chubbs

This recent study shows that global heat waves are becoming more frequent, lasting longer, covering larger areas, moving slower, and bringing higher temperatures. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl1598 Compounding the effects of high temperature, global dew point and wet bulb temperatures are also rising.

Chesco didn't show us Figure 1 and 2, must have been an oversight.

You can't prove your assertions either. I can provide evidence of climate and weather change, reams of evidence. That's something you are short on..

Don't blame me for the "alarmist" talking points, those are Investopedia's points. In a similar vein here's a story on rising Insurance costs in Texas from the Texas Tribune. Hopefully you won't find the climate aspect too alarming. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/30/texas-homeowner-insurance-climate-change-costs/ The science is simple and not controversial. Warmer air holds more water. Droughts, fires, storms etc., behave differently in a warmer world. Your talking point sounds good but misses the mark technically. The fact that we have always had these events is a reason to be concerned, not relieved. In a warmer world, thunderstorms have more CAPE, hurricanes higher OHC, rain storms more water vapor, fires and droughts accelerated drying conditions. Per chart below, locally a 100-year flood is now a 20-year flood. I am going to throw it back on you – What weather events aren't being impacted by climate change?

Love the denier talking point logic: The climate has always changed; but, storms, droughts, heat waves. etc. never change. Why bother Don, the information you are requesting is widely available. A google search brought a long list of articles on climate change impacts on insurance rates. Here's an example. https://www.investopedia.com/the-costs-of-climate-change-are-already-here-in-your-insurance-bill-8414294 Climate change is partly responsible for a recent surge in insurance premiums, and the costs will continue to mount in the future. Climate change makes storms, extreme heat, floods, and other catastrophes more likely. Insurers are passing the increasing costs of paying claims on to consumers.

It's obvious that there is inconsistency in UAH during the NOAA 14 and 15 transition. Warming is rapid now that enough data has accumulated after the transition for trend analysis. I can recall Spencer saying that climate change would be a concern if warming reached 0.2C per decade. Wonder how long it will take him to notice that UAH6 has blown by his own concern threshold.

March was another record monthly anomaly on UAH. The temperature spike during this nino is unusually large in UAH, as large or larger than 97-98 judging by the 13-month running mean, which will continue to increase for a few months. Measurement inconsistency through the years likely contributing. Top 5 March's in UAH below: 1 2024 0.95 2 2016 0.65 3 2010 0.38 4 2020 0.35 5 1998 0.34

Another chart in Hanson's latest. Since 2010 max warming has shifted from arctic to mid-latitude in the NHemi (and to lesser extent in SHemi). Consistent with warm winters we have had recently.

Yes we are still breaking daily re-analysis records, but not by "gobsmacking" amounts like we were in the second half of last year. Anomalies are running closer to where you would expect them to be, above last year and moderately above 2016, the last strong nino. We have been in a rough anomaly plateau since last September. With la nina developing, and normal seasonal effects, would expect anomalies to begin to drop soon, similar to 2016, and to cool below 2023 later in the year. We'll see.

We are approaching 1.5C of warming, when climate change impacts ramp, and the global warming rate has increased. Not a good place to be, and we have no excuse, it was well predicted.

A number of relatively small items are aiding warming. We are near the peak of a solar cycle that is stronger than the last cycle (see chart below). Haven't seen a definitive accounting but the Hunga Tonga volcano is likely a small plus warming factor. Finally man-made forcing is increasing at a faster rate in the past 10 years as aerosol emissions come down due to air pollution control..

Related to the point I made above. Nino34 wasn't a good metric for this nino. Nino12+3 warmed fast and early, leading nino34, and triggering the global SST rise. Of course other factors played a role. The large radiation imbalance during the nina years warmed the subsurface, which primed the pump.

Think the Gavin S and other experts are underestimating the effect of this nino. The timing fits a nino response but with faster onset and a larger overall warming than we have seen in the satellite era. Those features can be explained by the rapid warming in the east Pacific last spring. Global SST have peaked and are starting to fall. We'll see if this nino has a lasting impact on SST like the 15/16 nino.

