Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

Despite its warm spike in the 1930s-1950s, Phoenixville shows considerable warming over the past 130 years in-line with NOAA. The only long-term Chesco station that didn't move to a cooler location. 100% raw data. Our deep-dive over the past several months has supported NOAA 100%.

[ChescoWx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Despite its warm spike in the 1930s-1950s, Phoenixville shows considerable warming over the past 130 years in-line with NOAA. The only long-term Chesco station that didn't move to a cooler location. 100% raw data. Our deep-dive over the past several months has supported NOAA 100%.

 

Of course In line with NOAA.... but far from in line with the rest of the county climate. Phoenixville vs. Chesco without Phoenixville paints a much different warming story (see below). Phoenixville UHI warming is out of step with the rest of the county. The steadily increasing number of stations with these new stations still favor the older historical warmer relatively lower elevation spots like Coatesville and West Chester. However, NOAA is now continuing to warm the more recent periods to match the Phoenixville bias warm readings. Phoenixville has run between no less than 0.6 degrees and as much as 2.9 degrees warmer than the rest of Chester County for each of the last 25 years. Probably best to not use Phoenixville at all....especially if all NOAA is trying to do is make the rest of the county look like Phoenixville by warming every year to catch up to a warm outlier.

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Of course In line with NOAA.... but far from in line with the rest of the county climate. Phoenixville vs. Chesco without Phoenixville paints a much different warming story (see below). Phoenixville UHI warming is out of step with the rest of the county. The steadily increasing number of stations with these new stations still favor the older historical warmer relatively lower elevation spots like Coatesville and West Chester. However, NOAA is now continuing to warm the more recent periods to match the Phoenixville bias warm readings. Probably best to not use Phoenixville at all....if all NOAA is trying to do is make the rest of the county look like Phoenixville.

LOL you want to get rid of the one station that hasn't moved. UHI warming? Phoenixville is on the water company reservoir property. Hasn't changed much at all as far as I can tell. West Chester and Coatesville have a reverse heat island effect. Both moved out of built up areas to cooler locations.  Shows clearly in the station temperature data. Why don't you toss them instead?

Your denier bias shows when you discuss NOAA's motivation. Complete BS on your part. NOAA is trying to get the right answer, using science, and succeeding. All the stations in Chesco are warming at about the same rate, including Phoenixville, and your house. NOAA splits the uprights. All Chesco raw data. No adjustments needed once we get past the big station moves.

[ChescoWx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

LOL you want to get rid of the one station that hasn't moved. UHI warming? Phoenixville is on the water company reservoir property. Hasn't changed much at all as far as I can tell. West Chester and Coatesville have a reverse heat island effect. Both moved out of built up areas to cooler locations.  Shows clearly in the station temperature data. Why don't you toss them instead?

Your denier bias shows when you discuss NOAA's motivation. Complete BS on your part. NOAA is trying to get the right answer, using science, and succeeding. All the stations in Chesco are warming at about the same rate, including Phoenixville, and your house. NOAA splits the uprights. All Chesco raw data. No adjustments needed once we get past the big station moves.

 

Funny how you always choose to ignore the 75 years before 1960. When we look at my analysis above we see no great warming or anything remotely satisfactory to meet the climate alarmist agenda. Also again you keep talking about the reverse heat island impact.....so where are the adjustments warming those sites?? I only see cooling adjustments??

Also Phoenixville as you know, is as atypical spot as you can find in Chester County. With it's unique combo of low elevation and UHI. The more rural stations are a better representation of the majority of the county topography and population.

[rcostell]

50 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Funny how you always choose to ignore the 75 years before 1960. When we look at my analysis above we see no great warming or anything remotely satisfactory to meet the climate alarmist agenda. Also again you keep talking about the reverse heat island impact.....so where are the adjustments warming those sites?? I only see cooling adjustments??

Also Phoenixville as you know, is as atypical spot as you can find in Chester County. With it's unique combo of low elevation and UHI. The more rural stations are a better representation of the majority of the county topography and population.

