Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

But they can? You can just set up a controlled experiment to compare the two and determine the net bias? No need for any time travel! 

There are also statistical methods to correct for inhomogeneities that don't involve any explicit adjustments (kriging, pairwise homogenization).

[Typhoon Tip]

On 3/22/2025 at 3:05 PM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

I think you should set up the first colony on Venus! Plenty of lovely C02 there. Good thing C02 does not create a positive feed back cycle of planetary heating…

It's possible  - I don't know Mr Shewchuck's established and/or known biases .. no clue, just using this example - that this was a part of a longer sermon.

C02 is critical to the existence of life on this planet.  Without it ... most species cannot exist.  How?  That's where the Oxygen we need to live comes from. 

02 dependent organisms cannot live without C02 --> 02 fixing mechanisms to continuously resupply the O2.  Oxygen breathing/metabolizing organisms evolved after this fixing mechanism arrived on the scene, ~ 2.5 billion yrs ago .   C02 was here first, however.  Virtually all the O2 in sufficient amount to sustain all this bio-diversity ( ..as well as the oxygen used in/for human forced combustion ) since, required the fixing. It owes its ongoing existence to this background exchange between CO2 and O2.  O2 cannot otherwise exist in sufficient mass long enough on its own because of it's reactive volatility - look at how fast iron turns to rust. 

When raising the mass of CO2 beyond the exchange rate, while maintaining the same amount of incoming energy, the temperature rises with it.  When lowering the CO2, the temperature, the temperature thus falls.  This critical fact is what keeps this world in an inhabitable temperature range.  For this, it is a climate regulator.   

So,  Mr Shewchuck is right:    it enhances the climate.  

See where I'm going here?   If you stop there, that entire message conveys a marvelous denial manipulation.   This is just one way in which miss-representing a source and intent, miss-guides a reader.  He may have done this deliberately?  Or, he may have been a victim of a redacted repost - in which cast that was not his intent.    Either way, we end up with his 'enhancing of the  climate' leaving off the following key facet and the whole fucking problem: 

It's the part above where adding more CO2 to a planetary system raises the temperature.  If needing it spelled out...when exceeding the background CO2 fixing/exchange rate, we end up with a surplus which inimicably creates a surplus in temperature.

That conceptual arithmetic could not be any simpler... And the physics shows 100% causal with zero objective variance.  It's amazing how clad it is... God at times even trips over his own creation and has to go, 'shit i can't deny that' it's so clad.    The objective physics is that C02 stores energy -->  more C02 stores MORE ENERGY.   As for those lower educated mouth breather asshole deniers( along with sociopathic leaders that know all this yet don't care or demonstrate any cognitive dissonance to it one way or the other... ), well ... shit - this is probably going to have to end as a slow moving Darwin award.

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

17 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's possible  - I don't know Mr Shewchuck's established and/or known biases .. no clue, just using this example - that this was a part of a longer sermon.

C02 is critical to the existence of life on this planet.  Without it ... most species cannot exist.  How?  That's where the Oxygen we need to live comes from. 

02 dependent organisms cannot live without C02 --> 02 fixing mechanisms to continuously resupply the O2.  Oxygen breathing/metabolizing organisms evolved after this fixing mechanism arrived on the scene, ~ 2.5 billion yrs ago .   C02 was here first, however.  Virtually all the O2 in sufficient amount to sustain all this bio-diversity ( ..as well as the oxygen used in/for human forced combustion ) since, required the fixing. It owes its ongoing existence to this background exchange between CO2 and O2.  O2 cannot otherwise exist in sufficient mass long enough on its own because of it's reactive volatility - look at how fast iron turns to rust. 

When raising the mass of CO2 beyond the exchange rate, while maintaining the same amount of incoming energy, the temperature rises with it.  When lowering the CO2, the temperature, there temperature thus falls.  This critical fact is what keeps this world in an inhabitable temperature range.  For this, it is a climate regulator.   

So,  Mr Shewchuck is right:    it enhances the climate.  

See where I'm going here?   If you stop there, that entire message conveys a marvelous denial manipulation.   This is just one way in which miss-representing a source and intent, miss-guides a reader.  He may have done this deliberately?  Or, he may have been a victim of a redacted repost - in which cast that was not his intent.    Either way, we end up with his 'enhancing of the  climate' leaving off the following key facet and the whole fucking problem: 

It's the part above where adding more CO2 to a planetary system raises the temperature.  If needing it spelled out...when exceed the background fixing rate, we end up with a surplus.