I see why you like the "averaging" method. It shows less warming than the data collected in your own backyard

Your county averaging method doesn't agree with your own Chescowx series and the year-to-year differences are probably even larger; smoothed somewhat by the decade averaging. Not surprising because you aren't controlling for differences in average temperature between stations. Every time you add or subtract a station you change the average. NOAA on-the-other-hand agrees very well with the ERA5 re-analysis developed by EMWCF, both on year-to-year temperature changes and on the overall warming since 1950. NOAA and ERA5 are completely independent using different datasets and methods, so agreement at the County level increases confidence in both series. Bottom-line - scientists have a good handle on Chester County temperature trends. If you aren't matching NOAA or ERA5 you aren't getting an accurate depiction of our local climate. Below is a link which provides background on ERA5, which has land temperature data back to 1950. Note that I can only get ERA data for a lat/long square that approximates Chesco. https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-reanalysis

As usual you are jumping to the wrong conclusion based on lousy analysis. You aren't controlling for differences in average temperature between stations. Every time you change the stations included in your County average, you get a different result. To get a cooler result add in some relatively cool stations. I don't see any recent "warming adjustment" for NOAA when I compare to your own Chescowx series. Quite the contrary NOAA and Chescowx are in good agreement on the warming rate over the past 54 years. Good news for your post-1970 data. As for the older pre-1970 data, yes we know you get a different answer for the raw vs bias adjusted. You are beating a dead horse by making the same comparison over and over again. We have a handful of older stations in Chester County. Adjustments for each station are published and not close to the "adjustments" you are coming up with in your latest. All the adjustments are based on comparison to other stations. If time of observation bias (TOB) didn't impact a particular station it won't contribute to that stations' bias adjustment. There are many reasons for bias adjustment besides TOB: shelter, aspiration, digital vs analog, moving equipment, broken instrument, a tree growing nearby, a tree cut down, etc. Deniers have been complaining about "science-based" station adjustments for decades. But they never complete the technical analysis needed to provide evidence in a scientific forum. Without submitting material to a scientific forum your complaints about adjustments are a waste of time. You can whine all you want on a weather board but it isn't going to move the scientific needle.

From Gavin Schmidt's twitter. Net radiation is coming down as atmosphere warming due to the nino increases radiation to space. The decrease in the past year isn't small enough though to put much of a dent in the decade-long increase.

Don't have much info on Africa, but this could be the warm season for at least some of area. A portion of Africa is in the SHemi and the rest is tropical, with sun overhead at the spring equinox.

From Kris Karnauskas twitter, tropical mean SST anomaly averaged on latitude bands. Shows the impact of long-term warming and enso on tropical and sub-tropical SST. Ninos warm the tropics and sub-tropics while La Nina cooling is more focused on the tropics with less impact on the sub-tropics. The subtropics haven't been the same since the 15/16 nino. We'll see what the aftermath of this nino is. edit: Added a plot showing trends for the east and west Pacific. Of course the east Pacific has the biggest enso effects.

Spot checking the Philadelphia airport, there is no trend in the highest march temperature. Max is 87 in 1945. No wonder Martz and Chesco like this stat. Funny because Chesco's other favorite is the philly airport heat island. Edit: Added the minimum temperature for March at the airport. Here there does appear to be a rising trend in recent decades, but the warmest is 30F back in 1942.

In January ERA broke the record by 0.15C, while GISS only broke by 0.03C, Berkeley Earth by 0.05C and NOAA by 0.07C. ERA broke the February record by 0.12C, a little lower than Jan. We'll see how the obs come in Feb, probably another record month across the board but not guaranteed.

This nino is having an unusually large impact on UAH. The red 13-month average will continue to rise for several months as cool months come off. Clear now that the period after the 2016 nino is different in UAH than the period after the 1998 nino. I see 2 explanations: 1) we have better satellites now that are not impacted by diurnal drift, or 2) The urban heat island is starting to impact satellite measurements

Below is an interview with the lead author, which provides good background for understanding the study implications. The unrealistic modeling scenario is needed because current models are inadequate. Not the best position to be in with the system trending toward less stability. .