Perhaps, as you previously mentioned- you could take the continuous "Chester County statiscal feud" dialogue out of this thread and start a seperate topic.  This would enable this thread to be much more readable and useful to those of us who want to learn about climate change and see new information.   I think several others have written similar subtle hints... much obliged. 

[ChescoWx]

Well i did finally find the ghost station data thanks to Meteorologist John Shewchuk and his site below - which according to John has now identified over 100 zombie or ghost stations https://noaacrappy.github.io/zombie-map/  It appears that some of these NCEI reported sites https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/  are now ghosting or estimating data into retired stations that no longer report. In fact it seems we have an actual ghost station site right here in Chester County!! The old NWS COOP station West Chester 2 NW 369464 appears to have continued to report estimated monthly data for the last 7 years since the station was officially closed in 2017.   Below is the latest average high temperature file today from NCEI for the West Chester Station. It lists the average high temps for every month since the 1880's. The highlights are when the estimates began following the station closing in 2017. So it looks like the latest reported Ghost West Chester Station 2NW had a reported average high last month of 30.36C or 86.6F. A quick review of the actual average across the county shows it was 83.7 degrees across 16 stations. The reality is only 1 of the 16 stations were anywhere close to 86.6 with 15 of the 16 were no closer than 1.5 to as much as 3 degrees cooler. Of interest that 1 station was you guessed it Phoenixville with that exact 86.6 average high temperature for June. 

So no doubt this has been discussed before but why do they use old closed stations? How are these estimates calculated? How are they used?

 

 

[ChescoWx]

Below a chart and thoughts from @ChrisMartzWX  He looks at the entire US focused on the same topic I have been analyzing for Chester County PA - actual vs. adjusted data.

"The actual thermometer data indicate that there has been little warming in the CONUS since 1895. Top 10 warmest years by raw data

1. 2012   2. 1921  3. 1931   4. 1934   5. 1998   6. 2016   7. 1953   8. 1938   9. 1939   10. 2015. 

"Pretty much all of the climate warming results from significant adjustments, to the data, most of which are due to the supposed “Time of Observation Bias” (TOBS). Essentially, government scientists think that hot days were double counted in the past because COOP station observers were too stupid to reset their min / max thermometers before they went to bed. If that were actually the case, it’d be a problem, but it would’ve been obvious right away to any station observer how these thermometers worked in a few days’ of using them. TOBS adjustments are based on assumptions that don’t have any basis in reality. That’s why the adjusted temperature data shouldn’t be used. I’m all for quality control, but the way in which thermometer data has been handled by bureaucrats is abhorrent."

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Below a chart and thoughts from @ChrisMartzWX  He looks at the entire US focused on the same topic I have been analyzing for Chester County PA - actual vs. adjusted data.

"The actual thermometer data indicate that there has been little warming in the CONUS since 1895. Top 10 warmest years by raw data

1. 2012   2. 1921  3. 1931   4. 1934   5. 1998   6. 2016   7. 1953   8. 1938   9. 1939   10. 2015. 

"Pretty much all of the climate warming results from significant adjustments, to the data, most of which are due to the supposed “Time of Observation Bias” (TOBS). Essentially, government scientists think that hot days were double counted in the past because COOP station observers were too stupid to reset their min / max thermometers before they went to bed. If that were actually the case, it’d be a problem, but it would’ve been obvious right away to any station observer how these thermometers worked in a few days’ of using them. TOBS adjustments are based on assumptions that don’t have any basis in reality. That’s why the adjusted temperature data shouldn’t be used. I’m all for quality control, but the way in which thermometer data has been handled by bureaucrats is abhorrent."

Looks like typical Martz BS.  Martz chart doesn't match NOAA or UAH6 satellite data (below). He's missing a lot of warming.  Even NOAA is underestimating warming since 2012 if UAH6 is right.

Of course there is no info on how Martz calculates the US average temperature. As we've seen with your "county averages", plenty of options for errors or other mischief. Merely averaging the data will skew the results as the US network has shifted in time. Per chart above I doubt that Martz is using a proper station weighting; i.e, 3 stations close together shouldn't get the same weight as one that doesn't have any close neighbors. That will weight populated areas too heavily.