That conceptual arithmetic could not be any simpler... And the physics shows 100% causal with zero objective variance.  It's amazing how clad it is... God at times even trips over his own creation and has to go, 'shit i can't deny that' it's so clad.    The objective physics is that C02 stores energy -->  more C02 stores MORE ENERGY.   As for those lower educated mouth breather asshole deniers( along with sociopathic leaders that know all this yet don't care or demonstrate any cognitive dissonance to it one way or the other... ), well ... shit - this is probably going to have to end as a slow moving Darwin award.

 

 

Do you think in the absence of human activity, the planet would be destined for a near-permanent ice age in the geological future? Obviously, such an ice age could not truly be permanent, because solar irradiance is increasing over time as the sun is a main sequence star. In the very distant future, this will inevitably lead to runaway warming. But in the nearer term (next few millions of years), it seems likely that ice age conditions would become the norm. In millions of years, could the earth go from near snowball earth conditions to typical quaternary ice age conditions from Milankovitch cycles [rather than from ice age to interglacial]. Looking at the geological record, we can see, generally, a long-term cooling since the Paleocene, which coincides with a long-term decrease in carbon dioxide. This appears to be due to increased weathering and a decrease in volcanism over time. As the earth continues to age, there would continue to be fewer and fewer volcanic eruptions over time, which, in the absence of human activity, would result in continued decreases in carbon dioxide. I wonder if carbon dioxide levels would eventually drop so low that photosynthesis might cease. It looks as though the planetary trajectory is towards extreme cold and eventually extreme heat.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

13 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's possible  - I don't know Mr Shewchuck's established and/or known biases .. no clue, just using this example - that this was a part of a longer sermon.

C02 is critical to the existence of life on this planet.  Without it ... most species cannot exist.  How?  That's where the Oxygen we need to live comes from. 

02 dependent organisms cannot live without C02 --> 02 fixing mechanisms to continuously resupply the O2.  Oxygen breathing/metabolizing organisms evolved after this fixing mechanism arrived on the scene, ~ 2.5 billion yrs ago .   C02 was here first, however.  Virtually all the O2 in sufficient amount to sustain all this bio-diversity ( ..as well as the oxygen used in/for human forced combustion ) since, required the fixing. It owes its ongoing existence to this background exchange between CO2 and O2.  O2 cannot otherwise exist in sufficient mass long enough on its own because of it's reactive volatility - look at how fast iron turns to rust. 

When raising the mass of CO2 beyond the exchange rate, while maintaining the same amount of incoming energy, the temperature rises with it.  When lowering the CO2, the temperature, there temperature thus falls.  This critical fact is what keeps this world in an inhabitable temperature range.  For this, it is a climate regulator.   

So,  Mr Shewchuck is right:    it enhances the climate.  

See where I'm going here?   If you stop there, that entire message conveys a marvelous denial manipulation.   This is just one way in which miss-representing a source and intent, miss-guides a reader.  He may have done this deliberately?  Or, he may have been a victim of a redacted repost - in which cast that was not his intent.    Either way, we end up with his 'enhancing of the  climate' leaving off the following key facet and the whole fucking problem: 

It's the part above where adding more CO2 to a planetary system raises the temperature.  If needing it spelled out...when exceeding the background CO2 fixing/exchange rate, we end up with a surplus which inimicably creates a surplus in temperature.

That conceptual arithmetic could not be any simpler... And the physics shows 100% causal with zero objective variance.  It's amazing how clad it is... God at times even trips over his own creation and has to go, 'shit i can't deny that' it's so clad.    The objective physics is that C02 stores energy -->  more C02 stores MORE ENERGY.   As for those lower educated mouth breather asshole deniers( along with sociopathic leaders that know all this yet don't care or demonstrate any cognitive dissonance to it one way or the other... ), well ... shit - this is probably going to have to end as a slow moving Darwin award.

 

 

Obviously I was being simplistic and sarcastic. I think a great analogy for C02 is poking a bear. Bears are beautiful creatures that are extremely important to their habitats. Live and let live and it’s all good. 
I am really starting to think that at the higher intelligence end of the denier spectrum it’s turned into a game.  It’s just become too incredibly obvious that the planet is warming at an accelerating rate. It’s fun too make up self serving skewed facts, knowing that others will believe regardless of the truth. 

