chubbs

Here's 90F data from two of your 500"+ sites, from your Chescowx series. No wonder you are finding a decrease in 90F days. There are other factors besides elevation that impact 90F. Factors you aren't considering. You still haven't addressed or justified your N+W station shift. The difference in 90F days between Coatesville 2W and ENantmeal is the kind of information you don't disclose when you release an analysis. You have been putting out misleading local climate info for decades. Good thing we have NOAA for groundtruth.

You are beating a dead horse

You are much better off believing a government climate scientist than a climate denier. Misinformation and lies from climate deniers like Tony Heller or Steve Milloy have been well documented. I am not aware of any misinformation coming from a government scientist.

You are missing or ignoring my point. Your county “average” of raw data has less warming than Phoenixville's raw data. Whether it is April, the start of the year, or the annual average shown below. As shown above you are also missing the warming in your own Chescowx raw data series. That's Chesco's two longest sets of raw data. You also ignored the point I made about your station mix changing from warmer S and E to colder N+W, particularly in the last two decades. How can you justify that? You are the guy adjusting our climate data to the wrong result not NOAA.

Finally got around to looking at the Phoenixville raw data for April and year-to-date. Our only Chesco station with data going back into the 19'th Century. This is the sixth warmest start in Phoenixville in 132 years according to the raw data. Doesn't look like your county average. I've only compared two sites, Coatesville and Phoenxville, but your new metric isn't performing very well against the raw data. Does a good job of minimizing the warming though.

Sorry that's all I have. Here's a plot for Phoenixville from the GISS site. You can also download data in this plot. Notice that the Phoenixville adjustments are very different from Coatesville. Phoenixville has relatively large adjustments in the 1930s+40s and late80s through the mid-90s. Otherwise adjustments were small. This is a data driven process. Adjustments are determined solely by the raw data collected in the region. By dissing the adjustments you are dissing the raw data. With proper analysis, scientists can get much more information from the raw data than you can. A well proven method, stable for decades, and updated every month for 25,000 stations around the world. Again skeptics have been complaining about the result for decades; however, the skeptic contribution to advancing science in the is area is zip, zero, nada. Not one good idea for improving the analysis of weather station data. Not one bias adjustment overturned based on scientific evidence. Good luck in being the first to succeed.

In most decades the bias-adjusted data for Coatesville is a close match for the NOAA county average. The bias-adjusted Coatesville data makes a good proxy for the NOAA county climate result. The Coatesville bias adjustments are largest before 1950 and small after 1970. The bias-adjustments are a good way of judging the quality of raw data. After 1970 the Coatesville raw data is perfectly fine for climate analysis. However this is not the case at other Chesco coop stations. As I said above the adjustments are made to the station data based on other station data. All done automatically by software. The county average is calculated from the bias-adjusted station data, but not by simply averaging the data. As shown above, averaging would bias the result, since in many years available stations are often not representative of the county as a whole. Care is taken by NOAA to properly account for station location, and other characteristics. Temperature estimates are made on a 5 by 5 km grid across the entire country. The County, state and and other results are obtained from the gridded temperatures. NOAA isn't trying to "scare" you, just getting the best climate result locally, nationally and globally.

LOL you complain about the bias adjustments without knowing how they are done or why. If you paid better attention to the "rehashed verbiage" you would be much better informed. You can easily google up the information. The adjustments are made to the station data from other station data. County and other geographic averages are calculated from the adjusted station data. Below are some links. You can get plots of the individual station data at the GISS and Berkeley Earth links. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00950 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/ https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-station-list/

Which stations are from the warmer parts of the County? Chadds Ford, Phoenixville, Devault, West Chester and West Grove. The southern and eastern sections of the county and/or at low elevation are over-represented. Coatesville is in a valley, but at least it is centrally located in the County. Below is a comparison of the 1930-52 and 2010-24 stations you are using. The current set of stations has a much higher weighting of north of turnpike and high elevation. No wonder you can't find the warming that has occurred over recent decades. Most of the "adjustment" you are attributing to NOAA is just changes in your station population from year-to-year and decade to decade. Every time you sub in a station the nature of the station population changes. This is particularly important in the early decades when station numbers are low. You can't separate out climate information without removing measurement inconsistency. Scientists have spent considerable effort in developing methods to remove inconsistency in station location, equipment and errors. This work is decades old and very successful. There is very high confidence in the climate temperature datasets prepared by NOAA and other agencies around the world. Funny/sad that you think you can do a better job by averaging raw data in a spreadsheet without any consideration of station characteristics or data consistency. All of your criticism of the NOAA boils down to one thing. You don't like the NOAA answer. Now you don't even like your own Chescowx answer. Deniers/skeptics have been whining about temperature data for decades. However when it comes to scientific evidence its all talk and no action. Not a shred of scientific evidence has ever been produced. Meanwhile the scientific evidence for the warming we are experiencing in Chester County gets stronger every year, well documented by NOAA and other agencies.

Not sure, but that would make sense. There is a secondary peak in August.