Another reason to discount Martz chart: bias adjustments on modern stations are very small, there shouldn't be a big discrepancy between raw and bias adjusted. Bdgwx has posted charts showing how well the recent US station data lines up with rural stations that are carefully selected to track climate changes. 

Our Chester County deep dive has shown that the Chester County bias adjustments are completely justified. The Chesco COOPs were biased warm and the problems could be easily identified by comparing to nearby sites. Stations were moved out of towns to cooler locations, experienced time of day bias, and ran warm at times probably due to shelter/location issues with non-aspirated thermometers.

Finally If Martz has good scientific evidence he should publish in a technical forum. As discussed above I doubt the chart would survive a peer review. In the para above he is using handwaving arguments. His statements on TOBS smack of complete BS. We know that stations experienced TOBS because the observation times are known. The impact of TOBS has already been established in published papers that are linked in this thread. Instead of producing evidence, Martz is using name calling . In short he's following the denier playbook: misleading analysis, faulty logic, no evidence, name calling, etc.

[Bhs1975]

Looks like typical Martz BS.  Martz chart doesn't match NOAA or UAH6 satellite data (below). He's missing a lot of warming.  Even NOAA is underestimating warming since 2012 if UAH6 is right.
Of course there is no info on how Martz calculates the US average temperature. As we've seen with your "county averages", plenty of options for errors or other mischief. Merely averaging the data will skew the results as the US network has shifted in time. Per chart above I doubt that Martz is using a proper station weighting; i.e, 3 stations close together shouldn't get the same weight as one that doesn't have any close neighbors. That will weight populated areas too heavily.
Another reason to discount Martz chart: bias adjustments on modern stations are very small, there shouldn't be a big discrepancy between raw and bias adjusted. Bdgwx has posted charts showing how well the recent US station data lines up with rural stations that are carefully selected to track climate changes. 
Our Chester County deep dive has shown that the Chester County bias adjustments are completely justified. The Chesco COOPs were biased warm and the problems could be easily identified by comparing to nearby sites. Stations were moved out of towns to cooler locations, experienced time of day bias, and ran warm at times probably due to shelter/location issues with non-aspirated thermometers.
Finally If Martz has good scientific evidence he should publish in a technical forum. As discussed above I doubt the chart would survive a peer review. In the para above he is using handwaving arguments. His statements on TOBS smack of complete BS. We know that stations experienced TOBS because the observation times are known. The impact of TOBS has already been established in published papers that are linked in this thread. Instead of producing evidence, Martz is using name calling . In short he's following the denier playbook: misleading analysis, faulty logic, no evidence, name calling, etc.

How many times are you going to regurgitate the same info? He doesn't care.


.

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Looks like typical Martz BS.  Martz chart doesn't match NOAA or UAH6 satellite data (below). He's missing a lot of warming.  Even NOAA is underestimating warming since 2012 if UAH6 is right.

Of course there is no info on how Martz calculates the US average temperature. As we've seen with your "county averages", plenty of options for errors or other mischief. Merely averaging the data will skew the results as the US network has shifted in time. Per chart above I doubt that Martz is using a proper station weighting; i.e, 3 stations close together shouldn't get the same weight as one that doesn't have any close neighbors. That will weight populated areas too heavily.

Another reason to discount Martz chart: bias adjustments on modern stations are very small, there shouldn't be a big discrepancy between raw and bias adjusted. Bdgwx has posted charts showing how well the recent US station data lines up with rural stations that are carefully selected to track climate changes. 

Our Chester County deep dive has shown that the Chester County bias adjustments are completely justified. The Chesco COOPs were biased warm and the problems could be easily identified by comparing to nearby sites. Stations were moved out of towns to cooler locations, experienced time of day bias, and ran warm at times probably due to shelter/location issues with non-aspirated thermometers.

