Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

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.

 

His goal is not to produce a reliable record. His goal is to show less warming, which is why he rejects any adjustment. The adjustments are there to eliminate KNOWN biases. Why would you instead use biased data? The argument is always made - why do all of the adjustments increase warming? Most biases produce spuriously warm temperatures! Admittedly, time of observation could go either way. But, in this case, many co-operative stations reset thermometers at 5 or 6 pm prior to the 1960s. This produces warming relative to a day based on a morning or midnight observation schedule.

He's previously said this doesn't impact the temperature record - patently absurd! Most days it wouldn't change things, but you wind up double counting highs whenever a cold front passes. You also miss numerous 11:59 pm lows, which are actually quite common - even in the summer. I don't know how many times, I've woke up to a ridiculously warm low in the mid/upper 70s and said "wow, that would be a daily maximum if it holds." It NEVER holds - a cool front passes, or thundershowers pop up. Imagine one day, there's a high of 97F. At 5 pm, it's still 95F. A cool front passes and the next day, the afternoon high is 84F, but goes in the record books as 95F. That alone tacks on more than 1/3 of a degree to the monthly mean high temperature.

[bluewave]

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

At first glance, it would seem that the time of observation wouldn’t matter at all. After all, the instrument is recording the minimum and maximum temperatures for a 24-hour period no matter what time of day you reset it. The reason that it matters, however, is that depending on the time of observation you will end up occasionally double counting either high or low days more than you should. For example, say that today is unusually warm, and that the temperature drops, say, 10 degrees F tomorrow. If you observe the temperature at 5 PM and reset the instrument, the temperature at 5:01 PM might be higher than any readings during the next day, but would still end up being counted as the high of the next day. Similarly, if you observe the temperature in the early morning, you end up occasionally double counting low temperatures. If you keep the time of observation constant over time, this won’t make any different to the long-term station trends. If you change the observations times from afternoons to mornings, as occurred in the U.S., you change from occasionally double counting highs to occasionally double counting lows, resulting in a measurable bias.

To show the effect of time of observation on the resulting temperature, I analyzed all the hourly temperatures between 2004 and 2014 in the newly created and pristinely sited U.S. Climate Reference Network (CRN). I looked at all possible different 24 hour periods (midnight to midnight, 1 AM to 1 AM, etc.), and calculated the maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures for all of the 24 hours periods in the CRN data. The results are shown in Figure 4, and are nearly identical to Figure 3 published in Vose et al 2003 (which was used a similar approach on a different hourly dataset).

On average, observing temperatures (and resetting the minimum-maximum thermometer) in the early morning results in reading about 0.15 C cooler than if temperatures were observed at midnight. Observing temperatures in the late afternoon results in temperatures about 0.45 C warmer on average than if temperatures were observed at midnight. Switching from an afternoon time of observation to a morning time of observation would result in minimum, maximum, and mean temperatures around 0.6 C colder previously measured.

What Would Happen to the Climate Reference Network if TOBs Changed? 

Another way to look at the impact of time of observation changes is to use the “perfect” Climate Reference Network (CRN) hourly data to see exactly what would happen if observation times were systemically changed from afternoon to morning. To do this I took CRN hourly data and randomly assigned 10 percent of stations to have a midnight time of observation, 20 percent of stations to have a 7 AM observation time, and 70 percent of stations to have a 5 PM observation time, similar to the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) prior to 1950. I then had 50 percent of the stations that previously had afternoon observation times shift to morning observation times between 2009 and the start of 2014. This is shown in Figure 5, and results in a time of observation shift quite similar to that of the USCRN shown in Figure 1, albeit over a 5 year period rather than a 50-year period.

There is a cooling bias of about 0.5 C introduced to the conterminous U.S. temperature record from CRN data by shifting observation times from 5 PM to 7 AM in 50 percent of stations. Interestingly, there is a strong seasonal cycle in the TOBs bias, with the largest differences seen in February, March, and April, similar to what Karl et al 1986 found. This bias of 0.5 C is of similar magnitude in the minimum, maximum, and mean temperatures. It is slightly larger than the ~0.3 C TOBs adjustments made to USHCN data (shown back in Figure 2) for two reasons: first, the percent of stations shifting from afternoon to morning is slightly higher in my synthetic CRN data than what actually occurred in USHCN; second, not all observers actually record at 7 AM and 5 PM (they tend to range from 7-9 AM and 5-7 PM, and later morning and afternoon readings result in slightly less bias as shown in figure 4).

