Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

10 hours ago, chubbs said:

No I don't agree. below are the current county stations that I have data for, the non-DEOS stations. Spring City is cooler than any of these corrent stations, consistent with its location in the far northern part of the county. Unlike your results, NOAA is cooler than the average of the current stations that I have. Shows how changing the station population changes the simple average. The non-NOAA DEOS stations cool the present on balance without adding any climate information due to their short period of operation.

Results from your simple averaging method merely reflect the changing station population: relatively warm in the past and relatively cool now.  You've obtained the "climate change isn't happening" result you are looking for. As I have said in the past you will be the last person to realize that Chester County is warming.

 

Below is the average of all other stations and of course both the alterned NCEI averages and the Phoenixville/Spring City combo are higher than the all other station averages every year with the exception of 2023. In fact in 2024 the Phoenxiville/Spring City combo was higher than every other reporting stations average temperature.

[rcostell]

16 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Below is the average of all other stations and of course both the alterned NCEI averages and the Phoenixville/Spring City combo are higher than the all other station averages every year with the exception of 2023. In fact in 2024 the Phoenxiville/Spring City combo was higher than every other reporting stations average temperature.

I only drop into this forum to read and learn a bit about others data and opinions on Climate Change.  I know I've asked before (and folks have migrated over there at the time of asking..) - and don't mean to be "crank"...but could you two or three folks engaged in the running "Chester County data bickering"   PLEASE remember that a thread was created for that purpose- and take the tit-for-tat dicsussion and parsing over there.  The squabbling of that subject, in this forum is in the wrong place again.   I'm hoping for continuity to keep the thread interesting as a read and with some modicum of alignment with its title.  Obliged. 

[chubbs]

Hanson's latest mailing. The earth has gotten much dimmer in the past decade. The change is large, unexpected, and has big implications for our climate future. Hanson gives his side of the ongoing debate.

Abstract. Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of precise satellite data, with the decline so large that this change must be mainly reduced reflection of sunlight by clouds. Part of the cloud change is caused by reduction of human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is cloud feedback that occurs with global warming. The observed albedo change proves that clouds provide a large, amplifying, climate feedback. This large cloud feedback confirms high climate sensitivity, consistent with paleoclimate data and with the rate of global warming in the past century.

https://mailchi.mp/caa/large-cloud-feedback-confirms-high-climate-sensitivity

[TheClimateChanger]

A record-breaking 4th 90+ day at International Falls. Never before observed in the month of May. For some context, Cleveland has only seen one May with 4 or more days of 90+ (1962, 4); Detroit, 3 (1962, 6; 2018, 4; and 1895, 4); and Bristol, TN, 2 (1962 & 1941, 6). INL has twice as many days at or above 90+ than Dayton, Ohio has seen in the last 13 years! International Falls working hard to shed that the "icebox of the nation" title. I think we are really going to need to reconsider that title moving forward in a location that sees this kind of heat in the month of May.

[Typhoon Tip]

27 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

A record-breaking 4th 90+ day at International Falls. Never before observed in the month of May. For some context, Cleveland has only seen one May with 4 or more days of 90+ (1962, 4); Detroit, 3 (1962, 6; 2018, 4; and 1895, 4); and Bristol, TN, 2 (1962 & 1941, 6). INL has twice as many days at or above 90+ than Dayton, Ohio has seen in the last 13 years! International Falls working hard to shed that the "icebox of the nation" title. I think we are really going to need to reconsider that title moving forward in a location that sees this kind of heat in the month of May.

increasingly more suggestive of 'synergistic heat burst'   It's probably not really headline-worthy enough, because we're not talking heat that injures. However, the kind of stark contrast against background climatology (standard deviation), as well... far exceeding the leading indicators for the actual event, appear to qualify this.  

The impact does not necessarily - or should not ... - qualify them; the phenomenon clearly can be numerically definable.  I feel it is an important distinction because 'attribution' is probably more commonly taking place than the observation frequency, because they simply are below the "affective curve" and thus may not be readily definable/noticed. 

[TheClimateChanger]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

increasingly more suggestive of 'synergistic heat burst'   It's probably not really headline worth enough, because we're not talking heat that injures, but that kind of stark contrast against the back ground climatology, as well... so far exceeding the leading indicators for the actual event, appear to qualify this.  

The phenomenon itself does not necessarily - or should not ... - qualify as such by how it impacts.  It's pretty clearly numerically definable.

