Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

Yep this makes a lot of sense....

[Cobalt]

32 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Yep this makes a lot of sense....

It is quite the weather extreme, considering that Mt. Washington reached this mark shortly after scoring the 2nd warmest first two months of winter on record. 

Considering how this upcoming month is slated to be much AN following the extreme (but brief) 2 day cold snap, it is plausible that the site achieves both its warmest winter and coldest wind chill temperature in the exact same season. I'm not sure what your definition of "extreme" is, but that doesn't seem like something that happens every year. 

[csnavywx]

What happened to all of the Antarctic sea ice pumpers from a few years ago? Two year spike and all we heard was how this disproves global warming. Crickets now.....

[chubbs]

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

based on these high SST, how come we're not already in an el nino?

 

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

based on these high SST, how come we're not already in an el nino?

 

The warming is strongest in eastern enso regions 1+2, and 3. Per models will take a couple of months for 3.4 to reach 0.5C. There has also been warming of the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific outside the enso regions. Unusual to break SST records this early in a nino. 

[HailMan06]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:10 PM, chubbs said:

 

It’s going to be another hot year…likely close to record-breaking.

[GaWx]

 I'm posting some charts below showing the averaged Arctic mean temp anomalies by season and year for 80N to the pole.

 This first one has winter, summer, and annual. Note that whereas the 5 year winter mean anomaly has warmed considerably (~6C) over the last 30 years due to GW, the summer mean has remained steady:

  
 This next one has spring, autumn, and annual. Whereas the 5 year autumn has warmed ~5C over the last 30 years, spring has warmed only ~3C over the same period:

 So in summary due to GW over the last 30 years, here are the Arctic warmings based on 5 year averages:

 

winter 6C

autumn 5C

spring 3C

summer 0C

annual 3.5C

 I find this quite interesting! Can anyone here explain these discrepancies between seasons? I'm especially curious about the autumn's 5C vs the spring's 3C.
 

 So, with the Arctic winters having warmed 6C due to GW while the summers haven't warmed any, the mean difference from winter to summer there has shrunk 6C.

 Aside: The last 6 years excluding 2022 have had their coldest in March, with 2023 just having occurred on March 16th as per this. Can a later average coldest of winter in the Arctic be explained from a GW perspective? Anyone know?

 
 

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, GaWx said:

 I'm posting some charts below showing the averaged Arctic mean temp anomalies by season and year for 80N to the pole.

 This first one has winter, summer, and annual. Note that whereas the 5 year winter mean anomaly has warmed considerably (~6C) over the last 30 years due to GW, the winter mean has remained steady:

  
 This next one has spring, autumn, and annual. Whereas the 5 year autumn has warmed ~5C over the last 30 years, spring has warmed only ~3C over the same period:

 So in summary due to GW over the last 30 years, here are the Arctic warmings based on 5 year averages:

 

winter 6C

autumn 5C

spring 3C

summer 0C

annual 3.5C

 I find this quite interesting! Can anyone here explain these discrepancies between seasons? I'm especially curious about the autumn's 5C vs the spring's 3C.
 

 So, with the Arctic winters having warmed 6C due to GW while the summers haven't warmed any, the mean difference from winter to summer there has shrunk 6C.

 Aside: The last 6 years excluding 2022 have had their coldest in March, with 2023 just having occurred on March 16th as per this. Can a later average coldest of winter in the Arctic be explained from a GW perspective? Anyone know?

 
 

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

This reflects properties of ice and water. In winter ice is thick, not much heat escapes through the ice, and arctic ocean acts like land with large temperature swings (same for early Spring). Water with ice in it has a temperature near the freezing point of water. One ice cube is enough to maintain near 32F water in a glass of ice water. Adding heat in summer results in less Arctic sea ice; but, as long as some ice remains the ocean water temperature stays near the freezing point of water, so arctic ocean temperature swings are much smaller in summer than in winter. In fall there is more open water to freeze with warming and freezing releases heat;  and, ocean water has stored more solar energy due to darker surface in summer with less ice and/or wetter ice. So makes sense that fall warms faster than spring.