It is clear that the shift from afternoon to morning observations in the United States introduced a large cooling bias of about 0.3 C in raw U.S. temperatures. As contiguous U.S. temperatures have risen about 0.9 C over the last century, not correcting for this bias would give us a significant underestimate of actual U.S. warming. While some commenters have hyperbolically referred to temperature adjustments as “the biggest science scandal ever”, the reality is far more mundane. Scientists are working their hardest to create the most accurate possible record of global temperatures, and use a number of methods including tests using synthetic data, side-by-side comparisons of different instruments, and analysis from multipleindependent groups to ensure that their results are robust. I’d suggest that those who doubt the efficacy of their approaches do what I did: download the data and take a look for yourself.

[ChescoWx]

Again lots of rehashed verbiage but where exactly is the detailed Chester County PA analysis that documents and supports the local adjustments made?. How exactly did they determine to chill each and every year from 1895 till the 2000's. For example why was the full year Chester County average for 1931 chilled by exactly 2.5 degrees.and 1932 by 2.34 degrees?  Was a blanket State or Region general approximate adjustment determined and applied ad hoc to all of the actual observations? We seem to have plenty of country, US and World adjustments noted above but where exactly is the support for the Chester County PA adjustments?  Can someone point me in that direction for that kind of detailed local data or is it not available? Thanks!

[ChescoWx]

So Charlie you say "The southern and eastern sections of the county and/or at low elevation are over-represented". Coatesville is in a valley" So to correct this you adjust the average annual temperature to well below what was recorded at the coolest station of record....that is an interesting approach and will of course dampen all of that pesky 1930's and 1940's actual warming...

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Again lots of rehashed verbiage but where exactly is the detailed Chester County PA analysis that documents and supports the local adjustments made?. How exactly did they determine to chill each and every year from 1895 till the 2000's. For example why was the full year Chester County average for 1931 chilled by exactly 2.5 degrees.and 1932 by 2.34 degrees?  Was a blanket State or Region general approximate adjustment determined and applied ad hoc to all of the actual observations? We seem to have plenty of country, US and World adjustments noted above but where exactly is the support for the Chester County PA adjustments?  Can someone point me in that direction for that kind of detailed local data or is it not available? Thanks!

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/

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So Charlie you say "The southern and eastern sections of the county and/or at low elevation are over-represented". Coatesville is in a valley" So to correct this you adjust the average annual temperature to well below what was recorded at the coolest station of record....that is an interesting approach and will of course dampen all of that pesky 1930's and 1940's actual warming...

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.

[chubbs]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

Wait a second. Why do they artificially warm old Canadian temperatures? Is there an explanation for this?

[ChescoWx]

6 hours ago, chubbs said:

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/

Again there is nothing in there that shows the actual adjustments by month and year and the control rationale that were applied for those actual individual Chester County stations.

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Again there is nothing in there that shows the actual adjustments by month and year and the control rationale that were applied for those actual individual Chester County stations.

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.

 

[bluewave]

15 minutes ago, chubbs said:

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.

There is always the opportunity for people to change their views once they make an honest evaluation of the data. 
 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

Just in an intuitive sort of consideration ... it's almost humorous.  

It took this planet a half a billion years and more to create and stow all of these highly volatile 'fossil fuels.'  Humanity, with their genius innovation, arrive on the scene "needing" to liberate that volatility ... back into a reactive environment, just since the IR.  

500,000,000 years going in   ...

Since the Industrial Revolution, ~ 0.000045% of the same amount of time going the other way.

How can that happen without consequence. 

 

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

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.

 

Charlie if you think that chart above is science....I cannot help you. That is simply the plotted adjustments....cleaned and homogenized are the words you need to be keying in on....

[rclab]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

There is always the opportunity for people to change their views once they make an honest evaluation of the data. 
 

 

 

5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Just in an intuitive sort of consideration ... it's almost humorous.  

It took this planet a half a billion years and more to create and stow all of these highly volatile 'fossil fuels.'  Humanity, with their genius innovation, arrive on the scene "needing" to liberate that volatility ... back into a reactive environment, just since the IR.  

500,000,000 years going in   ...

Since the Industrial Revolution, ~ 0.000045% of the same amount of time going the other way.

How can that happen without consequence. 

 

… and by consequence/legacy our future evolves into a match for present day Venus or Mars. As always ….

[bluewave]

18 hours ago, rclab said:

 

… and by consequence/legacy our future evolves into a match for present day Venus or Mars. As always ….

My guess is that climate change starts becoming so expensive for our economy to handle that we turn things around before we reach PETM levels of warmth. So an intermediate warmer climate state between what we used to have and prehistoric times. We will probably have to be on the move away from coastal areas that flood and areas where desertification occurs limiting agriculture. 

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

My guess is that climate change starts becoming so expensive for our economy to handle that we turn things around before we reach PETM levels of warmth. So an intermediate warmer climate state between what we used to have and prehistoric times. We will probably have to be on the move away from coastal areas that flood and areas where desertification occurs limiting agriculture. 

It's not a bad 'global vision'   yeah.  I could see that. 