I would say a monthly record high maximum of 96F and monthly record high minimum of 70F are potentially deadly in a location with limited air conditioning. But this is a sparsely populated region, so one or two deaths over the baseline wouldn't even register as a blip.

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Hanson's latest mailing. The earth has gotten much dimmer in the past decade. The change is large, unexpected, and has big implications for our climate future. Hanson gives his side of the ongoing debate.

Abstract. Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of precise satellite data, with the decline so large that this change must be mainly reduced reflection of sunlight by clouds. Part of the cloud change is caused by reduction of human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is cloud feedback that occurs with global warming. The observed albedo change proves that clouds provide a large, amplifying, climate feedback. This large cloud feedback confirms high climate sensitivity, consistent with paleoclimate data and with the rate of global warming in the past century.

https://mailchi.mp/caa/large-cloud-feedback-confirms-high-climate-sensitivity

dimmer? But the earth only reflects light, maybe he means the sun has gotten dimmer?

 

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

increasingly more suggestive of 'synergistic heat burst'   It's probably not really headline-worthy enough, because we're not talking heat that injures. However, the kind of stark contrast against background climatology (standard deviation), as well... far exceeding the leading indicators for the actual event, appear to qualify this.  

The impact does not necessarily - or should not ... - qualify them; the phenomenon clearly can be numerically definable.

we've had heat bursts that exceeded 140 degrees that burned trees and crops and even doors, but these are not considered part of the temperature record

[LibertyBell]

26 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

A record-breaking 4th 90+ day at International Falls. Never before observed in the month of May. For some context, Cleveland has only seen one May with 4 or more days of 90+ (1962, 4); Detroit, 3 (1962, 6; 2018, 4; and 1895, 4); and Bristol, TN, 2 (1962 & 1941, 6). INL has twice as many days at or above 90+ than Dayton, Ohio has seen in the last 13 years! International Falls working hard to shed that the "icebox of the nation" title. I think we are really going to need to reconsider that title moving forward in a location that sees this kind of heat in the month of May.

inland areas are doing better with heat, meanwhile on the east coast we haven't seen a lengthy heatwave since 2002.

[TheClimateChanger]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

dimmer? But the earth only reflects light, maybe he means the sun has gotten dimmer?

 

It's observed from space. Less reflectivity would make it appear somewhat dimmer.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

It's observed from space. Less reflectivity would make it appear somewhat dimmer.

ah I like the word albedo more than dimmer.... albedo defines the percentage of reflectivity of nonluminous celestial bodies.

[Typhoon Tip]

27 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I would say a monthly record high maximum of 96F and monthly record high minimum of 70F are potentially deadly in a location with limited air conditioning. But this is a sparsely populated region, so one or two deaths over the baseline wouldn't even register as a blip.

I reworded some of that to make the point clearer. The impact of these is like everything in nature ... meaningful along a spectrum.  If the impact slips below what I called an "affective curve" (how meaningful it is perceived to be is unfortunately limited almost entirely by it's affect on us) we risk missing its inclusion in ongoing attribution science - which I believe is not a good thing. 

I don't argue that 96/70 may be a problem for those lacking acclimation.  Unfortunately ... the reality is that it doesn't mean an CC-attributable event did not take place.

What it all boils down to is that there is a difference between a hot spell, vs one of these synergistic heat bombs going off.    These latter event types are a phenomenon that ... probably always have been in history, but are increasing in frequency.   Moreover, at a more sophisticated/discrete study, they likely have value in understanding why/how CC will become an increasing threat.  For example, they are not [likely] limited in spatial scale.   There is the Pacific NW event in 2021.  There is France -scaled event in the early 2000s.   There is the 'micro' event that is just up there in that region of the NP, now.... Ranging to the whole world in 2023    These are all variable in their affecting ... So, you see what's going on there ( rhetorical );  these synergistic heat wave -related variability, in both size and actual thermal magnitude, make them very dangerous. 

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I reworded some of that to make the point clearer. The impact of these is like everything in nature ... meaningful along a spectrum.  If the impact slips below what I called an "affective curve" (how meaningful it is perceived to be is unfortunately limited almost entirely by it's affect on us) we risk missing its inclusion in ongoing attribution science - which I believe is not a good thing. 

I don't argue that 96/70 may be a problem for those lacking acclimation.  Unfortunately ... the reality is that it doesn't mean an CC-attributable event did not take place.