Finally If Martz has good scientific evidence he should publish in a technical forum. As discussed above I doubt the chart would survive a peer review. In the para above he is using handwaving arguments. His statements on TOBS smack of complete BS. We know that stations experienced TOBS because the observation times are known. The impact of TOBS has already been established in published papers that are linked in this thread. Instead of producing evidence, Martz is using name calling . In short he's following the denier playbook: misleading analysis, faulty logic, no evidence, name calling, etc.

The only "mischief" is the baseless bias adjustments for TOBS and other estimated post hoc bias adjustments! We have seen these baseless tweaks applied even for places like Coatesville with no such TOBS bias. As always the actual real data shows the truth there is of course no climate emergency in any of the actual real world analysis....heck there is not even a crisis!! Only hand waving fear mongering for clear simple cyclical gentle climate change

Hey Charlie - where is that reverse heat island adjustments you mention above for Coatesville and West Chester?? We only see traditional heat island cooling adjustments no reverse UHI warming adjustments???

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Looks like typical Martz BS.  Martz chart doesn't match NOAA or UAH6 satellite data (below). He's missing a lot of warming.  Even NOAA is underestimating warming since 2012 if UAH6 is right.

Of course there is no info on how Martz calculates the US average temperature. As we've seen with your "county averages", plenty of options for errors or other mischief. Merely averaging the data will skew the results as the US network has shifted in time. Per chart above I doubt that Martz is using a proper station weighting; i.e, 3 stations close together shouldn't get the same weight as one that doesn't have any close neighbors. That will weight populated areas too heavily.

Another reason to discount Martz chart: bias adjustments on modern stations are very small, there shouldn't be a big discrepancy between raw and bias adjusted. Bdgwx has posted charts showing how well the recent US station data lines up with rural stations that are carefully selected to track climate changes. 

Our Chester County deep dive has shown that the Chester County bias adjustments are completely justified. The Chesco COOPs were biased warm and the problems could be easily identified by comparing to nearby sites. Stations were moved out of towns to cooler locations, experienced time of day bias, and ran warm at times probably due to shelter/location issues with non-aspirated thermometers.

Finally If Martz has good scientific evidence he should publish in a technical forum. As discussed above I doubt the chart would survive a peer review. In the para above he is using handwaving arguments. His statements on TOBS smack of complete BS. We know that stations experienced TOBS because the observation times are known. The impact of TOBS has already been established in published papers that are linked in this thread. Instead of producing evidence, Martz is using name calling . In short he's following the denier playbook: misleading analysis, faulty logic, no evidence, name calling, etc.

The "raw data" graph presented by Martz is patently absurd. It shows 2019 as one of the coldest years on record. The only two years that are clearly colder are 1912 & 1917. It's as cold - maybe even a bit colder - than the late 1970s. I must have missed the months of bitterly cold and deep snow in 2019? What's funny is it shows the raw data being warmer than the adjusted data as recently as the early 2000s with the two being fairly close until 2016. Beginning in 2017, the raw data starts dropping precipitously below the adjusted data. How can any meteorologist think that is the real trend, or at least present it as the real trend?

The claims about TOBs are also ridiculous. The observer was to reset the thermometers at a fixed time each day, and they recorded the temperature at time of observation as the set maximum.

[ChescoWx]

For folks clamoring for more analysis and debate over real vs altered climate data come on over to the new thread under climate change!

 

 

[ChescoWx]

Now this is funny and true....how many of these comments are thrown at climate realists by climate alarmists??

[ChescoWx]

Is this the source of the 97% of scientists agree myth?

[ChescoWx]

Climate alarmists claim we are observing more record high temperatures than ever before.  However, the below analysis of 590 USHCN stations with at least 100-years of daily observations reveals that 60% of daily record high temperatures were in reality set before 1960. Of the top 20 years, only two have occurred in the last 65 years!. The top 20 years with the most daily record highs in the U.S.: 1936, 1934, 1931, 1939, 1925, 1930, 1933, 1911, 1953, 2012, 1921, 1954, 1927, 1910, 1918, 1950, 1990, 1947, 1938 and 1952. Just like at the local Chester County locations the hottest years were back in the 1930's....