This really is a can of worms. We could probably spend a week discussing this in person. 

[TheClimateChanger]

7 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Do you think in the absence of human activity, the planet would be destined for a near-permanent ice age in the geological future? Obviously, such an ice age could not truly be permanent, because solar irradiance is increasing over time as the sun is a main sequence star. In the very distant future, this will inevitably lead to runaway warming. But in the nearer term (next few millions of years), it seems likely that ice age conditions would become the norm. In millions of years, could the earth go from near snowball earth conditions to typical quaternary ice age conditions from Milankovitch cycles [rather than from ice age to interglacial]. Looking at the geological record, we can see, generally, a long-term cooling since the Paleocene, which coincides with a long-term decrease in carbon dioxide. This appears to be due to increased weathering and a decrease in volcanism over time. As the earth continues to age, there would continue to be fewer and fewer volcanic eruptions over time, which, in the absence of human activity, would result in continued decreases in carbon dioxide. I wonder if carbon dioxide levels would eventually drop so low that photosynthesis might cease. It looks as though the planetary trajectory is towards extreme cold and eventually extreme heat.

I ran it by Grok and he agreed with my theory, albeit maybe not to the extremes I posited. He suggests colder and longer lasting ice ages for up to the next 10 mya [again, in the absence of human activity], but nothing suggesting a total loss of the interglacial cycle.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

16 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Do you think in the absence of human activity, the planet would be destined for a near-permanent ice age in the geological future? Obviously, such an ice age could not truly be permanent, because solar irradiance is increasing over time as the sun is a main sequence star. In the very distant future, this will inevitably lead to runaway warming. But in the nearer term (next few millions of years), it seems likely that ice age conditions would become the norm. In millions of years, could the earth go from near snowball earth conditions to typical quaternary ice age conditions from Milankovitch cycles [rather than from ice age to interglacial]. Looking at the geological record, we can see, generally, a long-term cooling since the Paleocene, which coincides with a long-term decrease in carbon dioxide. This appears to be due to increased weathering and a decrease in volcanism over time. As the earth continues to age, there would continue to be fewer and fewer volcanic eruptions over time, which, in the absence of human activity, would result in continued decreases in carbon dioxide. I wonder if carbon dioxide levels would eventually drop so low that photosynthesis might cease. It looks as though the planetary trajectory is towards extreme cold and eventually extreme heat.

Great post. 
I have thought allot about what would happen in the absence of humans. A propensity towards longer harsher ice ages and shorter cooler inter glacial periods would eventually tip the scale in a runaway cooling towards snow ball earth.  
The question is what’s left when the suns expantion finally warms the planet enough to melt the ice. Likely single cell extemeaphile life. Which likely wouldn’t have enough time to evolve much further before it’s too warm for any life.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Obviously I was being simplistic and sarcastic. I think a great analogy for C02 is poking a bear. Bears are beautiful creatures that are extremely important to their habitats. Live and let live and it’s all good. 
I am really starting to think that at the higher intelligence end of the denier spectrum it’s turned into a game.  It’s just become too incredibly obvious that the planet is warming at an accelerating rate. It’s fun too make up self serving skewed facts, knowing that others will believe regardless of the truth. 

This really is a can of worms. We could probably spend a week discussing this in person. 

oh of course. 

again...just using the example

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Do you think in the absence of human activity, the planet would be destined for a near-permanent ice age in the geological future? Obviously, such an ice age could not truly be permanent, because solar irradiance is increasing over time as the sun is a main sequence star. In the very distant future, this will inevitably lead to runaway warming. But in the nearer term (next few millions of years), it seems likely that ice age conditions would become the norm. In millions of years, could the earth go from near snowball earth conditions to typical quaternary ice age conditions from Milankovitch cycles [rather than from ice age to interglacial]. Looking at the geological record, we can see, generally, a long-term cooling since the Paleocene, which coincides with a long-term decrease in carbon dioxide. This appears to be due to increased weathering and a decrease in volcanism over time. As the earth continues to age, there would continue to be fewer and fewer volcanic eruptions over time, which, in the absence of human activity, would result in continued decreases in carbon dioxide. I wonder if carbon dioxide levels would eventually drop so low that photosynthesis might cease. It looks as though the planetary trajectory is towards extreme cold and eventually extreme heat.

