitely knee jerk react. I tell ya, social media engagement is a privilege that about 96% of the population may not be very well suited for

I haven't looked into it. I don't really do a lot reanalysis -related look ups. I've been posting the GIS sfc temperature anomaly product from NASA on or around the 10th for the past several months, just for the muse of the fact that we enjoyed what most perceive ...even if not objectively so, a cold snowy winter, yet that was the exception to the vaster rule. It's been an interesting observational journey.

No I can follow your argument. You are making an argument of incredularity, a common logical fallacy. You can't believe that NCEI could be right. The problem is you don't understand how adjustments are estimated. There is an easy explanation for your list of #. The 1946 and 48 moves are not the only station change at Coatesville. Other station changes occurred before 1948. Adjustments start at the present and work backwards. The most recent Coatesville 1SW data is from 1982. You have to start in 1982 and work back in time. To evaluate the adjustments you have to compare Coatesville to raw data from other stations. Station changes are identified when Coatesville doesn't match other regional stations. Coatesville results by themselves, as you have listed, don't provide any evidence about station adjustments.