[bdgwx]

On 3/18/2023 at 5:25 PM, HailMan06 said:

It’s going to be another hot year…likely close to record-breaking.

There is a 4-5 month lag in the global average temperature response to ENSO cycles so I'm not expecting near record temperatures this year. 2024 would be the year to watch for a possible record.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

There is a 4-5 month lag in the global average temperature response to ENSO cycles so I'm not expecting near record temperatures this year. 2024 would be the year to watch for a possible record.

thats correct, also doesn't el nino inject more water vapor into the atmosphere which would keep high temps in check?  higher mins and higher humidity though

 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:10 PM, chubbs said:

 

Folks may find it interesting that 90% of the AGW quotient has been absorbed by the oceans ... this according to that despicable colluded bastion of liars known as scientists.  You prolly heard of 'em...  go by the name-a NASA ...

This bag woulda been a whole lot worse by now if it wasn't for that big friendly oceanic heat sink giving humanity second chance after second chance in this unwittingly fervent Fermian explanation -

And as the industrial gears of conveniences continue to enable humanity with the relative utopia it provides, it's simply a problem with enabling.  That's it. Nothing else really... when we're in this (compared to 100 years ago), "risk" becomes lesser knowable.  Who the f born since ... 1940 really is conditioned to understand real existential threat?  

No...there's no 'projected sense' of what bad decisions are in a realm like that. There's no consequences. There's no lessons learned.  No realizations ever made.  Not here inside the industrial bubble, where a buffet of alternatives offer salvation from responsibility.

People deny because they can.

Somewhere along the rants and diatribes of earlier chapters ... I spent time discussing how the consortium of those in higher academia that I socialize with ( PHDs and the like... those happy with their silent research and family) agree.  Curing AGW is not a tenable goal.  Being forced, however, by suffering and lot of population correction, is. The problem with adaptation in a post- AGW reality is far more so definable as a sociological one. Not technology limitation.  

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Folks may find it interesting that 90% of the AGW quotient has been absorbed by the oceans ... this according to that despicable colluded bastion of liars known as scientists.  You prolly heard of 'em...  go by the name-a NASA ...

This bag woulda been a whole lot worse by now if it wasn't for that big friendly oceanic heat sink giving humanity second chance after second chance in this unwittingly fervent Fermian explanation -

And as the industrial gears of conveniences continue to enable humanity with the relative utopia it provides, it's simply a problem with enabling.  That's it. Nothing else really... when we're in this (compared to 100 years ago), "risk" becomes lesser knowable.  Who the f born since ... 1940 really is conditioned to understand real existential threat?  

No...there's no 'projected sense' of what bad decisions are in a realm like that. There's no consequences. There's no lessons learned.  No realizations ever made.  Not here inside the industrial bubble, where a buffet of alternatives offer salvation from responsibility.

People deny because they can.

Somewhere along the rants and diatribes of earlier chapters ... I spent time discussing how the consortium of those in higher academia that I socialize with ( PHDs and the like... those happy with their silent research and family) agree.  Curing AGW is not a tenable goal.  Being forced, however, by suffering and lot of population correction, is. The problem with adaptation in a post- AGW reality is far more so definable as a sociological one. Not technology limitation.  

 

That's correct, but what I find fascinating in a horribly ironic way is....do the people in charge not realize how dire the situation is and that we are at end stage with this or do they not take it seriously enough-- their lackadaisacal approach is quite perplexing.  Or are they convinced we'll find a new planet to populate (terraforming Mars perhaps?)  What do they expect the final outcome to be?  Also, and just as importantly, why don't scientists in this field, rather than just issuing reports, speak out more loudly, that human societies will collapse within our lifetimes if this is allowed to continue?  Why dont they go on strike and force everything to a halt until this is truly addressed?  I think at this point mass strikes by scientists are the only way we can stop this calamity now.  You'd think that the pandemic would have taught humanity a lesson....but humanity shows itself to not be deserving of its "sapiens" name all the time.

 

 

[GaWx]

https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/02/the-hurricane-forecast-dilemma-and-warming/
 
  The part of this that I'd to hear comments about is this:

"...the rapid rise of co2 began in the 1950s.

