Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[forkyfork]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Actual un-adjusted facts over feelings....

i don't have the energy to debate a climate change denier in 2024 and i don't know how anyone else does

[Bhs1975]

i don't have the energy to debate a climate change denier in 2024 and i don't know how anyone else does

Trolling at this point.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

i don't have the energy to debate a climate change denier in 2024 and i don't know how anyone else does

LOL!! I am far from a climate change denier. In fact forkyfork I am a climate change embracer!!!! Now the fact that this climate change is simply typical cyclical climate change is where we differ. But I would love to debate you since you sound like a climate alarmist and I enjoy showing the facts that all that has happened has of course happened before which clearly gets you fired up!!

[ChescoWx]

20 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

Trolling at this point.

Just calming facts over climate alarmists and doomers.....it does thought make them upset!

[rclab]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

LOL!! I am far from a climate change denier. In fact forkyfork I am a climate change embracer!!!! Now the fact that this climate change is simply typical cyclical climate change is where we differ. But I would love to debate you since you sound like a climate alarmist and I enjoy showing the facts that all that has happened has of course happened before which clearly gets you fired up!!

Good evening CW and thank you for your continued civility. Perhaps the question/discussion should be how/how fast are we, as a species, affecting the cyclical change of the climate. Stay well and have a good night, as always …

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

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.

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

 

[ChescoWx]

12 hours ago, rclab said:

Good evening CW and thank you for your continued civility. Perhaps the question/discussion should be how/how fast are we, as a species, affecting the cyclical change of the climate. Stay well and have a good night, as always …

Thanks CW!  That is a great question....

[FPizz]

3 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Thanks CW!  That is a great question....

Climate change is the only thing people trust what the government tells them (since they are in bed with and fund most of the studies).  They nailed that 100% compared to all the other crap the gov feeds us that we are allowed to question.  Congrats to them for that.

[TheClimateChanger]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

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

 

Willful ignorance. If you change the mix of stations over time (i.e., remove warmer locations or add in cooler locations), you can get a scenario where every single station has a warming trend, but the aggregate is a cooling trend (or, as in this case, less of a warming trend than any of the individual sites).

[forkyfork]

science questions don't count for anything if they're generated by emotions 

[roardog]

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

Climate change is the only thing people trust what the government tells them (since they are in bed with and fund most of the studies).  They nailed that 100% compared to all the other crap the gov feeds us that we are allowed to question.  Congrats to them for that.

I generally don’t trust that the government or corporate America have my best interests in mind. I feel like I should always trust science but when it gets mixed in with government or corporate America I always start to lose some of my trust. Corporate America would kill all of us posting in this thread if it meant making money. 
 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

4 hours ago, FPizz said:

Climate change is the only thing people trust what the government tells them (since they are in bed with and fund most of the studies).  They nailed that 100% compared to all the other crap the gov feeds us that we are allowed to question.  Congrats to them for that.

No, I don't believe the government. They have consistently downplayed this for decades. The data shows it has warmed much more than the government statistics claim.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

No, I don't believe the government. They have consistently downplayed this for decades. The data shows it has warmed much more than the government statistics claim.

Chemtrails are so that the temperature stays a little cooler. It's fear control. 

[chubbs]

20 hours ago, FPizz said:

Climate change is the only thing people trust what the government tells them (since they are in bed with and fund most of the studies).  They nailed that 100% compared to all the other crap the gov feeds us that we are allowed to question.  Congrats to them for that.

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

[bluewave]

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

13 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Chemtrails are so that the temperature stays a little cooler. It's fear control. 

Do you have any source for this, Chuck? One thing I always wondered about this contrail thing, is why there is no effort to change the fuel or engine design, etc., to limit them? Nobody asked us if we wanted our skies covered with this junk.

[TheClimateChanger]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

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

And these are the same people who made a huge deal over "Mike's nature trick." Like Chesco, they all take SOOO many liberties with the data to try and limit the warming trend. Incredible hypocrisy.

[ChescoWx]

The below will not be received well by climate alarmist on this site. But with the summer season quickly approaching  and the fact I now have access to much more station data then in the past. I went back to the complete Chester County PA data set of 26 stations with some having data back to the 1890's. I wanted to see if the number of hot days as defined by 90 degrees is increasing or decreasing here in Chester County?? I separated the stations by their elevation above sea level as we know with increasing elevation there are far less days that surpass 90 degrees. Of the 26 stations in the data the majority (17) stations are sited below 500 ft above sea level (ASL) While only 9 stations are sited at above 500 ft ASL. Going forward  with the data here in the 2020's we will still have the majority of stations (11) that are located at lower elevations while 7 of the current stations are in the relatively higher spots.
The data which is analyzed by average number of 90 degree days by decade is quite clear that the number of 90 plus days is decreasing at all elevations. In fact the 2020's to date are trending as the 2nd least 90+ days at the lower spots and at the lowest level in the higher spots. Can you imagine back when we really had hot summers like in the 1930's through 1950's how tough it must have been without air conditioning??

