chubbs

So far 2026 has been running cooler globally than 2024 and 2025, but warmer than 2023. If 2026 warms as much in the remainder of the year as 2023, then a yearly global record is likely. However, warming in 2023 was unusually large for an el nino onset year. We will need to see monthly records begin to be broken in the summer to have a chance of breaking a yearly record. Will be a good test of whether the unusual warmth in 2023 was anomalous or caused by the large earth energy imbalance.

Raw data determines whether there was a station change not NCDC documentation, which can be incomplete. The 2F cooling of Morgantown relative to Coatesville is clearly a station change of some kind. The Morgantown site was didn't operate for 5 months in the summer of 1966, station changes in Chester County that I have investigated usually coincided with station shutdowns.

First of all no data is altered. That is a false, misleading claim on your part. The adjustments are merely a step in the climate data analysis process. They are never purported to be actual measurements. Second the adjustments make sense if you know how they are calculated and used. Plotting the data in your table shows that Coatesville and Morgantown do not agree at times on the year-to-year temperature changes. The largest discrepancy, roughly 2F, is between 1966 and 67. That is a clear sign of a major station change, probably at Morgantown. Congratulations you've identified another major COOP station change , The station change doesn't mean that the data is bad. Only that station change needs to be accounted for when estimating long-term temperature trends. Otherwise roughly 2F of bias will be introduced. Also note that a change between 1966 and 67 would trigger station adjustments in all the prior years. That's why you find so many large positive adjustments in the older West Chester, Phoenixville and Coatesville data. All of the stations experienced moves from warmer to cooler sites between 1946 and 1970.

The exact stations are immaterial. Very easy to spot the large station moves using the Chester County stations. The proof is in the pudding. NOAA matches the raw Chesco data once the big moves are removed, particularly the overall warming in the past 130 years.

I don't know which stations were used. However the number is more than adequate. There is a dense network of stations in this area. Below is a comparison of raw data to NOAA. The raw data is the same chart that was posted above; but, with Avondale, 10 DEOS stations and E Nantmeal added. As described above, I've taken out the important post -war station moves: Coatesville (46+48), Phoenixville (48), and West Chester (70). I've also removed the temperature difference between stations by taking an anomaly. The anomaly period has been shifted to 2012-24 since all stations except West Chester pre-1970 operated in this period. Anomalies for West Chester are obtained using the 2.1F difference between 2012-24 and 1949-69 from the Phoenixville and Coatesville records. Removing the large post-war station moves and the differences between stations is sufficient to bring the raw data and NOAA into very good alignment for the long-term climate trend.. Not surprisingly, there are short-term differences between between the raw data and NOAA, mainly Phoenixville and Coatesville, between 1960 and 1990, when these stations had periodic adjustments. This shows that for the big picture long-term trend, most of the NOAA adjustments don't move the needle. Only the big moves, with roughly 2F cooling, obscure the warming. NOAA's goal is to remove station changes from the raw data leaving only weather and climate. This comparison shows that NOAA has met their objective in Chester County. If you aren't matching NOAA, you aren't getting the county climate right.

No I can follow your argument. You are making an argument of incredularity, a common logical fallacy. You can't believe that NCEI could be right. The problem is you don't understand how adjustments are estimated. There is an easy explanation for your list of #. The 1946 and 48 moves are not the only station change at Coatesville. Other station changes occurred before 1948. Adjustments start at the present and work backwards. The most recent Coatesville 1SW data is from 1982. You have to start in 1982 and work back in time. To evaluate the adjustments you have to compare Coatesville to raw data from other stations. Station changes are identified when Coatesville doesn't match other regional stations. Coatesville results by themselves, as you have listed, don't provide any evidence about station adjustments.

You don't understand how adjustments work. A single station move triggers adjustments for every year before the move. The City of Coatesville was warmer than Doe Run Road in 1946, 1945 , 1944, 1943 and so on. Clearly seen from the chart. That's how we know the cooling was move-related. The effect is persistent.

NCEI uses a proven scientific procedure to find inconsistencies between stations in the raw data. All the adjustments come directly from the raw data. There is no human intervention during the adjustment process. As an example, easy to see the impact of the two Coatesville moves in 1946 and 1948. Easy for most people that is. These charts are all posted upthread. 1945 site 1948 and later site

Another perspective on global oisst. So far this year looks a lot like 2023, which had a large rise in SST at the very beginning of the nino cycle. This year started its rapid rise even earlier around New Years. https://cyclonicwx.com/sst/

Linked the Geological Society of London's 2021 review article on climate change in the geological record. Observations from the geological record show that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at their highest levels in at least the past 3 million years. Furthermore, the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/jgs2020-239

Developing consensus is key part of the scientific process. Below is the leading paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on scientific consensus. Scientists are well aware of the scientific consensus in their field. They have to know the current state of knowledge to advance further. In the case of climate change, with high impact and a wide range of scientific disciplines, there are also governmental and technical organization activity to help develop and document the scientific consensus. IPCC is the leading example but there are many others. I encourage you to look at IPCC reports (link below). Most of our debates on this forum can be traced back to a lack of awareness of the scientific consensus. Often we are arguing about things that were settled decades ago. Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

The entire climate sensitivity range is the scientific consensus. By excluding most of the likely range, Spencer severely underestimates climate risk. There is low and diminishing technical support for low climate sensitivity. Spencer's views are inconsistent with the temperature rise we have already experienced. Other arguments against low sensitivity include: large and increasing earth energy imbalance and the growing consensus on positive cloud feedback. The scientific consensus is that the long list of CO2/warming debits far outweigh a couple of benefits.

Spencer is a long time critic of the scientific consensus on climate change. Its not that hard to predict the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We have warmed pretty much as expected, much faster than Spencer acknowledged or expected. The scientific consensus does not describe the warming we have experienced as slow or beneficial. Agree politics is important as is the action of powerful interest groups. Its the reason why most people don't have an accurate picture of what climate science is saying. Don't think Spencer has been helpful in that regard.

A couple of comments: 1) Yes, Roy is a long time climate dismissive 2) His dataset misses much of the warming in the early 2000s, 3) Best to look at the globe as a whole to judge warming, 4) Global UAH is more sensitive to ENSO than surface temperatures.5) Global UAH was very warm for a La Nina in March, the first La Nina well above the linear trend. We've reached the La Nina bottom in UAH. A typical nino spike in UAH from these levels would be hard to dismiss.

Another issue: the shelters 100 years ago were not aspirated. Inadequate or poorly sited shelter ran warm. With his number of days metric easy for one or two sites with bad data to bias the result. We saw that in the Chester county, where spuriously warm data from Phoenixville in the 1930s and 1940s biased the >95F day data, by providing the overwhelming majority of the County 95F+ days in that period. Better to show the data for every station like chart below. That way a few bad apples don't skew the data. Threadx cities plotted below have the longest climate records.