 Yet you can also see SSTs. rose little in that time, Co 2 could not be affecting temperatures.

Underwater Volcanic activity began its increase in the 80s with the more rapid seismic spreading taking off in the 90s."

 Here are my questions:

1. Did the rapid rise in CO2 really begin in the 1950s? The graph he shows still looks pretty flat in the 1950s and still rather tame in the 1960s. 

2. Did the global mean SSTs really rise little until 1991? If so, why did it take that long? Did the level of sulfates have anything to do with this?

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, GaWx said:

https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/02/the-hurricane-forecast-dilemma-and-warming/
 
  The part of this that I'd to hear comments about is this:

"...the rapid rise of co2 began in the 1950s.

 Yet you can also see SSTs. rose little in that time, Co 2 could not be affecting temperatures.

Underwater Volcanic activity began its increase in the 80s with the more rapid seismic spreading taking off in the 90s."

 Here are my questions:

1. Did the rapid rise in CO2 really begin in the 1950s? The graph he shows still looks pretty flat in the 1950s and still rather tame in the 1960s. 

2. Did the global mean SSTs really rise little until 1991? If so, why did it take that long? Did the level of sulfates have anything to do with this?

More BS from JB. You are on the right track with #2, Sulfate and other aerosols offset the warming impact of CO2 and GHG before 1970. Since 1970 man-made climate forcing and global temperatures have ramped together. Very close correlation between net man-made forcing and global temperature (and SST).

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

More BS from JB. You are on the right track with #2, Sulfate and other aerosols offset the warming impact of CO2 and GHG before 1970. Since 1970 man-made climate forcing and global temperatures have ramped together. Very close correlation between net man-made forcing and global temperature (and SST).

There was a spike in temperatures after we passed the Clean Air Act too.

 

[bdgwx]

 

On 4/2/2023 at 2:55 PM, GaWx said:

https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/02/the-hurricane-forecast-dilemma-and-warming/
 
  The part of this that I'd to hear comments about is this:

"...the rapid rise of co2 began in the 1950s.

 Yet you can also see SSTs. rose little in that time, Co 2 could not be affecting temperatures.

Underwater Volcanic activity began its increase in the 80s with the more rapid seismic spreading taking off in the 90s."

 Here are my questions:

1. Did the rapid rise in CO2 really begin in the 1950s? The graph he shows still looks pretty flat in the 1950s and still rather tame in the 1960s. 

2. Did the global mean SSTs really rise little until 1991? If so, why did it take that long? Did the level of sulfates have anything to do with this?

JB states or insinuates...

1) The CO2 rise is steady but the warming isn't therefore CO2 cannot be a contributing factor. 

2) Seismic activity is correlated with the temperature rise therefore geothermal heat input is the cause of the warming.

There is a possible 3rd insinuation related to hurricane activity that I have not yet deciphered due to the strange flow of the article so I won't discuss it.

1) This is an all too common contrarian talking point. In it's generalized formed it is a statement that if variable C is not fully responsible for effect E then it cannot be responsible at all. Obviously this is absurd and a degreed meteorologist of all things should be keenly aware of this flawed thinking. It would be like saying because convective available potential energy (CAPE) is not the sole discriminator of severe weather outbreak breadth and magnitude then it cannot have any modulating effect. Obviously absurd. Furthermore, if he doesn't think CO2 is the cause then he needs to explain where all of that energy that CO2 is blocking from escaping is going if it is not being retained within the climate system. Since JB often uses global circulation models (GCMs) I'm going to assume he accepts that CO2 impedes the transmission of energy since GCMs employ radiative transfer parameterization schemes (like the RRTM) which unequivocally say that CO2 produces a positive radiative force when its atmospheric concentration increases no different than say water vapor.

2) He doesn't explain where he got the seismic data so I cannot replicate his work. But assuming the data is correct and there are no caveats to it's use (experience tells us that is a big IF coming from JB) that still does not mean seismic activity is THE cause of the warming. Correlation does not guarantee causation. Furthermore, we know the planetary energy imbalance is about +0.8 W/m2. It is generally accepted that geothermal activity releases about 0.1 W/m2 on average. If JB is going to make the extraordinary claim that geothermal activity increased by a factor of 9 (0.9 - 0.1 = 0.8 W/m2) then he needs to present extraordinary evidence. Finally, he will need to explain how warming from bottom up can cause the stratosphere to cool.