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The below will not be received well by climate alarmist on this site. But with the summer season quickly approaching  and the fact I now have access to much more station data then in the past. I went back to the complete Chester County PA data set of 26 stations with some having data back to the 1890's. I wanted to see if the number of hot days as defined by 90 degrees is increasing or decreasing here in Chester County?? I separated the stations by their elevation above sea level as we know with increasing elevation there are far less days that surpass 90 degrees. Of the 26 stations in the data the majority (17) stations are sited below 500 ft above sea level (ASL) While only 9 stations are sited at above 500 ft ASL. Going forward  with the data here in the 2020's we will still have the majority of stations (11) that are located at lower elevations while 7 of the current stations are in the relatively higher spots.
The data which is analyzed by average number of 90 degree days by decade is quite clear that the number of 90 plus days is decreasing at all elevations. In fact the 2020's to date are trending as the 2nd least 90+ days at the lower spots and at the lowest level in the higher spots. Can you imagine back when we really had hot summers like in the 1930's through 1950's how tough it must have been without air conditioning??

You are beating a dead horse

[TheClimateChanger]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The below will not be received well by climate alarmist on this site. But with the summer season quickly approaching  and the fact I now have access to much more station data then in the past. I went back to the complete Chester County PA data set of 26 stations with some having data back to the 1890's. I wanted to see if the number of hot days as defined by 90 degrees is increasing or decreasing here in Chester County?? I separated the stations by their elevation above sea level as we know with increasing elevation there are far less days that surpass 90 degrees. Of the 26 stations in the data the majority (17) stations are sited below 500 ft above sea level (ASL) While only 9 stations are sited at above 500 ft ASL. Going forward  with the data here in the 2020's we will still have the majority of stations (11) that are located at lower elevations while 7 of the current stations are in the relatively higher spots.
The data which is analyzed by average number of 90 degree days by decade is quite clear that the number of 90 plus days is decreasing at all elevations. In fact the 2020's to date are trending as the 2nd least 90+ days at the lower spots and at the lowest level in the higher spots. Can you imagine back when we really had hot summers like in the 1930's through 1950's how tough it must have been without air conditioning??

Well you know I'm going to have to comment.

(1) Data from 1920s - 1960s is likely not directly comparable to more recent data at some of the sites. May co-op stations reset their thermometers at 5 or 6 pm, and thus would register extra 90s on hot days [when the following day may or may not have reached 90]. Would expect this to add at least a couple or few extra 90-degree days on average each year.

(2) The trend is minimal from the low elevation sites, and biased due to weighting 2020s equally even though only 4 years are included. It looks like the 2020s have had an unusually low number of 90+ days, but it's based on only 4 years of data. Same thing with the high elevation sites, but you also then extrapolate the trend back to the 1890s even though the data stops in the 1950s. In fact, the trends from 1950s to the present are about the same and we can be pretty confident that general pattern would have persisted into the 1890s. So the big drop off implied in the regression is clearly not accurate. If the remainder of the 2020s have a high number of 90+ readings, the trends could be significantly different. 

(3) These trends do not agree with Philadelphia data [from a county neighboring Chester County]. These data were collected by trained meteorologists from the Weather Bureau and later National Weather Service, and thus are less likely to contain errors and are unaffected by any changes in observation time. I can anticipate you will claim the UHI effect is the culprit, but there's no explanation for why center city Philadelphia would have fewer 90-degree days than Chester County, which would have been very rural, in the 19th century and early 20th century.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

15 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You are beating a dead horse

Oh yes and as @chubbspoints out, you are still changing the mix of stations over time. It is possible that the individual stations can all have a positive trend [like that for Phoenixville and West Chester] while the average tally for the basket of stations shows a decline due to you varying what stations are included in the basket over time.

[TheClimateChanger]

Also, here is Harrisburg. Just a short drive from Chester County. Weird that Chester would have such a wildly differing trend than Philadelphia or Harrisburg.

[TheClimateChanger]

38 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You are beating a dead horse

Looks like mostly nonsense again. Misleading data presented in a way to produce the desired trend. Why basket things into decades when some of the decades don't have full data? Just show the annual trend to avoid overweighting some years. Also the changing basket of station has a huge effect. It looks like the 1890s had a high number of 90+ days, but it's probably based only on these two sites. We can see from the data you presented 90+ days at those sites were actually quite low compared to the average at these stations. The data from Phoenixville in the 30s and 40s is also suspect, inexplicably doubling West Chester many years. Of course, they love to trot out that 111F.

Don't even get me started on these state records. Same thing with West Virginia. 112F in Martinsburg, when it was 98F at Hagerstown just up the road on the same date. I will say the deniers have a point to call some of this data into question, but it's mostly in the opposite direction than they claim. 

Funny the two longest standing coop sites both have a significant positive trend, even in this raw data which is subject to known biases. Yet somehow Chesco's "nature trick" converts that into a declining trend when he switches up the basket of stations.

