bdgwx

It's a pretty big deal if true. Hansen name dropped Mann as an example of a scientists who are dismissive of this hypothesis in his latest monthly email. So there is some friendly debate in the climate science community right now. I think Schmidt said we'll know within a year if we've been underestimating the warming all along.

Yeah. If you look at enthalpy metrics like equivalent potential temperature (theta-e) you'll see that heat (including latent) actually increased in the corn belt.

@Chicago Storm Yep. If I had to make a decision right now. It would be the IN/IL border near Vincennes. For me it is the best balance of low driving time and low odds of thicker cirrostratus.

It's just one model, but the 12Z HRRR is iffy everywhere except Maine. Based on the Incoming Direct Radiation cirrus are going to be thick enough to block some of the Sun through most of the path. Notice the reduction in direct insolation through southern MO and IL. Outside Maine it looks like Bloomington, IN and Cleveland, OH are the most favored areas, but it is a thread the needle situation. For reference Bloomington and Cleveland should be receiving about 800 W/m2 and 850 W/m2 respectively under clear skies at 18Z. See my post above with the Incoming Solar Radiation at 18Z for the baseline radiation. And note that Direct = Solar - Diffuse. Diffuse is the amount scattered by the atmosphere and clouds. Direct is the amount that makes it through unscattered.

The penumbra begins sweeping over the CONUS with umbra off the Mexican coast at 18Z. The umbra is over the central CONUS (near Cape Girardeau MO) at 19Z. The penumbra is exiting the CONUS at 20Z.

0Z HRRR is forecasting the largest weather effects to be in Arkansas, Missouri, and Illinois. The temperature drop in this region is 7 F and wind speeds get cut almost in half with directions changing from SSE to more S. It's short lived though. By 20Z everything reverts back to the state it was in at 18Z. 19Z is the eclipse peak.

The 2nd order polynomial regression on the UAH data shows an acceleration of the warming trend of +0.05 C.decade-2.

That video is grossly incorrect. No need for me to rehash the problems since @donsutherland1 already did. I do want to provide some commentary on the UHI though since it is one of the most grossly misrepresented concepts in the contrarian blogosphere. UHI Effect - This is the real phenomenon where urban areas are systematically warmer than rural areas. This is due to both land use changes that decrease albedo and to a lesser extent waste heat. The effect is always positive. Because it is real it should be included in global average temperature datasets. It often isn't included because removing it is an easy way to mitigate the UHI Bias (different concept described below) and because its not that significant anyway so its removal does not substantially bias the global average temperature trend. The effect was recently quantified by Dr. Spencer (a climate change "skeptic") as adding only about 0.03 C to the global average temperature. UHI Bias - This is a non-real phenomenon where urban/rural stations are used as proxies for the rural/urban areas. This is due to the methodological choices made in regards to gridding, infilling, and spatially averaging the data. For example, if you have a grid cell that is 50/50 urban/rural, but your station mix is 90/10 urban/rural then you are biasing that grid cell. What contrarians get totally wrong is that they assume the bias is always positive like the effect. This isn't true at all though. Consider that same 50/50 urban/rural grid cell where the station mix starts out 90/10 urban/rural but then overtime the station mix goes to 50/50. If that transition from 90/10 to 50/50 occurs after urbanization has peaked (like is often the case post WWII) then you actually bias that grid cell low. Berkeley Earth concluded that the net effect of the UHI Bias is statistically equivalent to zero, but if anything it is actually negative after 1950. [Wickham et al. 2013] That's worth repeating...the UHI Bias (not the UHI Effect) is more likely to be negative and bias their dataset too low than it is to be positive and bias their dataset too high.

Oh yeah duh. How'd I miss that. That's a better way to do it. I've been using that technique too with the NBM. If you go here you'll get the text output from the NBM which includes both the SKY and SOL parameters. For the NBE product SOL is the mean solar irradiance over a 12 hour period. For example, KCGI (Cape Girardeau, MO) has 39% coverage with 460 W/m2 while KIND (Indianapolis, IN) has 38% coverage with only 260 W/m2. Since both are roughly at the same latitude (close enough) that means that even though have nearly identical cloud coverage the optical depths are higher at KIND. At this latitude we expect about an average of about 600 W/m2 in completely clear skies from 12Z to 0Z on April 8th. BTW...I believe this technique works on April 8th because the global models are not simulating the eclipse. The actual solar irradiance on April 8th will be much lower even under clear skies (obviously). The only model I'm aware of that simulates eclipses is the HRRR (and I presume its successor RRFS). The only place I know of to get modeled solar irradiance data is the ESRL site. Unfortunately its FV3 equivalent has not been pulling the "downward shortwave flux" product for the GFS in awhile.

