March 2015 PNW Discussion

[Front Ranger]

Nice post and nice stats.

 

The main warm stretch to compare this one to...in terms of consecutive months at or very near all-time warm...is the Jan-Apr 1934 period. Until 2014 we had never seen a similar three month+ consecutive string of all-time warm months (Aug-Oct 2014 were all basically warmest on record for the Portland area). It is interesting to see the other warm stretches listed, such as 1991-1992 which while it was very warm overall it didn't produce a string of all-time warm months at least not at PDX.

 

Again, I think you have to look beyond PDX, as it's obviously been more affected by increased UHI than most stations.

 

For example, Troutdale only has records back to 1965, yet the only record warm month they've seen in the past year was Oct 2014.

 

Battle Ground has records back further, and has not seen a record warm month in the past year.

 

Forest Grove? Same story...no record warm months in the past year.

 

For Oregon City, Oct 2014 was the only record warm month.

 

Clearly, PDX is the outlier for the area.

[bainbridgekid]

Nice day today.

 

Plenty of sun between the quick moving showers.

[BLI snowman]

Nothing you said contradicts what I said. Yes, the 12 month anomalies have likely been unprecedented on record, because of the sustained nature of the pattern/very warm anomalies.

 

However, I was talking monthly anomalies, not 12 months.

 

My point was that it's a silly and unrealistic standard  to look at some of the record warmth recently and expect that each month should be record warm across the entirety of the region. Just because it hasn't been doesn't make it any less historic. In the modern record, 1933-34 and 1991-92 are the only comparable periods for this degree of warmth, 1916-17 and 1948-49 for that degree of cold. 

[Jesse]

PDX approaching 60 again.

 

Just unbelievable. It's basically April this month.

[Front Ranger]

My point was that it's a silly and unrealistic standard  to look at some of the record warmth recently and expect that each month should be record warm across the entirety of the region. Just because it hasn't been doesn't make it any less historic. In the modern record, 1933-34 and 1991-92 are the only comparable periods for this degree of warmth, 1916-17 and 1948-49 for that degree of cold. 

 

You missed my point, then. I was never arguing that the past year or so hasn't been historic. It has. 

 

Some have been talking about all the record warm months recently, when that mainly applies just to a few stations, most of which have seen increased UHI and are outliers: SEA, PDX, and to a lesser extent probably SLE. That was my point - you can't just look at PDX or SEA and expect that to accurately represent the region when it comes to record warm monthly anomalies.

 

The evidence is clear that the number of record warm months they've rolled off recently does not match up with most other surrounding stations. Of course, they are given more weight simply because they are the big airport stations.

 

Has it been very warm, probably unprecedented when looking at the past 12 months across the region? Of course. But do all the record warm months at PDX and SEA accurately reflect the region? No...they are an exaggeration of what has been an impressively sustained pattern. 

 

This isn't a my side/your side issue...it's pretty easy to see both sides, if you're being logical. Nothing either of us are saying is contradicting the other.

[Jesse]

My point was that it's a silly and unrealistic standard to look at some of the record warmth recently and expect that each month should be record warm across the entirety of the region. Just because it hasn't been doesn't make it any less historic. In the modern record, 1933-34 and 1991-92 are the only comparable periods for this degree of warmth, 1916-17 and 1948-49 for that degree of cold.

The scary thing is that all signs point to this regime continuing.

 

No reason to think we won't continue to break new ground all the way through the Fall, if not longer.

 

On the way to being a completely unprecedented stretch of persistent warmth, just like California has seen.

[Abbotsford_wx]

You missed my point, then. I was never arguing that the past year or so hasn't been historic. It has. 

 

Some have been talking about all the record warm months recently, when that mainly applies just to a few stations, most of which have seen increased UHI and are outliers: SEA, PDX, and to a lesser extent probably SLE. That was my point - you can't just look at PDX or SEA and expect that to accurately represent the region when it comes to record warm monthly anomalies.

 

The evidence is clear that the number of record warm months they've rolled off recently does not match up with most other surrounding stations. Of course, they are given more weight simply because they are the big airport stations.

 

Has it been very warm, probably unprecedented when looking at the past 12 months across the region? Of course. But do all the record warm months at PDX and SEA accurately reflect the region? No...they are an exaggeration of what has been an impressively sustained pattern. 