Short answer, no. 

But, why would that be the case?

Not sure how the CO2 --> O2 exchange ... keeping the pre IR ( industrial revolution) ratio of these critical elements in check, would lead to an Ice Age "without" human involvement.  

That doesn't logically follow -    I wonder if what you mean are natural processes?   Yeah, ice ages come and go over millennium by other processes.  But the human role in driving climate, now, is proving both mathematically and by observation to be a pernicious agency for destruction.  It's a dire circumstance that its moving just slow enough that the idiocracy can't see it happening in real , thus undeniable space and time. 

Human are not controlling the climate in any absolute sense.   That's not what's going on there.   They are modulating by their surplus green house gas emissions...   

Modulating in a bad way by surplus and temperature response having faster than adaptation ultimately... so the exchange mechanisms can't keep up.  Species can adapt to rapidity of temperature change...   etc etc

[TheClimateChanger]

19 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Short answer, no. 

But, why would that be the case?

Not sure how the CO2 --> O2 exchange ... keeping the pre IR ( industrial revolution) ratio of these critical elements in check, would lead to an Ice Age "without" human involvement.  

That doesn't logically follow -    I wonder if what you mean are natural processes?   Yeah, ice ages come and go over millennium by other processes.  But the human role in driving climate, now, is proving both mathematically and by observation to be a pernicious agency for destruction.  It's a dire circumstance that its moving just slow enough that the idiocracy can't see it happening in real , thus undeniable space and time. 

Human are not controlling the climate in any absolute sense.   That's not what's going on there.   They are modulating by their surplus green house gas emissions...   

Modulating in a bad way by surplus and temperature response having faster than adaptation ultimately... so the exchange mechanisms can't keep up.  Species can adapt to rapidity of temperature change...   etc etc

I mean over geologic time scales, not in the near future. CO2 levels have largely been declining naturally since the Paleocene, due to weathering and decreased volcanism/geological activity as the earth's core settles over time. Over that same interval, the climate has cooled naturally in response to the decrease in CO2 with ice ages commencing around 2.58 mya which have gradually become longer and harsher over the course of the Pleistocene. These trends would very likely continue indefinitely into the future if there was no massive release of stored carbon from human activity, until solar irradiance increased sufficiently to reverse that trend.

[bdgwx]

On 3/24/2025 at 8:47 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

It's possible  - I don't know Mr Shewchuck's established and/or known biases .. no clue, just using this example

Hey @John Shewchukafter you get done with your talk about Chemtrails and HAARP today maybe you can update the fine folks at AmericanWX on some of your other ideas. 

Tell them the one about how CO2 actually causes the Earth to cool.

Tell them the one about how July 2021 being tied for the warmest in the NOAA record at the time was really the work of Russian operatives planted in NOAA.

Tell them the one about how the 2LOT as it really is really stated is false and that your version is better.

Tell them the one about how you're convinced everyone at NOAA is committing fraud and this video you published is the be-all-end-all proof.

 

 

 

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Climate Realists understand that adjusting historical temperature data is not "science" because the adjustments cannot be verified, this would require traveling back in time!

On the contrary, its very easy to verify the benefit of bias adjustments using the raw data that they were derived from. Take Coatesville (Coat 1SW in chart) for example, the station was moved twice between 1945 and 1948, from within Coatesville City to a rural site outside. Before the move, Coatesville temperatures were close to West Chester on an annual average basis. After the move, the Coatesville station was roughly 2F cooler, closer to Allentown (ABE) than West Chester. There are many other regional stations that agree with West Chester and Allentown on the 1940s temperature trend. The post-war cooling at Coatesville is spurious.  Hardly "climate realism" to include this spurious cooling in climate analysis. It is the opposite of realism you are after.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 3/22/2025 at 10:04 AM, Ski Patroller said:

Outstanding piece of writing right there. Thank you for this and your other posts.

He does write extremely well, but one small point of disagreement, I strongly believe in a completely transparent government and full access to all knowledge.

Look, if humanity sucks that badly, it probably does not deserve to exist.

