bdgwx

The adjustments are done to address known biases caused by breakpoints like station moves, instrument package changes, time-of-observation changes, etc. Yes it will...eventually. This will happen via an increase in temperature resulting in a larger upward terrestrial radiation push. Unfortunately the temperature feedback (the T^4 relationship from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) response is slower than the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) increase so don't expect the warming to stop anytime soon. In fact, it will take decades of increasing temperatures to get the planet balanced again and that's assuming the GHG and aerosol forcing stops increasing immediately. I should point out that we cannot eliminate the possibility that the balance could be delayed for thousands of years. It is possible the current concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere have tipped the planet into the slow feedback spiral. This slow feedback response is driven by long duration processes like ice sheet melting, deep ocean mixing, permafrost melting, etc. It is believed this tipping point exists somewhere around an increase of CO2 of 1.5 and 2.0x CO2. Increases in CO2 of 2.0x or higher all but guarantee that the ice age ends albeit after several thousands of years.

I assume you are referring to USC00369464? How did you handle the 12 breakpoints shown for this station?

Global Sea Ice Area is at an all time record low and we still have the potential for another couple of weeks of decline. It's the same with extent.

Arthur Viterito is a member of the Heartland Institute which is an anti-science institution known for its denial of many scientific conclusions that are broadly accepted and supported by the consilience of evidence. It is my understanding that they even still reject the link between smoking and cancer which is as settled as anything in science can be settled. Anyway, he was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS. OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement with the predatory journal he ran. And his "scientific" positions defy credulity. He allowed an article that stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude. My thoughts...the article author is as shady as they get.

He is also listed as a member of Principia Scientific International. For those that don't know PSI is an anti-science site owned, operated, and founded by John O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan got wrapped up in the Mann court case against Tim Ball, Frontier Centre of Public Policy, and others. Apparently O'Sullivan was "defending" Ball in court without actually having a license to practice or even a degree in law. And he has a questionable past as well. You can pay a nominal fee to download the court documents for the Supreme Court of British Columbia case #VLC-S-S-111913. Fair warning...I've read the court documents; they are NOT work or school appropriate. And this is who Joe Bastardi chooses to support. Dude...Bastardi...if you stumble on this post take my advice and do yourself a favor and revoke your membership from PSI...like immediately.

It's been 12 years since Bastardi's prediction that temperatures would decline to where they were in the 1970's by 2030. According to Berkeley Earth the average temperature in the 70's was +0.04 C relative to 1951-1980. The 5 year centered average at 2020 was +0.95 C. I'll give him until 2032 so that we have a 5 year centered average at 2030. That means in the next 10 years the planet needs to cool by 0.9 C. Now, I'm not one to proclaim a prediction wrong until the full period of time has elapsed. However, considering that the planetary energy imbalance is is about +0.8 W/m2 I think it is extremely unlikely that his prediction will verify. And I think it is very likely that his prediction error will continue to grow to over 1.0 C by 2030.

Here is Berkeley Earth's breakpoint analysis for Coatesville. Note that Coatesville is split into 3 separate stations. 1894-1982, 1982-2007, and 2007-2013. This is only the 1st timeseries. Notice how there are many breakpoints some creating upward biases and some creating downward biases. But the net effect of all breakpoints is for a downward bias. This has to be corrected otherwise you'll draw the wrong conclusion about the long term temperature trend. And the net downward bias is expected since the time-of-observation change is a downward bias, and modern instrument/shield packages have a low bias relative to liquid-in-glass instruments.

Most of us here are on the side of peer reviewed literature. I have not seen "Children in North America and Europe won't know what snow is by the year 2015" or "There will be no ice on the polar caps in the summer" or "Seafront property will be underwater" (assuming the context is all seafront property here) appearing in the academic literature. BTW...SH sea ice is at record low levels for this date. That is actually unexpected. The IPCC predicted that sea ice in the SH would increase up to at least 2030 and possibly even 2060 before beginning the decline under most emission pathways. You might find it more beneficial to read the peer reviewed literature. I always recommend the IPCC as an entry point. AR6 WGI is only 2400 pages and relatively easy to read. You can then dive into the details by cross referencing the 10,000 or so first order citations and the hundreds of thousands or millions of second, third, etc. order citations as you feel the need.

I think you need to do the changepoint/breakpoint analysis to see what affect it has on those COOP stations. For example Berkeley Earth found 16 breakpoints on Coatesville, 12 on West Chester 2NW, and 12 on Phoenixville. And I see at least 3 documented station moves including the one last year for Phoenixville. Chadds Ford, Honey Brook, and Glenmoore do not officially report temperature according to GHCN, HOMR, and BEST. For example, Glenmoore observer uses the Davis Vantage Pro and is not approved by the NWS. That's typical. COOPs can report temperatures for operational purposes, but they are not approved for climatological purpose. Anyway, I could only find climatological data for 3 of the stations (Coatesville, West Chester, and Phoenixville). All 3 of them show significant warming when the breakpoint adjustments are applied. This is why it is really important to apply some type of changepoint/breakpoint analysis. Both GHCN and BEST provide their source code so you can use them as a starting point if you want to roll your own. However, based on the literature I've read it looks like a significant and challenging effort.