Unfortunately, that still would be too late for a lot of fragile species that cannot adapt ( down to evolutionary genetics!) quickly enough, thus will go extinct.   I mean this is already happening - not supposition on this point. We are in mass extinction when expanding to geological time scales.

Anyway, it may also not take PETM to lurch and trigger vastly more injurious consequences than are foreseen.  In fact, I'd almost count on that.  Intuitively we don't need 5 deg before crazy enough stuff starts happening within that uncertainty manifold.  Enough so to enforce population correcting in our species - even if people think we can exist on this world in a vacuum.  

The funny thing about that op-ed there...   birthing rates, globally, are plummeting already.  Not sure if this sociodynamic randomness, or some sort of biological aspect with pollution or both... I suspect both.    "Millennials" aren't interested; a one generation distinction but it's broader than that.  Meanwhile, fertility in males is falling at alarming rates.

[bluewave]

38 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's not a bad 'global vision'   yeah.  I could see that. 

Unfortunately, that still would be too late for a lot of fragile species that cannot adapt ( down to evolutionary genetics!) quickly enough, thus will go extinct.   I mean this is already happening - not supposition on this point. We are in mass extinction when expanding to geological time scales.

Anyway, it may also not take PETM to lurch and trigger vastly more injurious consequences than are foreseen.  In fact, I'd almost count on that.  Intuitively we don't need 5 deg crazy enough stuff happens within the uncertainty manifold, that does population correcting in our species - even if people think we can exist on this world in a vacuum.  

The US is beginning to see the very early innings of how society will begin to adapt to more extreme weather. We have pretty much outsourced our national adaptation policy to the big reinsurance and insurance companies. So they are raising insurance rates and leaving markets with the highest exposure to losses. Adaptation  for the individual homeowners in the most effected zones will be to move to another part of the country with lower homeowners insurance and less extreme weather. Just multiply this out across the whole world  for the coming decades and you can see the extra pressure it’s going to add to the system. And this is even before the big sea level rises begin. We are already seeing issues with sea level rises of around 6 inches or so. Once we start talking feet people will begin to start seriously thinking about climate change. 
 

 

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The US is beginning to see the very early innings of how society will begin to adapt to more extreme weather. We have pretty much outsourced our national adaptation policy to the big reinsurance and insurance companies. So they are raising insurance rates and leaving markets with the highest exposure to losses. Adaptation  for the individual homeowners in the most effected zones will be to move to another part of the country with lower homeowners insurance and less extreme weather. Just multiply this out across the whole world  for the coming decades and you can see the extra pressure it’s going to add to the system. And this is even before the big sea level rises begin. We are already seeing issues with sea level rises of around 6 inches or so. Once we start talking feet people will begin to start seriously thinking about climate change. 
 

 

1. I don’t like seeing this, especially because I’m not too far from the coast of GA.

2. The increase in tidal flooding isn’t just from SLR/CC. Subsidence has also been a major and possibly larger factor in some of these same areas:

Regions with the highest land subsidence in the United States are mainly located along the East and Gulf Coast

 Analyzing land subsidence rates in large coastal cities, Bekaert and his colleagues found Houston has the fastest peak subsidence rates — about 17 millimeters (0.67 inches) per year from 2014 to 2020 — in the United States. Other research showed parts of Houston lost over 3 meters in elevation in certain areas since 1917.

 Land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston area is largely caused by groundwater withdrawals.

 Parts of New Orleans are also experiencing high rates of sinking, due to both human-induced and natural processes. Research showed that rates are highly variable across the city, ranging from 150 to 500 millimeters (6 to 20 inches) over the past 20 years.

 While Houston and New Orleans are notable subsiding locations, other places in the Gulf also experience high rates. In a large area north of Tampa Bay, subsidence rates have been clocked at up to 6 millimeters (0.24 inches) per year, about twice as much as global sea level rise, from 2015 to 2020 due to groundwater pumping.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/30/land-sinking-us-subsidence-sea-level/

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

1. I don’t like seeing this, especially because I’m not too far from the coast of GA.

2. The increase in tidal flooding isn’t just from SLR/CC. Subsidence has also been a major and possibly larger factor in some of these same areas:

Regions with the highest land subsidence in the United States are mainly located along the East and Gulf Coast

 Analyzing land subsidence rates in large coastal cities, Bekaert and his colleagues found Houston has the fastest peak subsidence rates — about 17 millimeters (0.67 inches) per year from 2014 to 2020 — in the United States. Other research showed parts of Houston lost over 3 meters in elevation in certain areas since 1917.

 Land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston area is largely caused by groundwater withdrawals.

 Parts of New Orleans are also experiencing high rates of sinking, due to both human-induced and natural processes. Research showed that rates are highly variable across the city, ranging from 150 to 500 millimeters (6 to 20 inches) over the past 20 years.

