ChescoWx Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Why alarmists and doomers are losing the battle of trying so darn hard to convince folks that our current cyclical climate change is so incredibly alarming: Alarmists will state that “Weather ≠ climate. One colder than normal week or a snowy than normal season is of course not evidence against the overall long-term trend. Cold extremes can still occur in a warming world.” If we show a stat that is only analyzing the US or cough cough Chester County PA we will of course hear “Well you do know that the US covers less than 2% of global surface area. So, your point is ridiculous. Global stats are all that matters. You the "climate denier" are clearly engaging in cherry-picking of data to fit your narrative.” But then we just look at our current weather this week which is as we all agree is NOT Climate! , Yet our friends the climate alarmists are blaming Hurricane Beryl and the "unprecedented" SW US heatwave on man's carbon transgressions: Don't you know Paul that “Hurricane Beryl is being fueled by climate related record high sea surface temperatures, which is the result of man's burning of carbons??" But wait my alarmist friends , I thought you tell us that “weather ≠ climate”? Doesn't that still apply here? Or, does it only apply when the weather frustratingly doesn't fit your simple narrative? The truth is that of course the alarmists and doomers can't have it both ways no matter how they may try and twist the actual facts vs. what they are feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Why alarmists and doomers are losing the battle of trying so darn hard to convince folks that our current cyclical climate change is so incredibly alarming: Alarmists will state that “Weather ≠ climate. One colder than normal week or a snowy than normal season is of course not evidence against the overall long-term trend. Cold extremes can still occur in a warming world.” If we show a stat that is only analyzing the US or cough cough Chester County PA we will of course hear “Well you do know that the US covers less than 2% of global surface area. So, your point is ridiculous. Global stats are all that matters. You the "climate denier" are clearly engaging in cherry-picking of data to fit your narrative.” But then we just look at our current weather this week which is as we all agree is NOT Climate! , Yet our friends the climate alarmists are blaming Hurricane Beryl and the "unprecedented" SW US heatwave on man's carbon transgressions: Don't you know Paul that “Hurricane Beryl is being fueled by climate related record high sea surface temperatures, which is the result of man's burning of carbons??" But wait my alarmist friends , I thought you tell us that “weather ≠ climate”? Doesn't that still apply here? Or, does it only apply when the weather frustratingly doesn't fit your simple narrative? The truth is that of course the alarmists and doomers can't have it both ways no matter how they may try and twist the actual facts vs. what they are feeling.Oh so instead of no climate change you are now calling the rapid rise in CO2 and temps cyclical climate change? I mean in a way you're right as once civilization collapses and most of us are dead the CO2 will go back down and temps will drop again.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 The AMOC collapse will be the nail in the coffin for us. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Or it could be the massive solar storm before that which would be a welcome reset.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 2 hours ago, Bhs1975 said: Oh so instead of no climate change you are now calling the rapid rise in CO2 and temps cyclical climate change? I mean in a way you're right as once civilization collapses and most of us are dead the CO2 will go back down and temps will drop again. . Wow!! Okay I am good to play along with this....so what models that you believe are showing you civilization collapsing?? You are probably part of the group that is convincing young folks today to avoid having children as the future is so bleak....scary indeed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 2 hours ago, Bhs1975 said: The AMOC collapse will be the nail in the coffin for us. . "coffin" huh....you must be a great conversationalist at parties!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 "coffin" huh....you must be a great conversationalist at parties!!I sure everyone is dying to hear about AGW not happening in Chesco Co.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Wow!! Okay I am good to play along with this....so what models that you believe are showing you civilization collapsing?? You are probably part of the group that is convincing young folks today to avoid having children as the future is so bleak....scary indeed!!Consciousness doesn't end at death so having children is irrelevant. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdgwx Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 The 111 F in Phoenixville isn't the only record high that is in question. The 134 F in Death Valley has been questioned almost from the moment it was reported. William Reid who has studied the record extensively has a very lengthy writeup that leaves little doubt that the reported temperature on July 10th, 1913 is erroneous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 5 Author Share Posted July 5 3 hours ago, bdgwx said: The 111 F in Phoenixville isn't the only record high that is in question. The 134 F in Death Valley has been questioned almost from the moment it was reported. William Reid who has studied the record extensively has a very lengthy writeup that leaves little doubt that the reported temperature on July 10th, 1913 is erroneous. Yes. The highest reliable temperature there and globally is 130F. