All Activity

1.3" on the day. Hoping for a repeat tomorrow.

so the strongest nino in almost 300 years. damb

That is a great answer Mike! that transformer efficiency improving over time means declining waste heat, which puts spurious cooling into the raw record, which needs the later data warmed. That's the sign NCEI applied. It's a coherent mechanism and it's the first one offered in this thread that resolves the direction problem. Thank you for it. However....I think it may cost you a bit more than you think this buys you! A few posts ago your position was "100% documented evidence of microsite impacts" and "Coatesville's breakpoints are fully documented at this point." Now the site is "literally a thermal zoo" and the complexity "obviates all the musings about what caused a precise shift at time X and magnitude Y." Those are different arguments. The first says the causes are documented and therefore the corrections are validated. The second says the causes can't be pinned down and therefore we have to trust the detector. I don't think both can be true of the same station, and the second is a much weaker claim than the one you started with. It also runs into my actual objection rather than around it. If the microsite is too complex to attribute a given shift to a given cause, then it is also too complex to verify that the correction applied was the right size. You're offering unverifiability as a reason for confidence. Unverifiability is the thing I've been objecting to. And your mechanism argues against the correction's shape. Transformer technology improving across decades is gradual. A cooling pool installed at one point and removed after 2005 is two events. Steadily declining waste heat produces a ramp, not a staircase. The PHA fits steps. By your own account the physical signal is the wrong shape for the correction being applied to it - and that's your description of the site, not mine. There's a specific case I'd like your read on. The 1946-01 changepoint is +0.79 C, warming everything from 1946 forward. That's the move TO Newlinville. If the station relocated onto a substation with massive transformers and high loads, the raw record should have jumped warm at that moment and needed a cooling correction. NCEI warmed it instead. That only works if Newlinville was cooler than the water plant site it came from - which is your earlier "hot location to progressively cooler ones" account, and I don't see how it sits alongside "massive heat sources" at the same site in the same year. Last thing, If Coatesville 1SW spent 36 years in a thermal zoo with industrial heat sources that moved, changed technology, and gained and lost a cooling pool, there's a conclusion available that neither of us has put on the table: that this record can't be salvaged for trend estimation and shouldn't be used for it. "Automated detection is the only way to salvage this data" assumes it can be salvaged. What's the basis for that, given everything you've just described? And is it a kind of a funny coincidence that the station carrying the county's largest adjustments is the one you're describing this way? Paul

all you need is one good storm track with just enough cold air <3

+4 lol

If anyone’s followed models or honestly just looked at the system and avoided social media it’s been very apparent for days this will be an upper-tier TS or bottom line cat 1 hurricane when it makes its closest approach. Based on what I’ve seen it likely skirts just south of the big island. Nothing shocking or surprising has happened this system has largely followed the forecast, though I agree at present it would seem to be unlikely this reaches hurricane intensity before its closest approach

looks like the largest rainy day/night for E Colorado in a long while

Yeah, that's a totally valid point. Any records from that long ago are questionable at best. I know there are reanalysis methods but still. Wish there was a better normalized way to look at it. Not as tied to temperature anomalies. Especially if rising global temperatures are a concern. I get that RONI is attempting to do that, but not sure how I feel about that yet either. What I do know is that out of the entire JMA archive of VP 200 anomalies. This event (the current 30 day mean obs posted below) is already now more impressive looking than anything in their entire record. Which goes back to the 40's. That includes 15-16, 97-98, 82-83, 72-73 or anything else. Actually everything else in that data. At least as it stands right now and during this part of the year. That, to me, is making this event stand out much more than any temp anomalies ever could. It's fascinating to watch something extreme like this unfold. As an aside, I do not have high hopes for winter here locally. Very strong enso either + or - generally sucks historically here where I am. I will firmly believe that until proven otherwise because I've already lived through it. Extreme events are always interesting though, and this el nino is definitely that.

It's why the notion from some people that this is the Nino of the Millenium (250-1000 years in some Xwitter post) is just crazy, and yet again, it's great for clicks.

98.5 heat index of 109. This is as bad as it gets. 13 days without rain its getting crispy again

Yep. Easy to make a claim when there's no way to know its accuracy. But it's great for clicks!

Today's Highs: TEB: 91 PHL: 90 EWR: 87 New Brnswck: 87 ACY: 86 LGA: 86 ISP: 85 TTN: 85 BLM: 84 NYC: 84 JFK: 83

More for HVN area!

Yea it is dragging on unfortunately pretty much a zonal flow of 86-90 heat foreseeable future. Guess we are lucky we are not getting slammed with all the severe weather and flooding at least.

Yeah it's frustrating working over there in the current monsoon but living over here with no legit rainfall since late May.... I did get a dented up Jeep and cracked windshield - but so did almost everybody in our parking lot east of Pantops...

NHC gives Lala 55 kt at 00z. Yes, the pressure is down 2 to 995 mb, but peak 700 mb FL winds are only 53 kt w/ max SFMR surface winds of 48 kt. Standard reduction for 700 winds to the surface and the SFMR winds are matched well here, so 50 kt seems more appropriate. The 2330z Dvorak analysis gives T3.0 which equals 45 kt. So the satellite signature is not 55 kt, which would be a T3.5. Satellite signature does still matter even when recon is present b/c recon can only sample a small part of the storm. Satellite gives a complete view. Also, the above was a manually-done Dvorak fix. The Automated Dvorak Technique (ADT) gives a T2.6, so that is even weaker. All these things go into what to assign a TC for intensity. Looking at the EIR loop, there is no real change in organization, and the deep convection is pulsing and not banded well. Loop attached, We all see the same data, so not arm-chairing here, just giving an objective meteorological analysis, and talking about the different tools and products one can use to make their own assessment, which is a good thing to do!

I had a brief shower and a sprinkle earlier this evening. We'll see what that sagging boundary brings tomorrow.

Yes, good correction. That was my intention.

4th evening in a row with storms. 6 out last 7 days. This time no warning but just a Special Weather Statement and tons of lighting and heavy rain. I echo John the lighting in these storms have been incredible.

Hit 98 once again. I believe that is 3 times we hit 98 this year. Can't seem to get above 98 thankfully.

Shocking this line blew up just south https://radar.weather.gov/station/KBOX/standard

When measuring enso strength you’re talking tenths of a degree making a difference as far as records. No one can convince me that we know the strength of an El Niño from the 1700s. Even 1877-1878 is questionable down to tenths of a degree IMO.