 While Houston and New Orleans are notable subsiding locations, other places in the Gulf also experience high rates. In a large area north of Tampa Bay, subsidence rates have been clocked at up to 6 millimeters (0.24 inches) per year, about twice as much as global sea level rise, from 2015 to 2020 due to groundwater pumping.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/30/land-sinking-us-subsidence-sea-level/

Yeah, subsidence caused by coastal overdevelopment and excessive groundwater pumping coupled with rising sea levels is a big concern. This is way before the expected much greater sea level rises in the future once the ice sheets begin to give way in places like Antarctica. We are only one bad hurricane or wildfire season away from one of these big state insurers of last resort going under. They had a good business report on this about a month ago. It’s probably one the biggest stories not getting much national attention. Insurance is fundamental to our whole financial system.

 

 

[Bhs1975]

Yeah, subsidence caused by coastal overdevelopment and excessive groundwater pumping coupled with rising sea levels is a big concern. This is way before the expected much greater sea level rises in the future once the ice sheets begin to give way in places like Antarctica. We are only one bad hurricane or wildfire season away from one of these big state insurers of last resort going under. They had a good business report on this about a month ago. It’s probably one the biggest stories not getting much national attention. Insurance is fundamental to our whole financial system.
 
 

And when they do go under the government will have to bale them out by printing money and inflation will spiral out of control. It might even be this year with the hurricane season on steroids.

[ChescoWx]

Here in Chester County PA we finished April with an overall average temperature of 53.8 across the 15 Airport and MADIS stations which is 2.0 degrees above the long term 132 year average. The warmest spot was as is usually the case Phoenixville as the lowest observation spot in the county at 54.9 degrees. The coolest was the 53.0 in Warwick Township. Overall this was our 28th warmest April on record across 132 years of observation data. Of note 13 of the top 20 warmest Aprils occurred prior to 1990. While 3 of the coldest Aprils have all occurred just since 2007. Below is a graph analyzing the April temp trends (actual in blue) since 1893. I have also as always overlaid the NCEI adjusted temps (in red). As we can see they again consistently applied chilling adjustments to cool the data for every year over 110 consecutive years from 1895 thru 2005. Of interest since 2005 they have now begun to apply warming adjustments to the actual data in 12 of the last 18 years. The appropriate trend lines reflect the clear impact these post hoc adjustments have made to the warming trend lines.

[chubbs]

On 5/2/2024 at 6:09 PM, ChescoWx said:

Here in Chester County PA we finished April with an overall average temperature of 53.8 across the 15 Airport and MADIS stations which is 2.0 degrees above the long term 132 year average. The warmest spot was as is usually the case Phoenixville as the lowest observation spot in the county at 54.9 degrees. The coolest was the 53.0 in Warwick Township. Overall this was our 28th warmest April on record across 132 years of observation data. Of note 13 of the top 20 warmest Aprils occurred prior to 1990. While 3 of the coldest Aprils have all occurred just since 2007. Below is a graph analyzing the April temp trends (actual in blue) since 1893. I have also as always overlaid the NCEI adjusted temps (in red). As we can see they again consistently applied chilling adjustments to cool the data for every year over 110 consecutive years from 1895 thru 2005. Of interest since 2005 they have now begun to apply warming adjustments to the actual data in 12 of the last 18 years. The appropriate trend lines reflect the clear impact these post hoc adjustments have made to the warming trend lines.

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. 

[donsutherland1]

It is now 1,000 days since the IPCC declared that it is “unequivocal” that human activities have warmed the climate. No country has even considered setting targets for beginning a phaseout of the fossil fuel burning responsible for climate change. Meanwhile, major floods swamp parts of Texas, Brazil, and China while exceptional heat bakes parts of Brazil and Southeast Asia.

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

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. 

Thanks Charlie!!! 6 of the 10 warmest Aprils are prior to 1985.....and 5 of the 10 starts are before 2000. As always nothing to support climate alarmism.

[ChescoWx]

Charlie I thought I would go back and run both your Phoenixville site against the other site with continuous data for the period 1893 to 2016 - West Chester.

Without those chilling tweaks made to the actual data. We again see nothing alarming here at all. West Chester is mighty flat....Phoenixville with some typical warm vs cold cycles also not very scary at all!

[forkyfork]

whatever you need to tell yourself

[ChescoWx]

27 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

whatever you need to tell yourself

Actual un-adjusted facts over feelings....

[Santa Clause]

Lol 

[ChescoWx]

Actual climate impact forecasts continue to fall far short on actual verification....

[Cobalt]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

5 of the 10 starts are before 2000. 

Oh wow, so 5 of the warmest starts to the year have occurred in the past 24 years? That's concerning.