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Not only is the 1936 record at Phoenixville flawed, Chesco's whole notion that the 1930s summers were warm in Chester County is questionable. Remove Phoenixville and the # of 95F days plummet in 1930s and 40s. Also note the smaller spike in 95F days at Coatesville in the 1890s+1900s. The NCDC station station notes for Coatesville (below) state that window blinds were used as a temperature screen around 1900. Also the station was located in the city of Coatesville in the 1890s and 1900s, then moved to a field, then back to the city, before finally relocating to a more rural site in the late 1940s. It was only in the late 1940s, at a more rural location, that Coatesville started to have fewer 95 days then Philadelphia on a routine basis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 On 7/2/2024 at 12:10 PM, ChescoWx said: Credit and reference to Chris Martz for his 10 questions for the many climate doomers in this forum: Can you answer all of them?? ➊ To the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius, what is the “correct” global mean surface temperature (GMST)? The list demonstrates that Martz doesn't know what is important (not that we didn't know that). For example It is impossible and unnecessary to determine the average global temperature. Temperatures can vary significantly over short distances. You would need orders of magnitude more thermometers to get a good global average. Fortunately it is much easier to determine the trend in global temperature. As I keep repeating, the year-to-year change in temperature is well correlated over roughly 1000km. Per the paper linked below, you only need roughly 60 stations to get a good estimate of the global trend. There are more than enough weather stations to prove that it is warming globally. Similarly it is impossible to determine the average temperature in Chester County. The historic monitoring network doesn't come close to providing enough coverage. The county is highly variable: cities, suburbs, rural, many types of ag, forests all at varying elevation. Much easier to determine the trend in temperature in Chester County. Since weather data is correlated over 1000 km a large number of stations can provide useful information and it is easy to correct County stations that move or have biased data. As a result the long-term trend in Chesco is very accurately determined by NOAA and other groups even though there are only a handful of long-term county weather stations. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/7/12/1520-0442_1994_007_1999_satoeo_2_0_co_2.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 14 hours ago, Bhs1975 said: I sure everyone is dying to hear about AGW not happening in Chesco Co. . Even if you choose to use the post hoc adjusted temps....the temperature trends in my one little county here in the US remain very far from alarming or concerning at all....that is the facts. No doomsday trend lines here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 hours ago, chubbs said: The list demonstrates that Martz doesn't know what is important (not that we didn't know that). For example It is impossible and unnecessary to determine the average global temperature. Temperatures can vary significantly over short distances. You would need orders of magnitude more thermometers to get a good global average. Fortunately it is much easier to determine the trend in global temperature. As I keep repeating, the year-to-year change in temperature is well correlated over roughly 1000km. Per the paper linked below, you only need roughly 60 stations to get a good estimate of the global trend. There are more than enough weather stations to prove that it is warming globally. Similarly it is impossible to determine the average temperature in Chester County. The historic monitoring network doesn't come close to providing enough coverage. The county is highly variable: cities, suburbs, rural, many types of ag, forests all at varying elevation. Much easier to determine the trend in temperature in Chester County. Since weather data is correlated over 1000 km a large number of stations can provide useful information and it is easy to correct County stations that move or have biased data. As a result the long-term trend in Chesco is very accurately determined by NOAA and other groups even though there are only a handful of long-term county weather stations. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/7/12/1520-0442_1994_007_1999_satoeo_2_0_co_2.xml We have much better station coverage and representation today and going forward across Chester County than we have ever had in the past. That said the old stations are well represented with some stations within a couple NM and at the same elevation (West Chester / Devault). There is a great mix of lower and higher elevation sites. By analyzing this data we actually can and are getting more accurate data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 5 Author Share Posted July 5 On 7/2/2024 at 12:10 PM, ChescoWx said: Credit and reference to Chris Martz for his 10 questions for the many climate doomers in this forum: Can you answer all of them?? ➊ To the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius, what is the “correct” global mean surface temperature (GMST)? ➋ What does a “perfect” climate look like? If so, when did we have one and what was it like? Usually, activists will say “pre-industrial.” But, why? ➌ What is the “correct” amount of bad weather? How many tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, hailstorms, droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold waves and wildfires should there be per year globally? Please provide exact numbers and then explain why. ➍ Why do you think temperature departures from the 1850 climatic baseline mean is the sole metric which determines human welfare? Why would the climate of the