All Activity

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.

Thanks!! I feel like I had this site bookmarked at one point but probably lost it when something happened with my bookmarks. Curious if they will roll over to ERSSTv6 at some point

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Does anyone speak cat to let mine know that she can’t go out today because I put down weed prevention? She’s taught me how to say, “I want to go outside!,” but I’m having trouble responding.

Wow, I totally missed that. I'll have to read some more into it. I wonder if this CORe is just a more improved dataset?

I think @40/70 Benchmark was being sarcastic lol. Anythings possible but highly doubt the accuracy of that Newark snowfall in the low 40s over a 30-year period. That is a Detroit average. Detroits average snowfall has remained remarkably steady since records began in the 1870s in the low 40s with spikes to mid 40s (late 1800s, 1970s-80s, 2000s-10s) and a surprising 3-4 decade dip to the 30s mid-20th century (1930s-60s). Newark doesnt have the POR NYC has. But we're supposed to believe that the average snowfall suddenly dropped by 10" as soon as official records began and has never returned? Call me skeptical. Especially since theres plenty of documentation (tho not detailed records) of winters the first half of the 1800s showing that interspersed with harsh winters were "mild, open" winters. NYC avg snow 1840s-60s: 42” 1870s- 32.9” 1880s- 32.6” 1890s- 36.3” 1900s- 28.4” 1910s- 30.2” 1920s- 29.5” 1930s- 24.5” 1940s- 32.9” 1950s- 19.9” 1960s- 32.0” 1970s- 22.5” 1980s- 19.7” 1990s- 24.4” 2000s- 28.0” 2010s- 37.9” 2020s- 18.2” so far

Interesting breakdown of the early 2026 anomalies, especially the regional contrasts across North America and Europe. It highlights how short-term cooling pockets can still exist within an overall warm global trend. It will be important to see how ENSO conditions and ocean heat content influence the rest of the year’s temperature progression.

what site can you pull that from? Are you able to choose our own climatology periods or does it provide a list? I've used this https://psl.noaa.gov/data/atmoswrit/map/ You can create your own climatology period by subtracting from dataset two and using the years to subtract. I really like this because say I wanted to look at 1974...it's nice to see how 1974 compared to the 1941-1970 climo instead of just to the current climo (and even better because you can do both and see where the greatest changes have occurred)

What is likely going to be a much warmer than normal April is underway. Can see monthly departures of +3.5 to +4.0 by the time April finishes. Sure hope we can get some rain mid to late month because stream and river flow at least over NW NJ from what I have seen is very low. Not much rainfall in sight next 7-10 days. With the warming and dry conditions coming up fire danger is going to elevate quickly. The short term dryness has eased over the last 6 weeks but long term dryness remains. Early call from me is a warmer summer (JJA) with departures of 1.5 to 2.5 degrees for the season and normal to below normal rainfall overall. Of course local T-Storm activity can push some places to above normal. Overall though I am fully expecting a warmer and drier than normal summer season for most.

Yeah, that was announced awhile ago, but it looks like a new solution is being offered. Unsure if that is the entire motive/reason for making the move, but they announced this a month or so ago "...Central Operations has announced that the Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS) will be discontinued in favor of the Conventional Observation Reanalysis (CORe) ..."

Thanks. So we can realistically say super nino winters were: 1877-78, 1888-89, 1957-58, 1965-66, 1972-73, 1982-83, 1991-92, 1997-98, 2015-16. None of these were fun winters, but some were certainly worse than others. Also, no surprise, each winter behaved differently with not just snowfall but more importantly temps. The worst snowfall of the lot (5th worst all-time) was 1965-66, but it was also the 3rd coldest of the lot, and the next worst snowfall (1957-58) was 2nd coldest. Period of record avg snowfall for Detroit is 40.9". The best winters of the lot were 1972-73, 1877-78, 2015-16 and the worst 1965-66, 1957-58, 1982-83. Of course, this is all just for kicks. I do not think we hit super nino. 1877-78: 43.4” 1888-89: 23.2” 1957-58: 18.0” 1965-66: 15.4” 1972-73: 45.0” 1982-83: 20.0” 1991-92: 43.2” 1997-98: 23.4” 2015-16: 35.3” 2023-24: 23.5”