What it all boils down to is that there is a difference between a hot spell, vs one of these synergistic heat bombs going off.    These latter event types are a phenomenon that ... probably always have been in history, but are increasing in frequency.   Moreover, at a more sophisticated/discrete study, they likely have value in understanding why/how CC will become an increasing threat.  For example, they are not [likely] limited in spatial scale.   There is the Pacific NW event in 2021.  There is France -scaled event in the early 2000s.   There is the 'micro' event that is just up there in that region of the NP, now.... Ranging to the whole world in 2023    These are all variable in their affecting ... So, you see what's going on there ( rhetorical );  these synergistic heat wave -related variability, in both size and actual thermal magnitude, make them very dangerous. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_burst

 

heat bursts are absolutely wild, I want to experience one of these in my lifetime

In meteorology, a heat burst is a rare atmospheric phenomenon characterized by a sudden, localized increase in air temperature near the Earth's surface. Heat bursts typically occur during night-time and are associated with decaying thunderstorms.^[1] They are also characterized by extremely dry air and are sometimes associated with very strong, even damaging, winds.

Although the phenomenon is not fully understood, the event is thought to occur when rain evaporates (virga) into a parcel of cold, dry air high in the atmosphere, making the air denser than its surroundings.^[2] The parcel descends rapidly, warming due to compression, overshoots its equilibrium level, and reaches the surface, similar to a downburst.^[3]

Recorded temperatures during heat bursts, as informally known as "Satan's Storm", have reached well above 40 °C (104 °F), sometimes rising by 10 °C (18 °F) or more within only a few minutes.

Possible that temps rose above 100 °F (38 °C), however thermometers designed to detect temperatures up to 140 °F (60 °C) broke.

 

15 June 1960

Kopperl, Texas

75 °F (24 °C)

140 °F (60 °C)

65 °F

[b][68]

 

[LibertyBell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopperl,_Texas

 

Shortly after midnight on June 15, 1960, a very rare meteorological phenomenon, a heat burst, struck the community when a dying thunderstorm collapsed over Kopperl. The storm had rained itself out, and with little to no precipitation to cool the resulting downdrafts, superheated air descended upon the community in the form of extremely hot wind gusts up to 75 mph (121 km/h). The temperature increased rapidly, reportedly peaking near 140 °F (60 °C),^[3] 20° above the official all-time high for the state of Texas and exceeding the highest official temperature recorded on Earth. The storm, known as "Satan's Storm" by locals, soon became part of local folklore.^[4][5][6]

[LibertyBell]

22 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I reworded some of that to make the point clearer. The impact of these is like everything in nature ... meaningful along a spectrum.  If the impact slips below what I called an "affective curve" (how meaningful it is perceived to be is unfortunately limited almost entirely by it's affect on us) we risk missing its inclusion in ongoing attribution science - which I believe is not a good thing. 

I don't argue that 96/70 may be a problem for those lacking acclimation.  Unfortunately ... the reality is that it doesn't mean an CC-attributable event did not take place.

What it all boils down to is that there is a difference between a hot spell, vs one of these synergistic heat bombs going off.    These latter event types are a phenomenon that ... probably always have been in history, but are increasing in frequency.   Moreover, at a more sophisticated/discrete study, they likely have value in understanding why/how CC will become an increasing threat.  For example, they are not [likely] limited in spatial scale.   There is the Pacific NW event in 2021.  There is France -scaled event in the early 2000s.   There is the 'micro' event that is just up there in that region of the NP, now.... Ranging to the whole world in 2023    These are all variable in their affecting ... So, you see what's going on there ( rhetorical );  these synergistic heat wave -related variability, in both size and actual thermal magnitude, make them very dangerous. 

I don't know about you but I find these extreme events interesting and even exciting.

 

[LibertyBell]

39 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I would say a monthly record high maximum of 96F and monthly record high minimum of 70F are potentially deadly in a location with limited air conditioning. But this is a sparsely populated region, so one or two deaths over the baseline wouldn't even register as a blip.

The government needs to make air conditioning mandatory in every home and in every apartment.  I find it in 2025 it's highly ridiculous that more people have cell phones than air conditioning.  Home builders must be forced to include air conditioning in every home or apartment building they build.  We just did that here in New York.

If you can afford to have a cell phone you can afford to have air conditioning.

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

inland areas are doing better with heat, meanwhile on the east coast we haven't seen a lengthy heatwave since 2002.

As recently as 2022, a 6-day heatwave at JFK matched its third longest string on record.

A completely separate 8-day heatwave at LaGuardia later in the same summer also matched its 3 longest streak.