 

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Great post. 
I have thought allot about what would happen in the absence of humans. A propensity towards longer harsher ice ages and shorter cooler inter glacial periods would eventually tip the scale in a runaway cooling towards snow ball earth.  
The question is what’s left when the suns expantion finally warms the planet enough to melt the ice. Likely single cell extemeaphile life. Which likely wouldn’t have enough time to evolve much further before it’s too warm for any life.

we will hopefully be an interstellar or intergalactic species well before then

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Short answer, no. 

But, why would that be the case?

Not sure how the CO2 --> O2 exchange ... keeping the pre IR ( industrial revolution) ratio of these critical elements in check, would lead to an Ice Age "without" human involvement.  

That doesn't logically follow -    I wonder if what you mean are natural processes?   Yeah, ice ages come and go over millennium by other processes.  But the human role in driving climate, now, is proving both mathematically and by observation to be a pernicious agency for destruction.  It's a dire circumstance that its moving just slow enough that the idiocracy can't see it happening in real , thus undeniable space and time. 

Human are not controlling the climate in any absolute sense.   That's not what's going on there.   They are modulating by their surplus green house gas emissions...   

Modulating in a bad way by surplus and temperature response having faster than adaptation ultimately... so the exchange mechanisms can't keep up.  Species can adapt to rapidity of temperature change...   etc etc

Would you be surprised if I told you that the Amazon rain forest controls its own climate and rainfall patterns?

 

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Do you think in the absence of human activity, the planet would be destined for a near-permanent ice age in the geological future? Obviously, such an ice age could not truly be permanent, because solar irradiance is increasing over time as the sun is a main sequence star. In the very distant future, this will inevitably lead to runaway warming. But in the nearer term (next few millions of years), it seems likely that ice age conditions would become the norm. In millions of years, could the earth go from near snowball earth conditions to typical quaternary ice age conditions from Milankovitch cycles [rather than from ice age to interglacial]. Looking at the geological record, we can see, generally, a long-term cooling since the Paleocene, which coincides with a long-term decrease in carbon dioxide. This appears to be due to increased weathering and a decrease in volcanism over time. As the earth continues to age, there would continue to be fewer and fewer volcanic eruptions over time, which, in the absence of human activity, would result in continued decreases in carbon dioxide. I wonder if carbon dioxide levels would eventually drop so low that photosynthesis might cease. It looks as though the planetary trajectory is towards extreme cold and eventually extreme heat.

No because there have been no ice caps for 85% of the planet's history.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

6 hours ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Obviously I was being simplistic and sarcastic. I think a great analogy for C02 is poking a bear. Bears are beautiful creatures that are extremely important to their habitats. Live and let live and it’s all good. 
I am really starting to think that at the higher intelligence end of the denier spectrum it’s turned into a game.  It’s just become too incredibly obvious that the planet is warming at an accelerating rate. It’s fun too make up self serving skewed facts, knowing that others will believe regardless of the truth. 

This really is a can of worms. We could probably spend a week discussing this in person. 

You may be right. I see graphs posted all the time like the one Zeke addressed, and they seem to ignore the elephant in the room that, in the vast majority of time, temperatures were much warmer, but so was CO2. And temperatures were much warmer despite lower solar output. The "adjustment" arguments are just as ridiculous. How do these people explain decreases in ice cover, phenological changes, receding glaciers, increases in sea and lake temperatures, etc. all consistent with warming? Like, if the warming is due to adjustments, what the heck is causing those changes? How about the fact that satellite analyses largely confirm the trend since 1979, and radiosondes even longer? Gold standard USCRN stations are in lock step with NOAA's nClimDiv dataset since 2005 (actually slightly larger warming trend)? 

[TheClimateChanger]

This was also funny. Some "skeptics" allegedly used Grok to co-author a paper critical of AGW to publish in a bogus journal, and Grok rips the paper to shreds and denies he authored it.

 

[ChescoWx]

 

16 hours ago, chubbs said:

The post-war cooling at Coatesville is spurious.  Hardly "climate realism" to include this spurious cooling in climate analysis. It is the opposite of realism you are after.