Now you are giving us conspiracy theories. NOAA's climate data is widely used by industry and the general public and is well vetted by testing and comparison with other climate analyses. NOAA is the climate answer for our area. The chart you posted shows how far off your latest “answer” for Chesco is. Not too bad since 2000, where most your data is clustered and you have a representative spread of stations across the county. Then increasingly too warm going back in time as your stations numbers decline and the warmer parts of the county tend to become over-represented. You are the guy making improper adjustments. There is a big difference between your current answer for Chester County and what you were touting a couple of months ago. You have warmed the 1930s to 1990s by 1.4F. Guess a warming present demands a warmer past.

LOL ,It doesn't do you any good to have a lot of data if you don't know how to analyze it. "My data" is mainly your own Chescowx data. Now that it is showing enough warming to contradict your point of view you are disowning it. It obvious that you don't understand how to develop climate information from weather station data. There is strong correlation among weather stations in a region. The high quality stations in our area all show the same climate trend; which is well captured by NOAA. No need to dismiss the best stations when using the NOAA product. One of the main benefits of a dense observing network is station inter-comparison; well used by NOAA and other scientists to develop climate information. The climate trends over recent decades in our area are well established.

Yes the Atlantic MDR should be going up gradually, peaking in late summer, while the global average peaks in late March. I was referring to the recent spike upwards in MDR temps over the past week or so.

Don't know. Here's the site with the original chart (Kim Wood's) https://kouya.has.arizona.edu/tropics/SSTmonitoring.html

Yes it is surprising to see SST increasing recently. Atlantic MDR has reached early Aug temps.

Not surprising that you get biased results. Your station mix (which you don't disclose) is changing from decade-to-decade and you aren't accounting for differences between stations in: elevation, latitude, sun exposure, equipment etc. The info you posted in the other thread indicated a relatively warm collection of local stations in the 1940s. Long-term data from Coatesville (3 stations) doesn't show the 1940s as the warmest. Coatesville probably has the best long-term records in the county providing a more consistent basis for comparing decades. Note that bias adjustments don't have much impact on Coatesville decade averages after 1950. The Coatesville data agrees well with NOAA's climate analyses. NOAA removes the bias arising from an inconsistent collection of stations using standard methods that were developed decades ago. Finally I'm not aware of other data showing that the 1940s were warmer. Cherry blossoms weren't coming out earlier in the 1940s for instance.

Another paper summarizing 2023 ocean warming with a comparison to other methods of estimating global heat imbalance. Ocean warming is accelerating. Reasonably good agreement among the methods considering the measurement uncertainty. Global heating rates are running above the worst case scenario (bottom graph). Why? - aerosols are coming down faster than projected due to air pollution control. This warming boost will last another decade or two unless CO2 emissions start to fall as well. https://www.mercator-ocean.eu/en/news/new-paper-co-authored-by-moi-oceanographers-reports-record-breaking-ocean-heat-content-levels-in-2023/

Yes it will take decades to transition away from fossil fuels. Decades of emissions and increasing temperatures in the best of cases. We are committing ourselves to a warmer and warmer future.

Fossil fuels won't provide the same economic benefits in the future that they did in the past, not even close. The best resources are increasingly depleted and climate costs are ramping. Gasoline doesn't cost of $3.50/gal because demand is exploding. We would need alternative energy sources without a climate crisis. An increasing number of countries, the US included, have declining CO2 emissions with a growing economy.

Ceres net radiation data has been updated through January. As expected in a strong nino, the radiation imbalance has been shrinking since last summer, as the warmer atmosphere increases outgoing radiation. The downcycle should run for a while longer; but, we have a ways to go to return to 2015/16 conditions.

There is confusion about whether the warming rate is accelerating and/or climate sensitivity is higher than expected. An acceleration in the warming rate starting around 2010 is expected due to reductions in aerosol emissions. Per a recent Real Climate blog, Hanson's yellow cone is inline with CMIP6 model predictions. There is a large body of work on climate sensitivity, so will need multiple studies and sustained warming above the red line to move the needle. We will see. One final comment: increased forcing from aerosol reduction is better than increased forcing from CO2 emission increases. Aerosol emissions are going to zero anyway. The acceleration has a shelf life on the order of decades before aerosols are depleted.. By pulling the aerosol reductions forward in time due to air pollution control we are giving ourselves a preview of our climate future. Maybe it will spur action. Not that we have placed ourselves in a good position, with warming accelerating just as we approach 1.5C warming; which means we are leaving our comfortable Holocene climate. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=much-ado-about-acceleration

Funny, Chesco is helping make the "alarmist" case. Googling indicates we have the same CO2 concentrations today as 14 million years ago. Only the ocean and cryosphere, which are slow to adjust to higher CO2, are keeping us close to our old climate. The good news is that the ocean will take up CO2 if we get emissions under control. We aren't committed yet to going back 14 million years. Its up to us to decide how far back in time we want to go. One thing is certain though. Ignoring the problem is going to make the future more alarming, not less. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177