[bluewave]

On 3/19/2023 at 10:18 PM, GaWx said:

 I'm posting some charts below showing the averaged Arctic mean temp anomalies by season and year for 80N to the pole.

 This first one has winter, summer, and annual. Note that whereas the 5 year winter mean anomaly has warmed considerably (~6C) over the last 30 years due to GW, the summer mean has remained steady:

 

This tweet gives another answer to your good question.

 

[csnavywx]

These arguments about geothermal heat and volcanic CO2 aren't just wrong, they're wrong by orders of magnitude. 2 orders of magnitude on volcanic CO2 and 4 or 5 on geothermal heat. Not even in the same solar system. This is the sort of thing that a basic back-of-the-napkin order of magnitude estimate from a basic statistics or physics class could rule out in about 10 minutes. Really! First week of class, first year stuff.

[Volcanic Winter]

On 4/4/2023 at 3:17 PM, csnavywx said:

These arguments about geothermal heat and volcanic CO2 aren't just wrong, they're wrong by orders of magnitude. 2 orders of magnitude on volcanic CO2 and 4 or 5 on geothermal heat. Not even in the same solar system. This is the sort of thing that a basic back-of-the-napkin order of magnitude estimate from a basic statistics or physics class could rule out in about 10 minutes. Really! First week of class, first year stuff.

Even the Siberian Traps took thousands of years to cause the major hothouse excursion of the Permian Mass Extinction via volcanic CO2.

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, Volcanic Winter said:

Even the Siberian Traps took thousands of years to cause the major hothouse excursion of the Permian Mass Extinction via volcanic CO2.

Besides climate change's innate issues there's a lot of other horrible stuff that can happen in a warming world, including the mass release of millions of years old dormant pathogens as the earth warms.

 

[HailMan06]

I wonder if the Shiveluch volcano will have some kind of climatic impact since the eruption plume apparently went up into the stratosphere.

[bdgwx]

The only estimate I've seen so far is about 0.4 MtSO2. That is coincidently about the same as Hunga Tonga. Unless there is a significant upward revision to the SO2 release it is unlikely Shiveluch will lower the global average temperature by more than a few hundredths of a degree.

[ChescoWx]

Finally overlaid the PHL weather observations from the 1890's vs. all of the available NWS Coop sites averages by decade for Chester County PA (PHL in Red)....unsurprisingly little warming in the suburbs....but once we get to the UHI Airport (just a little over 20 air miles east of Chester County) we are off to the warming races. Look at how the variance is rapidly growing! But no worries let's let our local ABC outlet continue to show only climate data from the PHL Airport since 1970.

[chubbs]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Finally overlaid the PHL weather observations from the 1890's vs. all of the available NWS Coop sites averages by decade for Chester County PA (PHL in Red)....unsurprisingly little warming in the suburbs....but once we get to the UHI Airport (just a little over 20 air miles east of Chester County) we are off to the warming races. Look at how the variance is rapidly growing! But no worries let's let our local ABC outlet continue to show only climate data from the PHL Airport since 1970.

Shows how misleading your analysis is. Per NOAA Chester County has warmed by roughly 3.5F since the 1890s. Note that the Philly obs moved to the airport in 1940, so there is less heat island impact at the end of the Philly record than the beginning. 

 

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Finally overlaid the PHL weather observations from the 1890's vs. all of the available NWS Coop sites averages by decade for Chester County PA (PHL in Red)....unsurprisingly little warming in the suburbs....but once we get to the UHI Airport (just a little over 20 air miles east of Chester County) we are off to the warming races. Look at how the variance is rapidly growing! But no worries let's let our local ABC outlet continue to show only climate data from the PHL Airport since 1970.

What efforts did you take to address the biases this time around?