 

This isn't a my side/your side issue...it's pretty easy to see both sides, if you're being logical. Nothing either of us are saying is contradicting the other.

 

Several stations in southern BC had their warmest Feb on record, and most of them aren't UHI locations.

 

Quoting from another forum, not sure if it works...

 

 

Here is a list of some long standing weather stations that just experienced their warmest February on record:

AGASSIZ (with 124 years of data)

ESTEVAN POINT (with 92 years of data)

HOPE (with 77 years of data)

KASLO (with 103 years of data)

PACHENA POINT (with 89 years of data)

PENTICTON (with 72 years of data)

SAANICHTON (with 101 years of data)

VICTORIA (with 112 years of data)

 

In addition to that list, Abbotsford with 71 years of data.

 

The list may not be exhaustive, either.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Abbotsford_wx

[Front Ranger]

Several stations is southern BC had their warmest Feb on record, and most of them aren't UHI locations.

 

Sure. Clearbook, a non-UHI influenced station in northern WA also had a record warm Feb.

 

But the discussion was centered around the number of record warm months PDX has put up recently, if you look back at Chris and Jesse's comments.

 

The surrounding stations to PDX don't match up. It's pretty simple. And as noted before, OLM and EUG, the two most prominent non-UHI stations in the PNW, have both only seen one record warm month since the mid 1990s: Oct 2014.

[Jesse]

Sure. Clearbook, a non-UHI influenced station in northern WA also had a record warm Feb.

 

But the discussion was centered around the number of record warm months PDX has put up recently, if you look back at Chris and Jesse's comments.

 

The surrounding stations don't match up. It's pretty simple.

What on earth are you even trying to accomplish here?

[Front Ranger]

What on earth are you even trying to accomplish here?

 

Pointing out the facts. Information no one else has really brought up. When you're talking about the number of record warm months at PDX the past year, it's pretty relevant to the discussion.

 

Why does that seem to bother you? Would you prefer to ignore the obvious role of UHI in anomalies?

[Front Ranger]

Again, I'm not sure why it's so hard for some on here to both agree that it's been an unprecedented warm stretch, but also see that there's more to the story than monthly anomalies at certain stations.

 

The world is not black and white! It's complex, and you'll often learn more by digging a little deeper.

[Deweydog]

PDX approaching 60 again.

 

Just unbelievable. It's basically April this month.

I could be wrong but isn't the average high like 58?

[Deweydog]

Again, I'm not sure why it's so hard for some on here to both agree that it's been an unprecedented warm stretch, but also see that there's more to the story than monthly anomalies at certain stations.

 

The world is not black and white! It's complex, and you'll often learn more by digging a little deeper.

Sucks when your reputation precedes you.

[Jesse]

I could be wrong but isn't the average high like 58?

We're on track for a monthly mean that matches an average April.

 

When the "cool" days are close to 60 it doesn't help!

[Deweydog]

We're on track for a monthly mean that matches an average April.

 

When the "cool" days are close to 60 it doesn't help!

Lots of sunbreaks on 3-21 will generally do that. Heavy shower, cooler temps.

[BLI snowman]

You missed my point, then. I was never arguing that the past year or so hasn't been historic. It has. 

 

Some have been talking about all the record warm months recently, when that mainly applies just to a few stations, most of which have seen increased UHI and are outliers: SEA, PDX, and to a lesser extent probably SLE. That was my point - you can't just look at PDX or SEA and expect that to accurately represent the region when it comes to record warm monthly anomalies.

 

The evidence is clear that the number of record warm months they've rolled off recently does not match up with most other surrounding stations. Of course, they are given more weight simply because they are the big airport stations.

 

Has it been very warm, probably unprecedented when looking at the past 12 months across the region? Of course. But do all the record warm months at PDX and SEA accurately reflect the region? No...they are an exaggeration of what has been an impressively sustained pattern. 

 

This isn't a my side/your side issue...it's pretty easy to see both sides, if you're being logical. Nothing either of us are saying is contradicting the other.

 

I think everyone is pretty well aware of the UHI angle at this point. Re-emphasizing it is probably about as useful as re-emphasizing that it's been warm lately. But people like to talk about sexy records, and as long as they're being set some discussion is inevitable.