I'm curious. How are you handling the time-of-observation changes, instrument changes, station moves, and other factors that cause discontinuities or changepoint/breakpoints in the timeseries?

Apparently Exxon Mobil was really good at predicting the warming. Who would have thunk it? https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

I took their data and created a model to predict ERA values. The model is predicting that if a hypothetical 2016 magnitude El Nino were to occur in 2023 it would cause off-the-chart warming...literally. We are locked-and-loaded. The next El Nino will likely bring record setting global temperatures. BTW...notice that ERA observations were slightly below the model in the runup to the 2016 El Nino where as now they are running significantly higher than the model. Is the warming accelerating and the model not picking up on it yet?

The NH annual mean extent for 2022 was 10.661e6 km2 per NSIDC. This is the highest extent since 2014. The SH annual mean extent for 2022 was 10.647e6 km2 per NSIDC. This breaks the previous record of 10.749e6 km2 set back in 2017. The Antarctic decline is unexpected. Per IPCC AR5 we were expecting sea ice to increase until at least 2030 and possibly even 2050 before significant declines started down there. If these kinds of declines continue we may need to start thread for the Antarctic region as well. In terms of global sea ice area it's not looking good. We are still 0.5 to 1.5 months from the minimum and we're already at the 2nd lowest on record and easily smashing the record low for Dec. 31st.

The difference between disinformation and misinformation is that one is intentional and the other is not. One of the most well known climate science contrarians is Christopher Monckton. He has been spreading his disinformation regarding what the IPCC predicted in 1990 for almost a decade. I have recently been calling him out on it which I suspect was the impetus for his latest rant on WUWT in which he devotes an entire article to the topic. I think most of the articles on WUWT fall under the more innocent misinformation category, but this is a prime example of disinformation. And since I've discussed the topic with some of the WUWT editors I have no choice but to call out the WUWT site itself as enabling (and arguably encouraging) the dissemination of this disinformation. For a site that prides itself on providing a skeptical science-based viewpoint the site is woefully lacking on skepticism and science. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/05/how-ipccs-1990-predictions-expensively-failed/ The fact is that the IPCC prediction from 1990 is nearly spot with the warming observed in the last 30 years.

The Mississippi River set a new record low in Caruthersville, MO breaking the previous record set in 2012 of -0.82 ft. The level is forecasted to decline over the next 7 days. The level is only 1.4 ft from breaking the 1988 record of -10.70 ft in Memphis, TN.

Let's discuss Ian's intensity just prior to landfall in Florida on 9/28. At 08:57Z AF301 observed surface winds via dropsonde of 131 kts. At 10:11Z NOAA2 observed surface winds via dropsonde of 124 kts. At 10:13Z NOAA2 observed flight level winds of 150 kts. At 10:13Z NOAA2 observed surface winds via SFMR of 137 kts. At 10:29Z AF301 observed flight level winds of 135 kts. At 10:29Z AF301 observed surface winds via SFMR of 137 kts. [big time gap] At 17:23Z AF307 observed flight level winds of 131 kts. At 17:23Z AF307 observed surface winds via SFMR of 121 kts. In the big time gap between recon flights KTBW was consistently showing 150+ kts between 9000-12000 ft depending on the time of the scan or specific location with isolated bins approaching 170 kts on the western side. I realize this isn't hard data but HWRF, HMON, and HAFS analyzed Ian at 140, 140, and 150 kts respectively. What are the odds that Ian strengthened between say 10:30Z and 16:00Z and then began weakening after 16:00Z as it approached land? Did Ian achieve cat 5 status even if only for an hour or two? Please chime in if I have incorrectly stated any of the observations incorrectly or have additional observations or commentary that might be insightful.

To be fair that calculator isn't doing a complete spatial integration so it is likely over estimating the true IKE possibly by a lot. For point of comparison the same calculator using the Sandy NHC advisory yields 300 TJ if I'm remembering correctly. But yeah it's still very impressive and people should be advised not to scoff at Ian's cat 1 status. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Per the latest NHC advisory and using the IKE calculator Ian has an IKE of 128 TJ.

KPGD stopped reporting around 4:10pm. A gust of 123 mph was the highest up to that point.

SFMR 119 kts unflagged southeast quadrant again.

I was just getting ready to post that. I hope they make a pass through the western side.

There are multiple 200+ mph bins on the right side now too.

Based on the intersection of the 12Z GFS, ECMWF, and UKMET ensemble 1σ rings the best estimate of track is for an approach toward Tampa and then a slight left turn paralleling the coast north of Tampa and then a slight right turn into eastern Georgia. I think this might be a tick east of the official NHC track at 2pm and tick west of the 18Z TVCN track.

What is also interesting is that the tropical cyclone ensemble TVCN/A beat the NHC's official OFCL track at nearly all lead times last year (HR96 being the only exception and only by a couple of 1/10ths of a nm).

The 6Z cycle of the big 3 ensembles is in. As expected the EPS took a big leap toward the GEFS and so now the uncertainty rings line up pretty well. Unexpectedly MOGREPS shifted slightly east showing a landfall near Tampa. The mean of the 3 is still well offshore, but the intersection points of the rings gets Ian very close to the coast at HR96 and parallels it for either a very oblique landfall angle or an eventual landfall in the big bend area. I wonder if MOGREPS will cave to the GEFS and EPS on the 12Z cycle?