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Shows how misleading your analysis is. Per NOAA Chester County has warmed by roughly 3.5F since the 1890s. Note that the Philly obs moved to the airport in 1940, so there is less heat island impact at the end of the Philly record than the beginning. 

 

Only if NOAA applies adjustments - my data is all of the available Chester County PA data clean and not adjusted. What you show above is not clean data. Your data is wrong as it shows below 51 degrees for Chester County in the 1890's. However the actual NWS COOP data shows the County average was actually 52.8. So you have an adjusting cooling that contaminates the data

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

my data is all of the available Chester County PA data clean and not adjusted.

How can you describe data that is contaminated with biases as "clean"?

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

What you show above is not clean data

What @chubbs shows is adjusted data. It may not be "clean" in the sense that all biases have been removed. But it is "clean" in the sense that an effort was made to remove as much as possible.

Also, why are you so resistant to adjustments in the land record, but seem to welcome it for the satellite record? 

[bluewave]

6 hours ago, chubbs said:

Note that the Philly obs moved to the airport in 1940, so there is less heat island impact at the end of the Philly record than the beginning. 

That is an important point since there is less UHI at the airports than at the Franklin Institute. The airports are further away from urban center. But the Franklin Institute is more downtown. So you can see it especially with the morning lows between the sites. The highs are nearly identical. 

 

Data for December 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

State	Name	Station Type	Mean Min Temperature
PA	PHILADELPHIA FRANKLIN INSTITUTE	COOP	35.0
DE	LEWES	COOP	34.8
MD	ROYAL OAK 2 SSW	COOP	33.8
NJ	CAPE MAY 2 NW	COOP	33.7
DE	GEORGETOWN-DELAWARE COASTAL AIRPORT	WBAN	33.4
PA	PHILADELPHIA INTL AP	WBAN	33.2
MD	STEVENSVILLE 2SW	COOP	33.0
NJ	SEABROOK FARMS	COOP	33.0
DE	DOVER	COOP	32.8
NJ	MARGATE	COOP	32.8
NJ	EB FORSYTHE NEW JERSEY	RAWS	32.7
DE	WILMINGTON PORTER RES	COOP	32.0
NJ	LONG BRANCH-OAKHURST	COOP	31.1
DE	WILMINGTON NEW CASTLE CO AP	WBAN	30.9
PA	NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT	WBAN	30.9

 

Data for December 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

State	Name	Station Type	Mean Max Temperature
DE	GEORGETOWN-DELAWARE COASTAL AIRPORT	WBAN	53.6
MD	ROYAL OAK 2 SSW	COOP	51.7
NJ	ESTELL MANOR	COOP	51.3
DE	DOVER	COOP	50.9
DE	LEWES	COOP	50.7
NJ	CAPE MAY 2 NW	COOP	49.8
NJ	ATLANTIC CITY INTL AP	WBAN	49.8
NJ	MOORESTOWN 4 E	COOP	49.8
NJ	EB FORSYTHE NEW JERSEY	RAWS	49.7
NJ	MILLVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT	WBAN	49.6
DE	WILMINGTON NEW CASTLE CO AP	WBAN	49.4
PA	PHILADELPHIA INTL AP	WBAN	49.2
NJ	SOUTH JERSEY REGIONAL AIRPORT	WBAN	49.1
NJ	SEABROOK FARMS	COOP	49.0
PA	PHILADELPHIA FRANKLIN INSTITUTE	COOP	48.9
PA	PHOENIXVILLE 1 E	COOP	48.9
MD	STEVENSVILLE 2SW	COOP	48.7
PA	NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT	WBAN	48.7

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Only if NOAA applies adjustments - my data is all of the available Chester County PA data clean and not adjusted. What you show above is not clean data. Your data is wrong as it shows below 51 degrees for Chester County in the 1890's. However the actual NWS COOP data shows the County average was actually 52.8. So you have an adjusting cooling that contaminates the data

Its more than the bias adjustment. Coatesville raw data (3 separate stations) has exactly the same warming rate as the Philadelphia airport since 1970, roughly3.5F. You have obscured the warming by mixing in poor quality stations and changing the station mix from decade to decade. Including adding in your own house (EN), which you picked for its cold, snowy location.