 

BLI also set its monthly record in February. There's not even a question that it was a historic month for southern BC and northern WA. The Portland area was generally warmer in February 1934, 1958, 1991, and 1992, so February's standing down there is less impressive.

[IbrChris]

Again, I think you have to look beyond PDX, as it's obviously been more affected by increased UHI than most stations.

 

For example, Troutdale only has records back to 1965, yet the only record warm month they've seen in the past year was Oct 2014.

 

Battle Ground has records back further, and has not seen a record warm month in the past year.

 

Forest Grove? Same story...no record warm months in the past year.

 

For Oregon City, Oct 2014 was the only record warm month.

 

Clearly, PDX is the outlier for the area.

Using PRISM high resolution reanalysis dataset Oct 2014 at Battle Ground was only 0.2 deg behind Oct 1944 (56.8 mean temp vs 57.0 in 1944).

 

However at Forest Grove Oct 2014 was well behind Oct 1952 the warmest (57.6 vs 59.1 in 1952)

 

It should be noted that 1934 was the warmest calendar year at BG and 3rd warmest at FG (period 1895-2014).

 

PDX had 60.1 in Oct 2014, 58.6 in 1952 and 58.5 in 1944. Probably UHI to blame, I agree.

 

[Front Ranger]

I think everyone is pretty well aware of the UHI angle at this point. Re-emphasizing it is probably about as useful as re-emphasizing that it's been warm lately. But people like to talk about sexy records, and as long as they're being set some discussion is inevitable.

 

BLI also set its monthly record in February. There's not even a question that it was a historic month for southern BC and northern WA. The Portland area was generally warmer in February 1934, 1958, 1991, and 1992, so February's standing down there is less impressive.

 

Most probably are, but going by some of the statements on here, it's still ignored at times. It's just easier to not account for it, I guess. Sure, it's still worth noting when PDX or SEA sees a record warm month/year/whatever, but it's also worth nothing factors that contributed to that, and comparing those stations to other ones. 

 

Definitely agree on Feb for northern WA/southern BC.

 

Oct 2014 was the only month recently that produced widespread record warmth all the way from southern BC to southern OR. When Clearbrook, OLM, Troutdale, and EUG all see a record warm month, you know it's definitely legit and quite impressive.

[Front Ranger]

Sucks when your reputation precedes you.

 

I'm just Miss Understood.

[Deweydog]

I'm just Miss Understood.

In this case probably a little. You should have hired an intermediary.

[TT-SEA]

I could be wrong but isn't the average high like 58?

You might just be right.

[Front Ranger]

Basically, the way I look at it is that ignoring UHI influence is like ignoring AGW influence.

 

All things being equal, it's ultimately the dominant weather pattern that determines temperature and anomalies. But because the atmosphere is about a degree warmer than it was 100 years ago, the exact same pattern/conditions that produced a 55 degree high then might produce a 56 degree high now. Thus, warm records will be easier to achieve than cold records, overall (though on a regional level, this can fluctuate over shorter periods of time - some regions will still see more cold records set).

 

With UHI, it's a little more complicated because every station location is different and sees different changes over time, but we know that urban stations are often anywhere from 2-6 degrees warmer than nearby rural stations, especially at night. So the more urban a station becomes over the course of record, the easier it will be to produce warmer overall temps and anomalies.

 

It's easy to pay less attention to the relatively minor (compared to the pattern) effects of AGW and UHI when temps are near normal or cooler than normal. But when the pattern favors warm, especially for a long period of time, that's when you start to see the historical differences more clearly as warm records will easily accumulate, especially at stations that favor it. Warmth that would have just been very warm before UHI/AGW becomes record warm at some stations.

 

In the case of most recent record warm months at the big stations, it's clear that the defining factor between record warm and very warm has been mainly UHI.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

18z

[Deweydog]

Sure seems to have been warm lately. Anyone else finding this to be true?

 

Edit: I just checked. I was right!

[Jesse]

Sure seems to have been warm lately. Anyone else finding this to be true?

 

Edit: I just checked. I was right!

Should we be focusing more on coastal SSTs and their implications on stratus formation?

 

The warmth has been really, really impressive. And with each passing record warm month it becomes more impressive.