Little Ice Age be preferable than today's climate? What was better about the climate in 1850 than that of 2024? Is today's climate too dangerous? If so, why? Provide data and evidence to support your reasoning. ➎ What is the “correct” atmospheric carbon dioxide level? What dry-air volume or a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be optimal for plant growth? Show me data and explain why. ➏ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was popularized as the biggest piece of climate legislation in history. But, since it was signed into law, climate activists say climate change has only gotten worse. Why? ➐ Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on so-called “climate action” over the past 35-years. When will that give us that perfect climate, and when it does how will we know? What measure? ➑ If the U.S. spends hundreds of trillions of dollars to decarbonize our economy to achieve “net zero” by the year 2050, then how much will it reduce GMST by the year 2100, assuming the climate models are accurate? Please round your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math! ➒ If you can't provide me with an answer to question eight, then here's my follow-up: If you don't know how much net zero emissions in the U.S. would reduce GMST by 2100, are we supposed to just spend all that money and see what happens? ➊⓿ Why do efforts to mitigate exclusively center on reducing carbon emissions, and ignore more effective strategies such as building weather-resilient infrastructure and enforcing stricter zoning codes? Nobody has ever answered these questions, at least not in a clear and concise manner. The questions reveal one that is grossly ill-informed about anthropogenic climate change, climate science literature and discussions, attribution studies, and fiscal policy. The questions are aimed not to gather useful information, but to deflect attention from climate change and silence discussions related to it. They are not good faith inquiries. ➊ To the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius, what is the “correct” global mean surface temperature (GMST)? The question is a common “red herring” aimed at deflecting attention from the rate and magnitude of warming that has occurred since pre-industrial times and the expected warming that will occur from a continued burning of fossil fuels. ➋ What does a “perfect” climate look like? If so, when did we have one and what was it like? Usually, activists will say “pre-industrial.” But, why? Pre-industrial is the starting point selected, as it largely predates the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions that has occurred since then. Talk about a “perfect” climate is another “red herring” aimed at evading what is actually occurring. ➌ What is the “correct” amount of bad weather? How many tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, hailstorms, droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold waves and wildfires should there be per year globally? Please provide exact numbers and then explain why. The question is another common “red herring.” Climate change is driving an increase in heatwaves (frequency, duration, and magnitude), extreme precipitation events, flash droughts, and wildfires in some regions. It is also reducing the frequency of extreme cold outbreaks. It is also leading to an increase in intense (Category 3-5) Atlantic basin hurricanes. ➍ Why do you think temperature departures from the 1850 climatic baseline mean is the sole metric which determines human welfare? Why would the climate of the Little Ice Age be preferable than today's climate? What was better about the climate in 1850 than that of 2024? Is today's climate too dangerous? If so, why? Provide data and evidence to support your reasoning. The climate baseline is used to assess the change in temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial age due to anthropogenic climate change. It is not and never has been used by climate scientists to make broader claims about human welfare. ➎ What is the “correct” atmospheric carbon dioxide level? What dry-air volume or a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be optimal for plant growth? Show me data and explain why. The question is another “red herring.” Climate scientists reference the relatively stable pre-industrial level of CO2 (roughly 280 PPM). They also assess climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. They do not make claims about a “correct” figure. ➏ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was popularized as the biggest piece of climate legislation in history. But, since it was signed into law, climate activists say climate change has only gotten worse. Why? The Inflation Reduction Act, by itself, provided incentives for the use of cleaner energy sources. It contained no binding provisions for the reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption. Fossil fuel production and consumption has also continued to increase, even as clean energy usage has also increased due to the overall increase in global energy demand. As long as greenhouse gas emissions are net positive, additional warming will occur. Some climate scientists such as James Hansen believe that even when net zero is reached, there will be additional warming for some time. ➐ Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on so-called “climate action” over the past 35-years. When will that give us that perfect climate, and when it does how will we know? What measure? The IMF has estimated that annual global subsidies (direct and indirect) for fossil fuels now amounts to $7 trillion globally. ➑ If the U.S. spends hundreds of trillions of dollars to decarbonize our economy to achieve “net zero” by the year 2050, then how much will it reduce GMST by the year 2100, assuming the climate models are accurate? Please round