 

 

 

You say the post war cooling at Coatesville is spurious and to include this spurious cooling in climate analysis is the opposite of realism??  If that is true then riddle me why would NCEI have amplified or made the cooling worse by chilling all available stations lower than that very "spurious" Coatesville cold station you mention for all years but one from 1927-1951??  The below line reading ADJ VS COLDEST highlights when NCEI chose to adjust the county to a lower reading than reported by any station including Coatesville's "spurious cooling"

 

 

 

[chubbs]

18 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

 

You say the post war cooling at Coatesville is spurious and to include this spurious cooling in climate analysis is the opposite of realism??  If that is true then riddle me why would NCEI have amplified or made the cooling worse by chilling all available stations lower than that very "spurious" Coatesville cold station you mention for all years but one from 1927-1951??  The below line reading ADJ VS COLDEST highlights when NCEI chose to adjust the county to a lower reading than reported by any station including Coatesville's "spurious cooling"

 

 

 

As usual you are evading my point. Did the post-war move cool Coatesville by roughly 2F yes or no?

The difference between NOAA and the individual stations in your table shows how warm our older stations are: in towns and the warmer part of the county. When Coatesville and West Chester moved out of built-up areas they cooled by 2F.

[donsutherland1]

15 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

This was also funny. Some "skeptics" allegedly used Grok to co-author a paper critical of AGW to publish in a bogus journal, and Grok rips the paper to shreds and denies he authored it.

 

I'm not surprised by the outcome. One of the "scientists" is actually a musician. The other three have lacked credibility in the field for more than a decade. Their understanding of climate change and climate dynamics is also limited.

As they attempted to shift responsibility to Grok AI for their deeply flawed paper, I asked ChatGPT to grade the paper as if the paper were submitted as college work (some of the incorrect concepts are actually taught in high school classes). 

Here's ChatGPT's response regarding if the paper were submitted as a college paper:

If I were grading this paper as a college professor—particularly in a climate science, environmental studies, or scientific reasoning course—I would assign a grade of D or F, depending on the rubric. Here's why:

And, I also asked it to consider how it would grade the paper if it were a high school paper. The results were also dismal:

If this paper were submitted in a high school class, the grading would depend heavily on the course type and grading rubric—but assuming it was for an upper-level science, environmental studies, or research writing class, I would likely assign a grade of C– or D.

 

[ChescoWx]

36 minutes ago, chubbs said:

As usual you are evading my point. Did the post-war move cool Coatesville by roughly 2F yes or no?

The difference between NOAA and the individual stations in your table shows how warm our older stations are: in towns and the warmer part of the county. When Coatesville and West Chester moved out of built-up areas they cooled by 2F.

Why are you focusing on just 1 station in Chester County? You are evading the analysis if Coatesville was indeed too cold why turn around and adjust all other stations that were indeed warmer to colder levels than even at Coatesville? Can you explain this??

[chubbs]

10 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Why are you focusing on just 1 station in Chester County? You are evading the analysis if Coatesville was indeed too cold why turn around and adjust all other stations that were indeed warmer to colder levels than even at Coatesville? Can you explain this??

Evade, evade, evade. Not a difficult question. Did the post-war move cool the Coatesville station?

[ChescoWx]

13 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Evade, evade, evade. Not a difficult question. Did the post-war move cool the Coatesville station?

No evasion at all. For this discussion let's assume Coatesville did get colder with the move.  If it did then why would NCEI turn around and adjust every available reporting station that was warmer downward to not just at the level of the coldest station but below it?? Can you answer?

[chubbs]

32 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

No evasion at all. For this discussion let's assume Coatesville did get colder with the move.  If it did then why would NCEI turn around and adjust every available reporting station that was warmer downward to not just at the level of the coldest station but below it?? Can you answer?

We've been over this at length. What you are showing isn't close to the station adjustments. You have been criticizing NOAA for months without understanding NOAA's methods. The data is your table only shows how warm the Chesco stations were in the period 1927-1951:

1. Is it surprising that West Grove is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising.  This site is in the S part of the County at low elevation.
2. Is it surprising that Phoenixville is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. The Phoenixville station is warmer than the county average today
3. Is it surprising that the borough of West Chester is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. West Chester is in the SE portion of the county. Between 1927 and 1951 the station was in a built up area. The station moved to a roughly 2F cooler location in 1970.
4. Is it surprising that the city of Coatesville (1927-1945) is warmer than Chester County? No not surprising at all. Coatesville is at low elevation and has always been heavily built-up. My spot checks of current stations in the City of Coatesville are quite warm.
5. Finally is it surprising that the rural Coatesville site (1948-1951) matches NOAA. No not surprising at all. The rural Coatesville site is a good proxy for county as a whole. Low elevation isn't as important at a rural site due to relatively cool nights which compensate for warm days.