[TheClimateChanger]

While less impressive from a historical standpoint, EWR saw 10 straight 90+ days in early August 2022. They also had streaks of 14 days (2010) and 12 days (2012), since 2002.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

As recently as 2022, a 6-day heatwave at JFK matched its third longest string on record.

A completely separate 8-day heatwave at LaGuardia later in the same summer also matched its 3 longest streak.

For long heatwaves, I start at 7 days.  It's disappointing there have been no 7 plus day heatwaves here, as you can see from the above our best heatwaves were in 1953, 1993, 1999 and 2002.

Chris and I just talked about this in a different thread:

 

this goes towards my contention about why it's *climate change* and not *global warming*, there are different changes occurring in different parts of the world, the most pronounced change in our region during the so-called warm seasons has been more cloud cover and more rain.  More of a pronounced warming in the fall and winter.  September and even October have become extensions of late summer.

The changes are nuanced and don't always mean higher temperatures, especially in the warm season the increase in rainfall is more than the increase in temperatures.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, TheClimateChanger said:

While less impressive from a historical standpoint, EWR saw 10 straight 90+ days in early August 2022. They also had streaks of 14 days (2010) and 12 days (2012), since 2002.

1988 omg lol, that was definitely an inland summer

2010 was my favorite summer of all time

[TheClimateChanger]

It takes decades to get the full panoply of possible climatological outcomes in a stable climate. We have only surpassed 1.5C for a couple of years. Even if temperatures were to stabilize at this point for several decades, we would likely eventually see a summer heat wave exceeding anything of record as we started to "feel" the full impact of variability upon a new climatological state.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

While less impressive from a historical standpoint, EWR saw 10 straight 90+ days in early August 2022. They also had streaks of 14 days (2010) and 12 days (2012), since 2002.

2010 was my all time favorite for how hot and dry it was, we haven't seen this kind of summer here in more than a decade.

Notice how there is no year on that list after 2012 besides 2022.

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, TheClimateChanger said:

It takes decades to get the full panoply of possible climatological outcomes in a stable climate. We have only surpassed 1.5C for a couple of years. Even if temperatures were to stabilize at this point for several decades, we would likely eventually see a summer heat wave exceeding anything of record as we started to "feel" the full impact of variability upon a new climatological state.

I would like the rainfall to go down first. it's going to be difficult to get back to that kind of heat with so much rain.

 

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

As recently as 2022, a 6-day heatwave at JFK matched its third longest string on record.

A completely separate 8-day heatwave at LaGuardia later in the same summer also matched its 3 longest streak.

Thanks for this list, I hadn't been able to find a list for any of the airports, only the one for Central Park.

1953 tops them all at every station and it's interesting that it lasted into September.  Did JFK hit 100 like Central Park did in that 1953 super heatwave?  How many of those heatwaves did JFK hit 100 in?

 

I remember some of them very well" 1983, 1993 (my hottest long duration heatwave, JFK hit 100+ twice, NYC three times and EWR five times and later four more times for  a record nine 100+ temps in 1993!), 1999 and 2002.

[Typhoon Tip]

11 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

It takes decades to get the full panoply of possible climatological outcomes in a stable climate. We have only surpassed 1.5C for a couple of years. Even if temperatures were to stabilize at this point for several decades, we would likely eventually see a summer heat wave exceeding anything of record as we started to "feel" the full impact of variability upon a new climatological state.

Right .. simply put... climate is an addition of all events/ the number of events. 

That's it.   But if one understands what that means in practical terms, it means that the extent of extreme is thus hidden. 

That is why the statistical Standard Deviation is important - you observe all departures from normal, add them, and divide by the number of those occurrences.  We call that one standard deviation abnormality"   so... if a modeled and/or specific event is say  doubling that number, that is a 2 STD event...  This goes on... such that a 3, 4 ...5, n,  get exceedingly more rare.   When we talk about a "synergistic" synoptic heat event - LibertyBell, I miss guided you... this is what I was referring to before; I shouldn't have crossed that up with the 'heat burst' phenomenon you find in the AMS - these are typically more than 1 STD.   But they don't have to be...

That's the thing - attribution is always lurking.  That's why I suspect a better metric is in the d(frequency)

[bluewave]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Hanson's latest mailing. The earth has gotten much dimmer in the past decade. The change is large, unexpected, and has big implications for our climate future. Hanson gives his side of the ongoing debate.

