chubbs

LOL so the low elevation stations cooled dramatically in one decade 1950s--->1960s, while the high elevation stations warmed.

Instead of "apples to apples" I see a lot of station changes that you aren't analyzing properly. The chart I posted previously illustrates the point. There are other differences between these stations besides elevation. For one thing the older data is from Coop stations, while the modern data is predominantly non-Coop. As an example Glenmoore Coop and your house are very similar in location and elevation, but differ by almost 2F on average. Simply taking an average of a group of stations skews the results if the stations operated over different periods. Per chart below all the "elevated" stations are warming but the average is flat.

Saw this tweet on the paper

Yes, a hot week and the models were even hotter fueling the hype. Funny thing is, in our current climate it probably wasn't that hot.

You haven't provided any evidence that you are comparing "apples" to "apples". No maps of station locations. No plots of station data. None. All you are providing is meaningless rhetoric like "machine based adjustments". All the evidence I have seen in this thread says you are way off: your own Chescowx series, The Mt Holly climate sites. the obviously excessive number of 95+ days at Phoenixville, etc. You have Chester County warmer than the Philadelphia airport at times in the past. No wonder you can't find much warming.

All that chart shows is that you don't understand how to analyze weather station data. Below is a recent blog article that provides good background. As described in the article, Its very difficult to determine the average temperature of a geographic area. Move a non-aspirated shelter closer to a house or in the shade of a tree and you get a different answer. Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do, determine the average temperature in Chester County. Furthermore you have collected a station population that changes dramatically with time making it unsuited for your task. In particular the older station population is very limited and clearly too warm: south and east, low elevation, in towns, and with older equipment. Much different than your modern stations. NOAA on-the-other-hand focuses on the change in temperature with time. Much easier to determine, as the changes with time are well correlated over hundreds of miles if the stations don't change. If the stations do change, the changes are easy to spot by inter-comparing stations. NOAA takes advantage of the dense station network in the US. If it is a relatively warm month in Chester County, it is also relatively warm in the surrounding counties and states. Hundreds of stations can provide information on the year-to-year change in Chester County's temperature. In short there is a night and day difference between NOAA's methods and your own. NOAA is informed by science and focusing on the easy with proven methods and a large dataset. You are uninformed by science and trying to the hard with a much smaller and poorly constructed dataset. It shows in the results. https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/06/16/sticking-em-where-the-sun-dont-shine/

Yes, Phoenixville clearly was too warm in the middle of the 20'th century. Other stations don't have the spike in 95 degree days that Phoenixville does. You get the wrong answer about our local climate if you don't bias adjust the Phoenixville data. Same with many of the other Chesco coops. Fortunately, we have a dense regional network to catch the mistakes. As I said above thank goodness for NOAA.

Long video (10 min), but a good depiction of on-the-ground conditions in Broward County Florida during ytday's flash flooding. Note that several flooded homeowners had damaging flooding last year. https://twitter.com/AstuteGaba/status/1801253815121015183

Finally got a chance to look at some of the Chesco coop high temperature data. Chescowx's averaging hides a lot of sins. There is a big disparity among the two main long-term stations that I checked: West Chester, and Phoenixville, Most noticeable, the Phoenixville data in the 1930s and 1940s has many more 95F days than West Chester and the other Chesco stations. Phoenixville is also much warmer than Philadelphia in this period, with over 3x the 95 degree days as Philadelphia in the 1930s and 40s. With only a handful of Chesco stations, Phoenixville skews the county average, giving Chester County many more 95F days than Philadelphia in the 1930s and 40s. A silly result. Of course this isn't the only problem. The shifting station population also skews the results. Many of the modern stations, at higher elevation like Chesco's house, rarely reach 95. This data is a good advertisement for bias adjustment. Problematic data, like Phoenixville's in the 30s and 40s, is easy to spot and correct by inte-rcomparing stations. That is the benefit of a dense US station network. A benefit completely lost on climate deniers. Thank goodness we have NOAA to provide unbiased estimates of our past climate.

