bdgwx
-
Posts
1,361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by bdgwx
-
-
Here is the average ONI for each of the last 6 years. Note that because the global mean temperature response tends to lag ENSO by a few months I have computed each year's average ONI using an offset. It seems as though this lag is typically in the range of 3 to 6 months so I've included two values. The first is the 3-month lag and the second is the 6-month lag. For example the 6-month lag value of +1.7 in 2016 is computed from 2015-07 to 2016-06.
2019 = +0.6, +0.6
2018 = -0.4, -0.5
2017 = -0.1, -0.2
2016 = +1.2, +1.7
2015 = +1.0, +0.6
2014 = -0.1, -0.2
-
1
-
-
Here are the YTD rankings (Jan - Oct) from Berkeley Earth.
2016 = +0.99
2019 = +0.91
2017 = +0.86
2015 = +0.80
2018 = +0.79
2014 = +0.70
And here are the annual rankings (Jan - Dec) from Berkeley Earth.
2016 = +0.97
2017 = +0.86
2015 = +0.83
2018 = +0.79
2014 = +0.70
A top 3 finish looks like a good bet at this point. Nov and Dec need to come in at a combined +0.62 to rank above 2017's +0.86 finish and capture 2nd place. Based on the latest GFS monthly analysis + 7 day forecast (up to Nov 26th) it appears that Nov should finish strong and end well above the +0.62 threshold.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:
I've noted some 2/3rd of the months since 2000 have features a relative cool region somewhere over our continent, and more the majority of that ~ 2/3rd have had said region over SE Canada and NE conus regions.
Maybe a bit of WACKy (Warm Actic Cold Continent) or perhaps the hypothesized Quasi-Resonant Amplification of the jet stream starting to show itself?
-
Copernicus says 2019 was the warmest (albeit by a narrow margin) on record for the month of October.
They also cite the last 12 months as being 1.2C above the pre-industrial temperature. And with an energy imbalance that is still +0.6 W/m^2 it is reasonable to assume that more warming is likely already baked in.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-october-2019
-
2
-
-
So in an effort to steer this thread back on track...it looks like the refreeze has really ramped up lately. We are still in record territory for this time of year, but it looks like 2019 might jump ahead of 2016 in the next week or so.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, BillT said:
the greenhouse effect is an insulating effect.....can anybody here name any insulator that ADDS heat to the system it is insulating?
my understanding of insulation is it SLOWS the movement of the heat energy but in no way traps that heat and does NOT in any way ADD any extra heat to the system.....
if my understanding is wrong please show an insulator that ADDS heat?
CO2 does not add heat. It traps heat. In this context "trap" means to slow the egress transmission of heat without slowing the ingress transmission of heat.
The insulation in your home acts as a thermal barrier to trap heat. The furnace adds energy to your home. Because the insulation has changed the rate at which heat is lost your home will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the insulation than it would otherwise. But the furnace is still the energy source.
...similarly...
The GHGs in Earth's atmosphere act as a thermal barrier to trap heat. The Sun adds energy to the Earth. Because the GHGs have changed the rate at which heat is lost the Earth will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the GHGs than it would otherwise. But the Sun is still the energy source.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, BillT said:
i prefer discussing issues and using my own brain, the "studies" you so much prefer are PAID to find the results they find........real science says there is nothing unusual going on now that hasnt gone on for eons.....co2 levels have been much higher in the past and YOU cant blame humans for that FACT.......
Just understand that natural CO2 molecules have the same radiation behavior as anthroprogenic CO2 molecules. So an anthrprogenic pulse of CO2 (like with fossil fuel combustion and cement production) will lead to the same amount of warming as a natural pulse of CO2 (like which occurred during the PETM) given the same magnitude of the pulse. In that manner the laws of physics don't really care how the CO2 got into the atmosphere. I also sense a bit of the logical fallacy affirming a disjunct. Just because CO2 was naturally modulated in the past doesn't mean that it can't be anthroprogenically modulated today and cause warming.
And yes, CO2 levels were much higher in the past. This is an essential piece in the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem. Remember, solar output is about 1% weaker for every 120 million years in the past. 600 mya the solar radiative force was about -12 W/m^2 (see Gough 1981). So it would take ~9.5x the amount of CO2 just to offset the reduced solar forcing of the past relative to today (note that 5.35 * ln(9.5) = +12 W/m^2).
-
3
-
-
On 10/29/2019 at 12:35 PM, BillT said:
i see meaningless jibberish in that graph.....