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Interesting fire behavior from the Park Fire in California, with a fire tornado spawned by pyroCb.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Very nice couplet on radar.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

What most know to be true already but yup -

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0212

[donsutherland1]

On 7/25/2024 at 12:15 PM, ChescoWx said:

Climate alarmists claim we are observing more record high temperatures than ever before.  However, the below analysis of 590 USHCN stations with at least 100-years of daily observations reveals that 60% of daily record high temperatures were in reality set before 1960. Of the top 20 years, only two have occurred in the last 65 years!. The top 20 years with the most daily record highs in the U.S.: 1936, 1934, 1931, 1939, 1925, 1930, 1933, 1911, 1953, 2012, 1921, 1954, 1927, 1910, 1918, 1950, 1990, 1947, 1938 and 1952. Just like at the local Chester County locations the hottest years were back in the 1930's....

 

The flaw in Martz's analysis is that the frequency of records (cold and warm) should decrease over time, as records become more difficult to break. Yet, following the Dust Bowl era the frequency of high temperature records has remained relatively stable (not shown is the decrease in cold records). Moreover, in a stable climate, the ratio of record highs and lows should be close to 1:1. Instead, the proportion of record highs to record lows has increased. The rising ratio of record highs to record lows is consistent with a warming climate.

[csnavywx]

I don't want to hear a *peep* about Martz, to be frank. His failed predictions continue to pile up, including sea ice *just this spring*. Always a reliable fade. They always get loudest right before they disappear.

[Cobalt]

4 hours ago, csnavywx said:

I don't want to hear a *peep* about Martz, to be frank. His failed predictions continue to pile up, including sea ice *just this spring*. Always a reliable fade. They always get loudest right before they disappear.

What did he say about sea ice this past Spring?

[csnavywx]

52 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

What did he say about sea ice this past Spring?

Out saying that the ice is recovering and it was the highest extent in 20 years, how all "global warmers" were wrong.
 

Exactly the same shit as '16, right before Antarctic sea ice collapsed.

[Bhs1975]

Out saying that the ice is recovering and it was the highest extent in 20 years, how all "global warmers" were wrong.
 
Exactly the same shit as '16, right before Antarctic sea ice collapsed.

What a douchebag


.

[HailMan06]

This Chesco bs is getting really tiring now. Why do you guys keep engaging with a brick wall?

[Typhoon Tip]

This is a fascinating paraphrase/redraft

https://phys.org/news/2024-07-net-effects-nitrogen-attenuate-global.html

I find this statement somewhat ominous,

"...Without man-made nitrogen input, the climate would have heated up even more..."

The world just bore witness to a 'global thermal flash' during the spring of 2023.  There were zero antecedent indicators predicting that would occur.  Since then, there is a growing consilience that The International Maritime Organization's mandated reduction of 3.5% to .5% from combustion fuel in international logistics, though obviously a well-intended pollution mitigation, may have unexpectedly led to the cause.  In NASA/Tianle Yuan's paper it is cited that it may have "...Created an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock with global impact,..."

Now, from an involving unrelated research effort ( above), science surfaces that relates a complex adding and subtracting physical machinery where various volatile Nitrogen compounds are also quite capable of similar factorization - ultimately summing/resulting to a cooling effect. 

As an aside, ... I think it is just as important that humanity considers what it means to attempt abrupt "de" corruption of any system that is either already compensating, or has those as emergent properties in the background - if only plausible yet unknown.  Think alcoholic in detox syndrome.  It would be ( perhaps science fiction visionary - ) a striking irony if a sudden abeyance of anothropogenic forcing were to trigger some sort of out of control cooling. It can almost be easily visualized as napkin arithmetic.  Pretend for a moment that C02 scrubbing gets a huge technological advance when quantum computing core, and AI, come to [ the inevitable btw ] nexus.  

Then what are we left with?   Sulfur and Nitrogen management that was mishandled - just like that sulfur reduction act led to the spike.  We didn't ask the Oracle that question, we only asked it how to remove the C02       NOW.

