chubbs
-
Posts
3,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by chubbs
-
-
2 hours ago, bdgwx said:
2020 has eclipsed 2016 as the warmest year in the GISS record strictly speaking. But it was of the thinnest of margins and qualifies as a statistical tie.
Per my #: 1.022 vs 1.018, a difference that could disappear in future updates. Did you collect your bet?
-
Geological Society of London Scientific Statement: what the geological record tells us about our present and future climate
A good read. Yes the climate has varied in the past.
-
-
On 12/8/2020 at 12:51 PM, chubbs said:
Yes, wouldn't be surprised if 2020 grabs the lead after Nov. Interestingly, 2010, another nina, also set a Nov GISS record before plunging in Dec, so may come down to the wire.
Seeing a big Dec plunge this year as well in reanalysis - 2010 a good analog
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, bdgwx said:
GISTEMP reported +1.13C for November easily beating out November 2015 for the #1 spot.
Here is the horserace chart. 2020 grabbed the lead. You're bet looks good.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, bdgwx said:
I was hoping NASA would release the November GISTEMP update today. They didn't. My model is predicting the November value to come in at +1.10C +/- 0.06. At +1.10C December only needs to come in at +0.75C for the annual mean to hit +1.02C which would top 2016's value of +1.01C rounded the nearest hundredth. With observations + GFS forecast through December 15th my model is predicting a value of +0.99C and if this cooling rate persists through the second of half December as well that takes us down to around +0.93C for a final annual mean of +1.03C. We'll see what happens.
Could have gotten better than even money a couple of days ago on the site you linked above - I would have taken those odds
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, bdgwx said:
ERA reported the warmest November on record by a wide margin.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-november-2020
IMHO this positions GISTEMP favorably to report the warmest year in their dataset. ERA couples reasonable well GISTEMP.
Yes, wouldn't be surprised if 2020 grabs the lead after Nov. Interestingly, 2010, another nina, also set a Nov GISS record before plunging in Dec, so may come down to the wire.
-
2
-
-
November has been very warm despite the nina. Record looks likely now.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The pessimistic permafrost modeling study posted above was conducted by professors at a business school using a simple model they developed. Would heavily discount. Not that permafrost isn't a problem, but need better models to evaluate.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, bdgwx said:
I will say that GISTEMP came in at +0.90C for October which is 0.09C cooler than September. This lowers the odds of 2020 being the warmest. It's probably below 50% now.
GISS comparison through October below. Going to be a close race right to the wire despite ENSO being less favorable for warmth this year.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, griteater said:
chubbs - that's cool that you pulled this data and used it against the period norms (1880-1910). Can you add March in there? I suspect it was quite warm based on the pattern.
yes it was warm:
March 47 +6.2 T
the last 1.2" of snow fell in April.
Enjoyed the outlook.
-
1
-
-
After last year would take 1893-94 . Below are the local philly stats - downtown then vs airport today - norms 1880-1910
Dec 36.4 +0.2 3.5"
Jan 36.6 +3.9 4.1"
Feb 31.9 -1.3 11.5"
seasonal snow - 20.3" vs 24.3" norm
-
How much for Philly? This plot suggests that any relationship between October sea ice and subsequent Philly snow is complicated. In any case, can say that very low Oct sea ice, below 4.5 million sq km, doesn't help. Not good with this years October sea ice area a record low of 4.08 million sq km.
-
Good plot for seeing trends in every month.
-
3
-
-
On 10/16/2020 at 9:25 PM, donsutherland1 said:
In what represents a major breakthrough in American political discourse and offers a sign that climate change denial is waning in influence, climate change will be a featured part of next week’s Presidential debate.
The Washington Post reported:
As scientists predict that 2020 will be the hottest year on record, climate change will be among the six topics that will be the focus of next week’s debate between President Trump and his Democratic rival, former vice president Joe Biden, according to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
The 15 minutes set aside for the segment will mark the most amount of time President Trump will have been questioned about climate change during his presidency as well as the most time devoted to the topic in a presidential debate.
Kristen Welker of NBC News, the moderator for the Oct. 22 event in Nashville, also plans questions about the coronavirus, national security, race, leadership and “American families,” the commission said.
Trump doesn't want to debate climate change (or covid). Wonder why?
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:
In what represents a major breakthrough in American political discourse and offers a sign that climate change denial is waning in influence, climate change will be a featured part of next week’s Presidential debate.
The Washington Post reported:
As scientists predict that 2020 will be the hottest year on record, climate change will be among the six topics that will be the focus of next week’s debate between President Trump and his Democratic rival, former vice president Joe Biden, according to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
The 15 minutes set aside for the segment will mark the most amount of time President Trump will have been questioned about climate change during his presidency as well as the most time devoted to the topic in a presidential debate.
Kristen Welker of NBC News, the moderator for the Oct. 22 event in Nashville, also plans questions about the coronavirus, national security, race, leadership and “American families,” the commission said.
Blizz is available for debate prep -
-
14 hours ago, bdgwx said:
It is hard. No one said it was easy. That does not mean that scientists are incapable of measuring the global mean temperature and quantifying the uncertainty in that measurement. The uncertainty envelope is narrow enough that conclusions about Earth's rate of warming can be made with confidence.