I believe the point of the graph was to test your comprehension of noisy information. This is actually a carefully studied topic in academia especially in the context of climate data in which there is a disproportionate number of analysis out there in the blogosphere that suffer from various cognitive biases.
I want you to get started with this paper.
Daron et al, 2015: Interpreting climate data visualisations to inform adaptation decisions
There are many well documented cognitive biases that influence an individual's comprehension of a graph. They include but are not limited to anchoring, framing, etc. In a nutshell when individuals are presented with a plot of noisy data some of them are incapable of mentally forming a linear or exponential regression trendline in their head.
-
Also per the NSIDC 5-day average 10/17/2019 marks the all time highest negative anomaly on record. We are 3.065 sq km below the 1981-2010 climatological average. This breaks the 3.048 record set on 10/9/2012. In other words, we have less sea ice (in terms of extent) relative to average than at any point in the satellite era.
-
2
-
-
Per NSIDC the daily extent on 10/17 was 5.374e6. On this date in 2012 and 2016 was 6.082e6 and 5.954e6 respectively and the climatological average is 8.470e6. Obviously 2019 is yet another year among recent years with lackluster sea ice extents in the NH. And the SH isn't picking up the slack like it was prior to 2016. Globally sea ice extents are at record lows. In fact, globally sea ice extents have spent more time below -4σ than it has above -2σ since 2016. That is certainly noteworthy.
-
1
-
-
Yes. UAH's TLT product is too high to be a reliable proxy for the surface temperature. Obviously that raises concerns with contamination from the cooling stratosphere, but its been suggested that there are other methodological problems that may be partly to blame for their significantly lower warming trend estimate.
-
1
-
-
I think the flag made sense at the time. I have to be honest...my first thought was that something may have been wrong with the data. That was before I had learned of the record breaking SSW event in the SH and the RSS data. Looking back through commentary it appears like a few experts had already expected UAH and RSS to record these unusually large regional anomalies and modestly large global anomalies. Until this event I had no idea a SSW event in the SH could cause such a dramatic change in the global mean temperature. Fascinating stuff.
BTW...Spencer and Christy have confirmed that their data is correct. This statement now appears in the data files.
*****UPDATE 4 Oct 2019***** After further analysis, September 2019 values are credible. see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/10/record-antarctic-stratospheric-warming-causes-sept-2019-global-temperature-update-confusion/
-
I'll go ahead and get this kicked off since I have something interesting to talk about.
So UAH is usually super quick at publishing monthly numbers. They posted a +0.61 for September 2019 which was an unexpectedly large increase.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
The data file is even flagged with:
*****CAUTION****** SEPTEMBER 2019 DATA APPEAR TO BE ERRONEOUSLY WARM. WE ARE INVESTIGATING.
The warming seems to be the result of unusually large anomalies in both the stratosphere and troposhere in the southern hemisphere with a whopping +13.65 at the south pole on the TLS product.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
But...RSS just released their September data and they too show the unusual warming.
It seems as though there was a sudden stratospheric warming event in the SH. And it was record breaking at least according to UAH and RSS.
I'm thinking the UAH (and RSS) data may be legit. UAH may be justified in removing the warning message without any changes to the data.
-
The September mean was 4.316 which is the 3rd lowest behind 2012 and 2007. Assuming the last 5 years of means and trajectories would approximate the remainder of the 2019 a top 3 finish in the annual mean seems plausible.
-
Can the authors resubmit with corrections?
-
Speaking of Joe Bastardi...he is listed on Principia Scientific International's member page. This brings us full circle to another topic that was discussed in this thread; namely the litigation of Mann vs. FCPP/Ball. See, it was John O'Sullivan's article posted on July 4th, 2017 on the PSI's website in which the claim that Mann refused to release his data regarding MBH98 first appeared. John O'Sullivan, it turns out, is the CEO and operator of PSI. He also happens to be an associate of Ball via their authorship of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon and had, at least until Ball ditched him, a mutual agreement that he would act as legal counsel for Ball. Except...that O'Sullivan is neither an expert in climate science nor a lawyer. But, in a strange twist, he did happen to find himself involved in the Mann vs. FCPP/Ball case anyway. I'll let you guys read the relevant court documents here and here and make your own judgement regarding Mr. O'Sullivan and Bastardi's support of him and his site.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Fantom X said:
I read that Dr Valentina Zharkova is predicting a natural increase of 3C by 2600 - and that's without the affects of AWG
It's this study.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6
The claim is that the recent warming and future warming of 3C by 2600 can be explained by the distance between the Earth and Sun decreasing due to solar inertial motion (SIM) around the barycenter.