 

If we were seeing a period of cold comparable to 1948-49 you know there would be a lot of talk about it.

[Deweydog]

Should we be focusing more on coastal SSTs and their implications on stratus formation?

 

The warmth has been really, really impressive. And with each passing record warm month it becomes more impressive.

 

If we were seeing a period of cold comparable to 1948-49 you know there would be a lot of talk about it.

There's been a lot of talk about it. And if it were instead 48-49 caliber cold, we all know Flatiron would be hammering mitigating aspects of it.

 

And ultimately, none of the warmth we've seen has exceeded what the pattern would allow.

[Jesse]

There's been a lot of talk about it. And if it were instead 48-49 caliber cold, we all know Flatiron would be hammering mitigating aspects of it.

 

And ultimately, none of the warmth we've seen has exceeded what the pattern would allow.

 

Is that ever to be expected?

 

Global warming seems like it would cause warmer patterns. Not cause the patterns themselves to exceed what they would normally achieve. 

 

I have never understood the assumption in AGW talk that it will simply take whatever pattern you might otherwise see and add a degree to it. The climate is way too complex for that kind of linear cause and effect.

 

An extra degree of heat in the system is monumental on a global level, and would be the average of massive changes in temperature in some locations and lesser changes in others.

 

It's not like everywhere just gets a degree warmer, neat and tidy. 

[Phil]

Basically, the way I look at it is that ignoring UHI influence is like ignoring AGW influence.

 

All things being equal, it's ultimately the dominant weather pattern that determines temperature and anomalies. But because the atmosphere is about a degree warmer than it was 100 years ago, the exact same pattern/conditions that produced a 55 degree high then might produce a 56 degree high now. Thus, warm records will be easier to achieve than cold records, overall (though on a regional level, this can fluctuate over shorter periods of time - some regions will still see more cold records set).

 

With UHI, it's a little more complicated because every station location is different and sees different changes over time, but we know that urban stations are often anywhere from 2-6 degrees warmer than nearby rural stations, especially at night. So the more urban a station becomes over the course of record, the easier it will be to produce warmer overall temps and anomalies.

 

It's easy to pay less attention to the relatively minor (compared to the pattern) effects of AGW and UHI when temps are near normal or cooler than normal. But when the pattern favors warm, especially for a long period of time, that's when you start to see the historical differences more clearly as warm records will easily accumulate, especially at stations that favor it. Warmth that would have just been very warm before UHI/AGW becomes record warm at some stations.

 

In the case of most recent record warm months at the big stations, it's clear that the defining factor between record warm and very warm has been mainly UHI.

I'd rather use the term GW or Climate Change, based on the spectral data. Having worked with the IR satellites that measure the radiative budget/imbalance(s), I can affirm this: There has been no relevant spectral dampening observed since 1997..in fact, a positive imbalance of over 3.2W/m^2 has developed since the 1980s, and it's source is the tropical domain. The tropics are always in a net radiative surplus/visa-versa in the higher latitudes for obvious reasons...but this surplus has increased dramatically since the 1980s as a 2-3% drop in cloud albedo was observed between 10S and 30N. I'm sure you can guess where this extra went and what it did...blew up the Hadley Cells and Eddy Flux (thermal wind laws), and was transported high GPHs/Heat poleward and around the globe.

[TT-SEA]

Who said the West was always ridgy?

 

15 separate lows over the western states and eastern Pacific by early Monday morning.   Its low pressure mania!

 

http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/data/nam/00/nam_namer_033_precip_p03.gif

[Deweydog]

Is that ever to be expected?

 

Global warming seems like it would cause warmer patterns. Not cause the patterns themselves to exceed what they would normally achieve.

 

I have never understood the assumption in AGW talk that it will simply take whatever pattern you might otherwise see and add a degree to it. The climate is way too complex for that kind of linear cause and effect.

 

An extra degree of heat in the system is monumental on a global level, and would be the average of massive changes in temperature in some locations and lesser changes in others.

 

It's not like everywhere just gets a degree warmer, neat and tidy.

I agree. I think that linear of thinking wayyyyyy oversimplifies things.

[Phil]

I agree. I think that linear of thinking wayyyyyy oversimplifies things.