Philadelphia shows a clear increase in 95F days vs 100+ years ago. The trend in 100F days is less clear, but certainly no decrease.. The linear trends since the 1880s are: +2.9 days per decade reaching 95 and +0.2 days per decade reaching 100F. Plenty of caveats in this data. The station equipment was different: non aspirated, different shelters, and mercury vs digital thermometers. The station locations are also different. Chescowx's results are skewed by the changing station population. The older stations are warmer with the biggest changes in occurring after 1980. It wasn't uncommon for the old Chesco stations to run hotter than Philadelphia. That is rare in the current station population. Of course the Philadelphia station locations also changed. The move from center city to the airport in 1940 being the most important. However there were also multiple station changes before 1940. Finally unlike Chesco, the Philadelphia data has one site per year.

As fossil fuels lose competitive advantage, investment is increasingly shifting from fossil fuels to clean energy. Our clean energy investment is growing but we are far behind China and Europe. Drill baby drill.

NASA also gives shifting rainfall as the main enso sea level effect https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/10/how-does-el-nino-fit-into-the-sea-level-rise-picture/

Sea level rise was a record last year with a boost from el nino. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-analysis-sees-spike-in-2023-global-sea-level-due-to-el-nino

Precipitable water from ERA5. Another metric that this nino has outperformed on. Not surprising considering warmth of tropical oceans.

Thread with additional background from shipping study co-author https://x.com/DanVisioni/status/1798314631771164817

Per this preprint out for comments, the reduction in sulfur emissions from shipping in 2020 has boosted forcing and temps recently; helping explain 2023. Much more important than the volcano from a forcing standpoint. https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1417/

UAH dropped in May, but remains near the peak. UAH thinks this nino packs an unusually strong warming punch and the warmth has stayed near the peak longer than other ninos.

I'm calling BS on the chart, a typical Tony Heller cherrypick. The charts below shows rankings for 80F days this year and the departure from normal for high temperatures. The only area that didn't reach 80 was Alaska. Most of the US has had an average or above average number of 80F days this year and almost the entire US had average or above average high temperatures. Its been a warm year so far. Tony picked the best stat he could find to hide it.

Nope. He is tracking the daily temperatures on ACIS. Here's the year to-date from ACIS

Per a recent Brian Brettschneider tweet, winter was the warmest ever in the US and Spring was 5'th warmest through May 29.

Yes it is the sun, as expected when GHG increase. In a warming world outgoing infrared radiation increases but GHG are slowing the increase so outgoing radiation can't keep up with increased absorbed solar. Why is absorbed solar increasing? - less snow and ice and fewer clouds on average as the world warms, supplemented by reduced air pollution which dims the sun. Currently there is much more energy coming into the climate system than going out; 90% of which goes into the oceans. Per the chart, absorbed solar has gone up by roughly 1% in the past 15 years. That is equivalent to turning up the sun by 1%. No wonder it is getting warmer.

Yes climate change doesn't have to be steady, particularly at the regional level. Our regional snowfall history is uneven so wouldn't expect a linear change. Its possible that the 2015/16 nino kicked us into a new regional winter/snowfall state. If so the current nino may kick us into another. Using global SST as an example the impact on the global climate system is just as large. Of course in the absence of a good scientific study, its also possible that our snowfall wasn't impacted by the 15/16 nino. We'll see.

Yeah his data checks out vs NOAA. Its when he puts his data together with other stations that problems arise.

No, you aren't posting any actual data. Your county "average" skews the actual data by not accounting for changes in station mix. Here's some actual data - your own house is warming faster than NOAA. Are you altering temperatures? or perhaps you have a heat island in your backyard.

Does sound like Chester County - deniers spreading misinformation. The changes to Hadcrut that are being criticized are: 1) very minor compared to the observed warming, and 2) completely justified as described in peer review papers (see blog article). You are repeating conspiracy theories we heard here a decade+ ago. They were silly then and even sillier now with no evidence of any conspiracy or technical shortcoming and warming continuing unabated. https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/05/26/rtfm/