Except...the distance between the Earth and Sun doesn't actually change as a result of the SIM as the paper had assumed.
-
1
-
-
Another way of stating this result is that the climate of the Early Eocene became increasingly sensitive to additional carbon dioxide as the planet warmed.
That's seems to be inline with other studies I've read. The sensitivity may start out low...say...0.5C per W/m^2, but as the planet warms it gets more sensitive to the radiative forcing and may rise to 1.0C per W/m^2 and beyond.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity in CESM1.2 is near the upper end of that consensus range at 4.2 C (7.7 F).
Ya know...in his 1908 book World's in the Making Arrhenius refined his estimate of the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 4C. Wouldn't that be something if Arrhenius' prediction from 100 years ago ended up being nearly spot on?
-
1
-
-
Assuming it is correct this is the largest one day NSIDC decline within ±7 days of 9/17.
-111k...9-17-2019
-99k...9-13-2006
-98k...9-18-1990
-95k...9-22-2003
-91k...9-17-2010
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:
"And in a recurrent theme, the number of daily record high temperatures vastly exceeded the number of daily record low temperatures."
The USA has had a different year then Don quoted WAPO above. The global data does reflect the quote. .
Great link. Thanks.
On a global basis in the last 365 days daily highs have outnumbered lows by about 1.8-to-1.
On a global basis in the last 365 days all time highs have outnumbered lows by about 4.9-to-1.
-
On 9/10/2019 at 10:26 PM, bdgwx said:
I was not able to find the official court documents for Mann vs Ball
After a bit more research I was able to find the court documents. It is important to point out that the Mann vs. Ball case is related to Mann vs Frontier Centre for Public Policy as well. The alleged defamatory statements by Ball occurred via an FCPP interview. The Mann vs. FCPP part of the case was settled just a few months ago. Ball was a codefendant in the same case along with 3rd unnamed party. The case number is VLC-S-S-111913 and is accessible here for a nominal fee. It's possible that the admission by the FCPP that "untrue and disparaging accusations" made toward Mann (and presumably by Ball) may have been a factor in Ball's petitioning the court for dismissal before the court made a judgement based on the merits. Seeing the favorable response Mann had with one defendant it would not be unexpected if Mann were to appeal the dismissal against Ball. Refer to the FCPP's letter below.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:
Don't currently have access.
932mb near Boston. Edit: That was the 0Z cycle. 12Z cycle isn't out that far yet.
-
40 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:
Things will change dramatically over the next few days. But what an ominous track/look on the day 10 Euro for the East coast with that deep trough digging in.
Yeah, and take a look at what the EPS control run does with it past hour 240. Yipes!
-
The Weaver vs Ball case is similar. This case was dismissed largely because the judge equated Ball's article with similar ludicrous, outrageous, and unbelievable comments which lacked a sufficient air of credibility to be believable in the first place. In other words, it's not defamation if the defendant isn't credible in the eyes of rational thinking persons.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
[75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Ball which paradoxically favored Ball in the eyes of the court. With the precedent set it makes me wonder if the Mann vs. Ball case would have transpired the same way had Ball not petitioned the court for dismissal on what has been said by Mann's legal team to be related to Ball's health (and not the merits of the case).
I was not able to find the official court documents for Mann vs Ball, but here is what Mann posted on social media regarding the matter.
-
1
-
Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume
in Climate Change
Posted
Broadly speaking the first "ice-free" year has been getting pushed up. You'll find select studies here and there that have really aggressive predictions, but those are either few in number or not well received enough to influence the consensus much.
In the 1990's the prevailing prediction was around 2100 or thereafter. And in the IPCC's AR3 report from 2001 it was stated (via a chart) that the first annual mean extent of 10.5e6 km^2 would not occur until about 2040. In reality it actually occurred in 2007. Even today many sea-ice models continue to struggle with the rapid pace of sea ice declines in both the NH and SH.
Today it seems as though the consensus lands somewhere in the 2040-2060 range. So we still have a good wait ahead of us before we see < 1e6 km^2 of extent at the minimum. It's certainly possible that it could occur prior to 2040. Some on this forum and the ASIF believe we'll be lucky to make it to 2040. I'm in the more conservative camp and believe it will be after 2040. I'm prepared to be proven wrong though.