Abstract. Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of precise satellite data, with the decline so large that this change must be mainly reduced reflection of sunlight by clouds. Part of the cloud change is caused by reduction of human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is cloud feedback that occurs with global warming. The observed albedo change proves that clouds provide a large, amplifying, climate feedback. This large cloud feedback confirms high climate sensitivity, consistent with paleoclimate data and with the rate of global warming in the past century.

https://mailchi.mp/caa/large-cloud-feedback-confirms-high-climate-sensitivity

Yeah, this is why other studies and the recent acceleration of warming are pointing toward higher climate sensitivity than previously believed. The 1.5C limit was always an unrealistic target for how fast we continue to burn fossil fuels. Unless something happens to slow this trajectory, we will be well on the way to +3C to +5C of warming.
 

https://cpo.noaa.gov/scientists-find-cloud-feedbacks-amplify-warming-more-than-previously-thought/

Clouds play an important role in how much the Earth warms when greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide increase. However, scientists have struggled to determine whether low-level clouds in the tropics slow down or speed up global warming, creating uncertainty in climate predictions. A new study published in Nature Communications and funded by the Climate Program Office’s Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) program adds to the growing evidence that cloud feedback is very likely to amplify warming in the climate system, rather than reduce it. 

The study found that the impact of clouds in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, two areas where low clouds are especially important, is much stronger than scientists previously thought — 71% higher. It also ruled out the possibility that tropical low clouds could have a cooling effect to offset warming. These findings narrow the uncertainty around one of the biggest unknowns in climate science and enable more accurate predictions of how much warming we might expect. This work was possible thanks to new techniques that balanced conflicting data from different regions, giving clearer answers.

The results show that Earth’s climate is likely more sensitive to rising carbon dioxide levels than many models have suggested. A stronger positive cloud feedback means faster and higher levels of warming. It also highlights the need to improve how climate models represent clouds, especially in tropical areas, to prepare better for the challenges of a changing climate. The investigators will extend the value of this study by developing and delivering a piece of software to NOAA that will diagnose issues with low cloud feedback in new versions of NOAA’s modeling systems. This will lead to improvements in NOAA models’ ability to capture appropriate levels of cloud feedback, and improvements in processes that lead to weather and climate prediction skill.

In the early 2000s, climate scientists could not say with confidence whether clouds would mitigate or amplify climate change. Some hypothesized that clouds might work to oppose a significant portion of human-caused warming by reflecting more incoming solar energy back out to space, while others hypothesized that particular changes in clouds might magnify warming by trapping more energy in the atmosphere. In 2001, NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics climate model was one of only three that simulated the type of significant positive cloud feedback we now know is likely happening. The MAPP and Climate Variability & Predictability (CVP) programs are advancing cloud representation in climate models through ongoing funded projects. By studying tropical cloud processes and precipitation and improving how they are represented across scales, these efforts are strengthening predictions and providing a clearer picture of our climate future.

Read the study »

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

17 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks for this list, I hadn't been able to find a list for any of the airports, only the one for Central Park.

1953 tops them all at every station and it's interesting that it lasted into September.  Did JFK hit 100 like Central Park did in that 1953 super heatwave?  How many of those heatwaves did JFK hit 100 in?

 

I remember some of them very well" 1983, 1993 (my hottest long duration heatwave, JFK hit 100+ twice, NYC three times and EWR five times and later four more times for  a record nine 100+ temps in 1993!), 1999 and 2002.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the older records. It's not always an apples-to-apples comparison to modern data. The thermometers were typically housed in cotton region shelters on rooftops, which can introduce significant warming bias relative to ground-based readings. No correction is ever made for this bias.

By the time they decommissioned the Baltimore Common House station, it was reporting dozens more days of 90+ than the airport. Watts somehow flips this to say it's causing a warming bias, when a more reasonable conclusion is that if we continued measuring temperature consistently at Baltimore, there would be dozens of additional days at or above 90F each summer.

See: How not to measure temperature, part 48. NOAA cites errors with Baltimore's Rooftop USHCN Station – Watts Up With That?

[LibertyBell]

15 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, this is why other studies and the recent acceleration of warming are pointing toward higher climate sensitivity than previously believed. The 1.5C limit was always an unrealistic target for how fast we continue to burn fossil fuels. Unless something happens to slow this trajectory, we will be well on the way to +3C to +5C of warming.
 

https://cpo.noaa.gov/scientists-find-cloud-feedbacks-amplify-warming-more-than-previously-thought/

Clouds play an important role in how much the Earth warms when greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide increase. However, scientists have struggled to determine whether low-level clouds in the tropics slow down or speed up global warming, creating uncertainty in climate predictions. A new study published in Nature Communications and funded by the Climate Program Office’s Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) program adds to the growing evidence that cloud feedback is very likely to amplify warming in the climate system, rather than reduce it. 