It actually does..beginning with the causes of climate change itself.

 

The people most concerned about "AGW" usually don't understand its microphysical basis..and that it has almost nothing to do with backradiation but rather is rooted in thermalization processes, mostly above 500hpa, for microkinetic reasons.

 

Seeing it brought up in the manner it is here is irritating, to me.

[Jesse]

I agree. I think that linear of thinking wayyyyyy oversimplifies things.

 

In that case I don't understand your comment about the warmth we've seen not exceeding what the pattern would allow.

 

The basic physical mechanics of weather will never change.There is certainly a lot more warm air to work with globally than there was 30 years ago, though. That will change things. But 850mb temps will always translate to the surface the same, etc.

[Phil]

In that case I don't understand your comment about the warmth we've seen not exceeding what the pattern would allow.

 

The basic physical mechanics of weather will never change.There is certainly a lot more warm air to work with globally than there was 30 years ago, though. That will change things. But 850mb temps will always translate to the surface the same, etc.

Yeah, about 0.87 degrees worth, in Fahrenheit, +/- 0.05 degrees.

 

You're really overplaying the climate thing. Not only are there obvious reasons for the climate change, but there are obvious reasons for the pattern we've been stuck in since January 2013.

 

I'm sure you'd be freaking out if you were alive during the dustbowl era..global SST's warmed 0.4C in 25yrs while duststorms ravaged the U.S. heartland.

[Deweydog]

In that case I don't understand your comment about the warmth we've seen not exceeding what the pattern would allow.

 

The basic physical mechanics of weather will never change.There is certainly a lot more warm air to work with globally than there was 30 years ago, though. That will change things. But 850mb temps will always translate to the surface the same, etc.

I just think it was worth bringing up from time to time.

[Phil]

Positive IR imbalance!

 

http://catchmypicture.com/0aRfz5.jpg

[Dan the Weatherman]

Yeah, about 0.87 degrees worth, in Fahrenheit, +/- 0.05 degrees.

 

You're really overplaying the climate thing. Not only are there obvious reasons for the climate change, but there are obvious reasons for the pattern we've been stuck in since January 2013.

 

I'm sure you'd be freaking out if you were alive during the dustbowl era..global SST's warmed 0.4C in 25yrs while duststorms ravaged the U.S. heartland.

How much longer do you think it will take before we finally get out of this rut of a pattern we have been stuck in since January 2013? The longer we remain in this pattern, the worse the CA drought is going to get.

[BLI snowman]

Who said the West was always ridgy?

 

15 separate lows over the western states and eastern Pacific by early Monday morning.   Its low pressure mania!

 

http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/data/nam/00/nam_namer_033_precip_p03.gif

 

Literally our first full blown longwave trough in months.

[Jesse]

Literally our first full blown longwave trough in months.

It will be moving out of the way for more ridging in a hurry too!

[Front Ranger]

Is that ever to be expected?

 

Global warming seems like it would cause warmer patterns. Not cause the patterns themselves to exceed what they would normally achieve. 

 

I have never understood the assumption in AGW talk that it will simply take whatever pattern you might otherwise see and add a degree to it. The climate is way too complex for that kind of linear cause and effect.

 

An extra degree of heat in the system is monumental on a global level, and would be the average of massive changes in temperature in some locations and lesser changes in others.

 

It's not like everywhere just gets a degree warmer, neat and tidy. 

 

It's all about averages. Which are what are used to form baselines...and then come anomalies. Yeah, we can't say that across the board AGW adds a degree to every pattern - but on average, that's the result.

 

It's all complicated. Like I said, not black and white. But UHI certainly plays a role for certain stations. Which is why it's also not as neat and tidy as just looking at PDX's anomalies as a summary of the current pattern.

[Jesse]

It's all about averages. Which are what are used to form baselines...and then come anomalies. Yeah, we can't say that across the board AGW adds a degree to every pattern - but on average, that's the result.

 

It's all complicated. Like I said, not black and white. But UHI certainly plays a role for certain stations. Which is why it's also not as neat and tidy as just looking at PDX's anomalies as a summary of the current pattern.

 

I don't think anyone has been doing that. There has been extensive discussion about the regional aspects to the warmth too. OLM has even been brought up a few times!