FWIW...I think RSS's 0.214C/decade rate of warming is likely higher than the true surface warming rate. Taking the mean of a sampling of several satellite, balloon, surface, and reanalysis datasets suggests that the true surface warming rate is probably closer to the 0.18C/decade from 1979 to present. This means UAH and RSS probably underestimate and overestimate the true warming rate respectively. Interestingly when you equally weight UAH and RSS you get a warming rate of +0.175C/decade which is pretty close to the mean warming rate suggested by other datasets. As I've said before I do not prefer either UAH or RSS over the other. Remember...in lieu of any compelling reason to discount a line of evidence the skeptical thing to do is equally weight those lines of evidence.
I prefer RSS for the following reasons:
1) troposphere should warm faster than surface
2) RSS in much better agreement with satellite tpw
3) UAH discarded NOAA-14 uah for purely qualitative reasons - "NOAA-14 warms too much". Comparing uah and rss with surface data for the period in question, 1998-2004, shows that RSS is in much better agreement.
4) Recent satellites don't have diurnal drift which can cause a cooling bias if not fully corrected. Since the newer satellites have come on board UAH is in much better agreement with RSS and surface obs.
5) RSS has published satellite to satellite comparisons showing good agreement among satellites with the recent upgrade. Zip from UAH
6) Satellite diurnal drift is most pronounced over land, where UAH has much lower land warming vs surface obs (see below). The surface obs network is dense and the land trends have very little uncertainty. Meanwhile RSS is in better agreement with surface land data (also below). The NOAA-14 period after 1998 an obvious problem for UAH.
7) Finally UAH has a track record and it isn't good.
-
-
I am more optimistic than I was 5-10 years ago. The competitive advantage and market value of fossil fuels is shrinking every day. Article below just a sign of the times.
-
8 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:
Proxy data that ignores known roman, medieval warm periods and the dark age and little ice age cold periods and then stitched higher resolution observations at the end. The Hockey Stick. There is no way the Earth's climate has been this steady for almost 2000 years. CO2 never lead temperatures in the past, why now? explain. You need a strong water vapor feedback too. There is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
1) Pages2k the best compilation of data available. There are are wide range of sources including ice cores. Note the range in time resolution below, some of the series have relatively fine time resolution. If you have any information that is not included please provide.
2) There are plenty of instances of CO2 leading temperatures. The PETM for a start and many others. Our recent ice ages only started after CO2 had dropped low enough for orbital cycles to trigger.
3) There is plenty of data supporting water vapor feedback, as discussed in the other thread.
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:
Sea levels have been rising well before mass burning of fossil fuels. What caused this? The climate supposedly was in a perfect stasis before man made fossil fuel burning began en-masse mid 20th century. Plus according to many of you the Little Ice Age was just a regional phenomenon? So I have never heard a good explanation for why sea levels and presumable OHC has risen since the mid 1800s.
The timing in the sea-level chart is the same as the temperature+CO2 chart. Increases in all three started in the late 1700s.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:
This suggests that CO2 is not the driver of the current warming trend. So to blame all this on CO2 levels is a stretch.
-
3
-
-
On 9/23/2020 at 8:39 PM, blizzard1024 said:
Again, the 850 mb specific humidity declines from the late 1970s to 2000, a time of warming. This is within the convective mixed layer. Warming oceans should lead to more evaporation. This doesn't make physical sense. At upper levels, temperature and specific humidity are almost 1:1 correlation. What process would cause that other than changes in global convection? Increased global convection leads to vertical transport of heat and moisture and hence this basically linear correlation. You don't need peer review literature here. You think for yourself. This is very basic meteorology. That is why most meteorologists don't buy all the hype related to this so-called climate crisis. Most if not all meteorologists I know agree CO2 doubling will lead to modest warming but not the hyped up scenarios portrayed by the mainstream climate scientists. These folks are looking out for their careers, egos and fame. I have followed this topic for 30 years and I have seen many folks in atmospheric sciences leave research because of this scientific "corruption". The climate emails of the late 2000s were classic and really the tip of the iceberg in this field. So to answer your question, there is no peer review on this. The atmospheric theory for upper tropospheric moistening in the ERA5 is global convection changes. And the ERA5 data is flawed in that there should be more evaporation off the oceans with a warmer Earth from insolation and the convective mixed layer. This is really basic stuff here. I attached the 300 and 850 mb q and T, q by the way is specific humidity if you didn't know that.
Without looking at a map showing the location of changes you can't draw any conclusion about the cause of the decreasing 850 mb trend between 1980 and 2000. There could be a period of drying in the descending subtropical highs, that is what the TPW data show. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is very good agreement between the re-analysis and satellite moisture data in the upper troposphere. There is also strongly increasing surface temperature, TPW, and ocean heat content and the timing is perfectly matched to man-made forcing with a big ramp after 1970. All well explained by climate science.
The science explanation makes much more sense than your "theory": a natural forcing which hasn't been identified but which is related in some way to the little ice age suddenly ramped temperatures in 1970 despite the absence of any water vapor feedback. Sorry that just doesn't hold together.
-
1
-
Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
I hope you are kidding about "limits of measurement". The ocean heat trend is very robust. Temperature measurement in water is more meaningful due to high heat capacity and there is much less year-to-year variability. Another record in 2020.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-021-0447-x