[TheClimateChanger]

Also, low temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were much colder than today. You don't need air conditioning when it cools off into the 50s at night. You open the windows.

Coldest mean summertime lows

Morgantown, WV

Wheeling, WV

Warmest mean summertime lows

Morgantown, WV [some of this 19th century data is suspect, but you get the picture]

Wheeling, WV

[TheClimateChanger]

How about the nation's "Air Conditioned City" - Bluefield, West Virginia. Nobody lives in Mercer County, West Virginia, so I think it's safe to say this isn't UHI. Looks like the 21st century hasn't been so kind... almost like it's warming or something.

Coldest summertime lows

Warmest summertime lows

[Stormchaserchuck1]

13 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Do you have any source for this, Chuck? One thing I always wondered about this contrail thing, is why there is no effort to change the fuel or engine design, etc., to limit them? Nobody asked us if we wanted our skies covered with this junk.

Just my own personal opinion. The global temperature did spike when there weren't so many trails over the last few years. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

We have been lucky with cooler Summers over the last few years/decades. You have to think that drier/hotter conditions will eventually prevail. 

[ChescoWx]

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Oh yes and as @chubbspoints out, you are still changing the mix of stations over time. It is possible that the individual stations can all have a positive trend [like that for Phoenixville and West Chester] while the average tally for the basket of stations shows a decline due to you varying what stations are included in the basket over time.

No bias in basket of stations they are all available NOAA / AWOS and MADIS sites at our disposal

[ChescoWx]

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Looks like mostly nonsense again. Misleading data presented in a way to produce the desired trend. Why basket things into decades when some of the decades don't have full data? Just show the annual trend to avoid overweighting some years. Also the changing basket of station has a huge effect. It looks like the 1890s had a high number of 90+ days, but it's probably based only on these two sites. We can see from the data you presented 90+ days at those sites were actually quite low compared to the average at these stations. The data from Phoenixville in the 30s and 40s is also suspect, inexplicably doubling West Chester many years. Of course, they love to trot out that 111F.

Don't even get me started on these state records. Same thing with West Virginia. 112F in Martinsburg, when it was 98F at Hagerstown just up the road on the same date. I will say the deniers have a point to call some of this data into question, but it's mostly in the opposite direction than they claim. 

Funny the two longest standing coop sites both have a significant positive trend, even in this raw data which is subject to known biases. Yet somehow Chesco's "nature trick" converts that into a declining trend when he switches up the basket of stations.

Always a "trick" when the data fails to support alarmist views.....

[ChescoWx]

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Looks like mostly nonsense again. Misleading data presented in a way to produce the desired trend. Why basket things into decades when some of the decades don't have full data? Just show the annual trend to avoid overweighting some years. Also the changing basket of station has a huge effect. It looks like the 1890s had a high number of 90+ days, but it's probably based only on these two sites. We can see from the data you presented 90+ days at those sites were actually quite low compared to the average at these stations. The data from Phoenixville in the 30s and 40s is also suspect, inexplicably doubling West Chester many years. Of course, they love to trot out that 111F.

Don't even get me started on these state records. Same thing with West Virginia. 112F in Martinsburg, when it was 98F at Hagerstown just up the road on the same date. I will say the deniers have a point to call some of this data into question, but it's mostly in the opposite direction than they claim. 

Funny the two longest standing coop sites both have a significant positive trend, even in this raw data which is subject to known biases. Yet somehow Chesco's "nature trick" converts that into a declining trend when he switches up the basket of stations.

 

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Well you know I'm going to have to comment.

(1) Data from 1920s - 1960s is likely not directly comparable to more recent data at some of the sites. May co-op stations reset their thermometers at 5 or 6 pm, and thus would register extra 90s on hot days [when the following day may or may not have reached 90]. Would expect this to add at least a couple or few extra 90-degree days on average each year.

(2) The trend is minimal from the low elevation sites, and biased due to weighting 2020s equally even though only 4 years are included. It looks like the 2020s have had an unusually low number of 90+ days, but it's based on only 4 years of data. Same thing with the high elevation sites, but you also then extrapolate the trend back to the 1890s even though the data stops in the 1950s. In fact, the trends from 1950s to the present are about the same and we can be pretty confident that general pattern would have persisted into the 1890s. So the big drop off implied in the regression is clearly not accurate. If the remainder of the 2020s have a high number of 90+ readings, the trends could be significantly different. 

(3) These trends do not agree with Philadelphia data [from a county neighboring Chester County]. These data were collected by trained meteorologists from the Weather Bureau and later National Weather Service, and thus are less likely to contain errors and are unaffected by any changes in observation time. I can anticipate you will claim the UHI effect is the culprit, but there's no explanation for why center city Philadelphia would have fewer 90-degree days than Chester County, which would have been very rural, in the 19th century and early 20th century.

 

Can we say UHI......totally useless numbers these days from PHL