I was not able to find the downward solar radiation plot. Can you post a link or an brief description of how to get it?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the global models like GFS and ECMWF do not simulate eclipses so they will have a tendency to overestimate shortwave driven clouds. However, the HRRR has been programmed from its inception to simulate eclipses so we should be able to get a feel for the cloud thinning effect starting on April 6th. Clouds are one of the least skillful forecast parameters already and we've seen problems with HRRR's PBL physics in the past so its wise to keep a discerning mindset regardless. Speaking of the cloud thinning effect...here is a very recent study both from an observational and modeling perspective regarding the topic. [Trees et al. 2024] Here is the HRRR simulation from the 2017 eclipse. Notice the shortwave driven clouds build just before onset of the eclipse and then wane rapidly as totality approaches. Then after totality passes shortwave driven clouds explode aggressively as the surface warming is reinstated. The bootheel of Missouri is an example of this. I was down there in 2017 and can corroborate the fact that there was a significant reduction in clouds in the 30 minutes leading up to totality.

NOAAGlobalTemp has been updated to version 6.0. This version uses artificial intelligence to improve the temperature reconstruction. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/noaa-global-temp

From the latest CERES data we can see that Earth's albedo has dropped from 0.293 in 2003 to 0.288 in 2023. That is a radiative feedback of 340 W/m2 * (0.293-0.288) = +1.7 W/m2. For the lurkers...notice that I called it a radiative feedback and not a radiative force. The reason is because this a feedback response to global warming. See [Donohoe et al. 2014] for a more intuitive explanation of what is happening.

My hometown St. Louis obliterated the previous record by 7F yesterday. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Based on the consilience of evidence...GHGs, aerosols, and land use changes. And at the risk being labeled stubborn I'm still not so sure Hunga Tonga isn't contributing a tenth or two to the EEI.

Yes. Solar output is correlated with warming/cooling of the climate system. The modulation is at most 0.4 W/m2 of radiative force from trough to peak. To put that into perspective the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is currently around +1.9 W/m2. So this uptick in solar activity accounts for at most 10% of the energy uptake. Of course, once SC25 peaks and solar output drops in the next few years the solar effect will turn negative. The rate at which the climate takes excess energy will decline a bit as a result, but the EEI still going to be significantly positive meaning that the planet will continue to warm.

Michael Mann was just awarded $1,000,000 in his defamation case against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg for equating his work in MBH98 and MBH99 to the molestation of a child. https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-defamation-michael-mann-penn-state-61289ee2d8d2143768d28995c83899ef

@ChescoWxYour hubris almost defies credulity. There is no change in heart here that I can see. I'll grant you the last word.

@ChescoWx I'm not going to waste my timing explaining something to you a second time unless you tell me why it will be received differently this time. If you tell me that you now form your position around facts and the consilience of evidence then great. I'd be happy to rehash things with you. But if you're going to ignore what has already been presented like what you did last time and instead form a position that is not based on fact and/or contrary to the consilience of evidence then I have no choice but to think you aren't going to receive the information any differently. Asking the same questions with the same insinuations as last time is not an effective way of convincing me you've had a change in heart in how you deal with facts and evidence.

First...the adjustments weren't all downward. Second...yes, we did explain why the adjustments were made to the 4 stations in your table. In fact, I think I posted the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for each one of them. I'll ask again...What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

This is what I mean. This has already been hashed out with you. We have given you links to the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for stations. We've posted examples of those analysis for stations you've mentioned. We've posted links to literature explaining why station measurements are biased, why corrections must be applied, how those corrections are applied, and the verification of those corrections. We've even posted links to the source code that you can use to make the corrections on your own machine. And yet here you asking us to hash this out with you yet again. What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

You are sealioning. It has been explained to you many times how adjustments are made and why they are necessary and appropriate. You are doing the digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and babbling incoherently so that you can feign like we haven't already addressed it.

We have a new record in the OISST dataset in absolute terms. As of January 31st, 2024 the average SST was 21.10 C. This breaks the previous record of 21.09 C set on August 25, 2023. Somewhat concerning is that the peak usually occurs in February or March. Will it go higher?

Antarctic sea ice extent for 2023 achieved a new average low of 9.85e6 km2. This breaks the previous record from 2022 of 10.73e6 km2 by a significant margin. As of January 29th, 2024 sea ice extent is just above what it was in 2023. It looks like the trajectory will take it near the record minimum first set in 2022 and then eclipsed in 2023. One hypothesis I've seen is that the persistently low sea ice extent in the SH could be evidence of a global circulation pattern change induced by the broader global warming. It's possible that the 2020's could be the decade of low SH extent and relatively high NH extent. If the global circulation pattern reverts to the mean the see-saw between the SH and NH could flip again.

All of the data points are in. The composite trend since 1979 has increased from +0.18 C/decade at the end of 2022 to +0.19 C/decade at the end of 2023.