The study found that the impact of clouds in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, two areas where low clouds are especially important, is much stronger than scientists previously thought — 71% higher. It also ruled out the possibility that tropical low clouds could have a cooling effect to offset warming. These findings narrow the uncertainty around one of the biggest unknowns in climate science and enable more accurate predictions of how much warming we might expect. This work was possible thanks to new techniques that balanced conflicting data from different regions, giving clearer answers.

The results show that Earth’s climate is likely more sensitive to rising carbon dioxide levels than many models have suggested. A stronger positive cloud feedback means faster and higher levels of warming. It also highlights the need to improve how climate models represent clouds, especially in tropical areas, to prepare better for the challenges of a changing climate. The investigators will extend the value of this study by developing and delivering a piece of software to NOAA that will diagnose issues with low cloud feedback in new versions of NOAA’s modeling systems. This will lead to improvements in NOAA models’ ability to capture appropriate levels of cloud feedback, and improvements in processes that lead to weather and climate prediction skill.

In the early 2000s, climate scientists could not say with confidence whether clouds would mitigate or amplify climate change. Some hypothesized that clouds might work to oppose a significant portion of human-caused warming by reflecting more incoming solar energy back out to space, while others hypothesized that particular changes in clouds might magnify warming by trapping more energy in the atmosphere. In 2001, NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics climate model was one of only three that simulated the type of significant positive cloud feedback we now know is likely happening. The MAPP and Climate Variability & Predictability (CVP) programs are advancing cloud representation in climate models through ongoing funded projects. By studying tropical cloud processes and precipitation and improving how they are represented across scales, these efforts are strengthening predictions and providing a clearer picture of our climate future.

Read the study »

 

 

if we get this 3C of warming, JFK will hit 100 degrees every summer, regardless of onshore flow. Chris.

[TheClimateChanger]

23 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks for this list, I hadn't been able to find a list for any of the airports, only the one for Central Park.

1953 tops them all at every station and it's interesting that it lasted into September.  Did JFK hit 100 like Central Park did in that 1953 super heatwave?  How many of those heatwaves did JFK hit 100 in?

 

I remember some of them very well" 1983, 1993 (my hottest long duration heatwave, JFK hit 100+ twice, NYC three times and EWR five times and later four more times for  a record nine 100+ temps in 1993!), 1999 and 2002.

I also wouldn't put much stock into the 1986-1995 era, which shows tons of big heat. The HO-83 had a significant warm bias.

See: Inside the HO83 Hygrothermometer « Climate Audit

Here is comparative data from Lincoln, NE, for 1991 & 1992, comparing readings from the HO-83 versus a newly installed ASOS.

There was only 1 day where the HO-83 max was lower than the ASOS. On one date, it was 7 degrees warmer!

We have to remember our ability to measure temperature today is better than at any point in history. As almost any bias results in a warmer temperature [except for poor calibration, which could go either way, and shading, which introduces a cool bias], this naturally makes it more difficult to reach these lofty readings with regularity. Shading is probably a bigger issue today. I know NYC doesn't comply with setbacks and I see trees around a lot of sites.

[LibertyBell]

17 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Right .. simply put... climate is an addition of all events/ the number of events. 

That's it.   But if one understands what that means in practical terms, it means that the extent of extreme is thus hidden. 

That is why the statistical Standard Deviation is important - you observe all departures from normal, add them, and divide by the number of those occurrences.  We call that one standard deviation abnormality"   so... if a modeled and/or specific event is say  doubling that number, that is a 2 STD event...  This goes on... such that a 3, 4 ...5, n,  get exceedingly more rare.   When we talk about a "synergistic" synoptic heat event - LibertyBell, I miss guided you... this is what I was referring to before; I shouldn't have crossed that up with the 'heat burst' phenomenon you find in the AMS - these are typically more than 1 STD.   But they don't have to be...

That's the thing - attribution is always lurking.  That's why I suspect a better metric is in the d(frequency)

Yes, this is why I always say we should define normal as within one standard deviation, rather than a single *average* number.

Don't get me started on that, TCC and I both hate that word *average* lol.