Wow, what a cluster.   I keep coming back to the statement by "WOPR," moments after that other kind of mankind -induced holocaust was narily averted,   "... Strange game. The only winning move is, not to play"

[rcostell]

15 minutes ago, HailMan06 said:

This Chesco bs is getting really tiring now. Why do you guys keep engaging with a brick wall?

I asked that a new thread be created to take that myopic, off-topic bickering out of this "Climate Change" thread. The person obliged and its now  elsewhere, thankfully. 

[Typhoon Tip]

5 minutes ago, rcostell said:

I asked that a new thread be created to take that myopic, off-topic bickering out of this "Climate Change" thread. The person obliged and its now  elsewhere, thankfully. 

No one is really engaging in that thread, however, and so not liking that ... "the person" has wondered back here to resume. 

LOL

[rcostell]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No one is really engaging in that thread, however, and so not liking that ... "the person" has wondered back here to resume. 

LOL

Ignore the rhetoric. Engagement is folly. 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No one is really engaging in that thread, however, and so not liking that ... "the person" has wondered back here to resume. 

LOL

This shows how awful fracking is, maybe some people will finally figure it out-- fracking water is contaminated with radioactive waste 600x higher than 'SAFE' levels.

 

https://grist.org/regulation/roadspreading-pennsylvania-fracking-waste/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

 

Siri Lawson and her husband live on a stamp of wooded, hilly land in Warren County, Pennsylvania, nestled in the state’s rural northwest corner. During the summer heat, cars traveling on the county’s dirt roads cast plumes of dust in their wake. Winter’s chill can cause a hazardous film of ice to spawn on paved roads. To protect motorists from both slippery ice and vision-impairing dust, communities across Pennsylvania coat these roads with large, cheap volumes of de-icing and dust-suppressing fluids. In Lawson’s case, her township had been using oil and gas wastewater as a dust suppressant, believing the material was effective.

But researchers have found it is no better at controlling dust than rainwater. It can also contain toxic chemicals and have radioactive concentrations several hundred times the acceptable federal limit in drinking water. Given the risks it poses to human health and the environment, Pennsylvania lawmakers and the state’s environmental agency disallowed this practice more than seven years ago. 

 

 

 

But oil and gas companies have continued to spread their wastewater practically unchecked across the state, thanks to a loophole in state regulations. A Grist review of records from 2019 to 2023 found that oil and gas producers submitted more than 3,000 reports of wastewater dumping to the state Department of Environmental Protection, or DEP. In total, they reported spraying nearly 2.4 million gallons of wastewater on Pennsylvania roads. This number is likely a vast undercount: About 86 percent of Pennsylvania’s smaller oil and gas drillers did not report how they disposed of their waste in 2023. 

Wastewater dumping is an open secret on Pennsylvania roads. At a legislative hearing this spring, state senators Katie Muth and Carolyn Comitta, both Democrats, said they witnessed companies spreading wastewater last fall during a tour of new fracking wells. Lawson, who has become a public face of opposition to wastewater dumping, experiences sinus pains and believes her symptoms are connected to living near roads coated with wastewater. Sometimes the pain has been so intense she’s had to leave her home “to get different air.” She’s submitted multiple complaints to DEP over the years, but she says it has done little to drag the agency off the sidelines. 

 

 

https://grist.org/accountability/fracking-waste-california-aqueduct-section-29-facility/

 

 

Study: Toxic fracking waste is leaking into California groundwater

The research leaves little doubt: California is facing massive groundwater contamination.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

11 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Out saying that the ice is recovering and it was the highest extent in 20 years, how all "global warmers" were wrong.
 

Exactly the same shit as '16, right before Antarctic sea ice collapsed.

It seems as if with temperatures, his analysis is superficial and overly simplistic. He saw the larger extent and immediately assumed that the ice was recovering. He never considered thickness (old thick sea ice is very low). Thus, when conditions warmed, the illusory gains in extent quickly disappeared as the thin ice began melting away. Arctic sea ice extent is now the third lowest on record (JAXA) as of July 28th.