Bottom-line your table doesn't support the points you are making. The older Chesco coop data was collected at warm sites, mainly in towns in the south and east portion of the county. The  warmth is illustrated by the 2 major station moves at Coatesville and West Chester, which cooled those stations by roughly 2F. We don't have to make any assumptions, the raw data shows the effect of the station moves. If you don't correct the Chesco data for station location, which has changed significantly over the years, you won't get the right answer.

[ChescoWx]

5 minutes ago, chubbs said:

We've been over this at length. What you are showing isn't close to the station adjustments. You have been criticizing NOAA for months without understanding NOAA's methods. The data is your table only shows how warm the Chesco stations were in the period 1927-1951:

1. Is it surprising that West Grove is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising.  This site is in the S part of the County at low elevation.
2. Is it surprising that Phoenixville is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. The Phoenixville station is warmer than the county average station today
3. Is it surprising that the borough of West Chester is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. West Chester is in the SE portion of the county. At that time the station was in a built up area. The station moved to a roughly 2F cooler location in 1970.
4. Is it surprising that the city of Coatesville (1927-1945) is warmer than Chester County? No not surprising at all. A built-up area at low elevation. My spot checks of current stations in the City of Coatesville are quite warm.
5. Finally is it surprising that the rural Coatesville site (1948-1951) matches NOAA. No not surprising at all. The rural Coatesville site is a good proxy for county as a whole

Bottom-line your table doesn't support the points you are making. The older Chesco coop data was collected at warm sites, mainly in towns in the south and east portion of the county. The  warmth is illustrated by the 2 major station moves at Coatesville and West Chester, which cooled those stations by 2F. If you don't correct the Chesco data for station location you won't get the right answer.

You never answer the facts and data (try to focus only on the years in question) You also continue to mix up your answers!  Your premise and response for Q4 is wrong - Coatesville is factually not warmer than Chester County....it should be cooler of course compared to all of those other stations you mention above. BUT if you are right and they are as you say in Q4 unsurprisingly warmer.... than why again did NCEI take those cooler Coatesville temps and no not warm them up as you would it seem believe -  but instead chose to chill them below any actual real factual thermometer readings for all those years?

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

You never answer the facts and data (try to focus only on the years in question) You also continue to mix up your answers!  Your premise and response for Q4 is wrong - Coatesville is factually not warmer than Chester County....it should be cooler of course compared to all of those other stations you mention above. BUT if you are right and they are as you say in Q4 unsurprisingly warmer.... than why again did NCEI take those cooler Coatesville temps and no not warm them up as you would it seem believe -  but instead chose to chill them below any actual real factual thermometer readings for all those years?

I don't follow your comment at all. I added NOAA to the chart I posted above. Per the chart, before 1947 the Coatesville station was much warmer than NOAA. As I stated above in #4 this is not surprising. Pre-move, the Coatesville station was located in a built-up area subject to heat-island warming. After the post-war moves NOAAChesco and Coatesville are very close, reflecting the roughly 2F cooling associated with the post-war moves. As I said above, the raw data completely verifies the Coatesville bias adjustment. There is no "chilling,  no data alteration. On the contrary, the bias adjustments are completely derived from the raw data, the best climate information the raw data can provide.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

I don't follow your comment at all. I added NOAA to the chart I posted above. Per the chart, before 1947 the Coatesville station was much warmer than NOAA. As I stated above in #4 this is not surprising. Pre-move, the Coatesville station was located in a built-up area subject to heat-island warming. After the post-war moves NOAAChesco and Coatesville are very close, reflecting the roughly 2F cooling associated with the post-war moves. As I said above, the raw data completely verifies the Coatesville bias adjustment. There is no "chilling,  no data alteration. On the contrary, the bias adjustments are completely derived from the raw data, the best climate information the raw data can provide.

It seems you are ignoring the line on the original chart I posted that shows the "station adjusted vs coldest" That clearly shows that every single station was in fact chilled below any raw readings for each and every year from 1927 thu 1947 except for 1940. The degree of altered data from raw vs the NCEI adjustment is clearly shown there. Can't make it any clearer than that! Let's take this to the Chester County focused thread and I will circle it for you there and maybe then you see the adjustments.

[HailMan06]

No please not this again with Chesco.

[TheClimateChanger]