your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math! There is no evidence, budget projections, or proposals related to the U.S. spending “hundreds of trillions of dollars” on decarbonization. This is an invented figure that has no basis in reality. Projections can be made based on the greenhouse gas emissions and IPCC has offered a range of scenarios. Projections are not run for concocted make-believe scenarios. ➒ If you can't provide me with an answer to question eight, then here's my follow-up: If you don't know how much net zero emissions in the U.S. would reduce GMST by 2100, are we supposed to just spend all that money and see what happens? Question 8 has no basis in reality. No such proposals exist. If the author of the post says they do, he should provide a link or links to the appropriate documentation. Nothing like that is found in a search of CBO and OMB, projections. Ongoing modest efforts fall far short of the threshold cited by the author. ➊⓿ Why do efforts to mitigate exclusively center on reducing carbon emissions, and ignore more effective strategies such as building weather-resilient infrastructure and enforcing stricter zoning codes? Addressing climate change requires mitigation and resilience. Mitigation is required to address the principal drivers of anthropogenic climate change (greenhouse gas emissions). Resilience is needed to adapt to the realities of the evolving climate. Without mitigation, today’s resilience initiatives will “buy” only a little time in the short-term, but will be largely ineffectual e.g., planned increases in street levels in Miami would be useless against a potential 3-meter or more increase in sea levels by 2100. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 5 Author Share Posted July 5 2 hours ago, chubbs said: The list demonstrates that Martz doesn't know what is important (not that we didn't know that). For example It is impossible and unnecessary to determine the average global temperature. Temperatures can vary significantly over short distances. You would need orders of magnitude more thermometers to get a good global average. Fortunately it is much easier to determine the trend in global temperature. As I keep repeating, the year-to-year change in temperature is well correlated over roughly 1000km. Per the paper linked below, you only need roughly 60 stations to get a good estimate of the global trend. There are more than enough weather stations to prove that it is warming globally. Similarly it is impossible to determine the average temperature in Chester County. The historic monitoring network doesn't come close to providing enough coverage. The county is highly variable: cities, suburbs, rural, many types of ag, forests all at varying elevation. Much easier to determine the trend in temperature in Chester County. Since weather data is correlated over 1000 km a large number of stations can provide useful information and it is easy to correct County stations that move or have biased data. As a result the long-term trend in Chesco is very accurately determined by NOAA and other groups even though there are only a handful of long-term county weather stations. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/7/12/1520-0442_1994_007_1999_satoeo_2_0_co_2.xml Today, Martz is actually complaining about headlines related to California's extreme heatwave. He posted irrelevant and cherry picked data for 105F highs at select unspecified stations to criticize the headlines. In fact, several locations could see all-time high temperature records, their longest 110F or 120F stretches on record, etc. The NWS, private sector meteorologists, and news media are all covering the extreme heat to help protect human health and lives. Martz's criticism undermines that effort with its deflection to irrelevant information. Also, most of his 10 questions are red herrings. One contains a made-up figure for possible U.S. expenditures on decarbonization. Another ignores the subsidies for fossil fuels that remain magnitudes of order above those for clean energy. His questions are raised in bad faith. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said: The questions reveal one that is grossly ill-informed about anthropogenic climate change, climate science literature and discussions, attribution studies, and fiscal policy. The questions are aimed not to gather useful information, but to deflect attention from climate change and silence discussions related to it. They are not good faith inquiries. ➊ To the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius, what is the “correct” global mean surface temperature (GMST)? The question is a common “red herring” aimed at deflecting attention from the rate and magnitude of warming that has occurred since pre-industrial times and the expected warming that will occur from a continued burning of fossil fuels. ➋ What does a “perfect” climate look like? If so, when did we have one and what was it like? Usually, activists will say “pre-industrial.” But, why? Pre-industrial is the starting point selected, as it largely predates the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions that has occurred since then. Talk about a “perfect” climate is another “red herring” aimed at evading what is actually occurring. ➌ What is the “correct” amount of bad weather? How many tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, hailstorms, droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold waves and wildfires should there be per year globally? Please provide exact numbers and then explain why. The question is another common “red herring.” Climate change is driving an increase in heatwaves (frequency, duration, and magnitude), extreme precipitation events, flash droughts, and wildfires in some regions. It is also reducing the frequency of extreme cold outbreaks. It is also leading to an increase in intense (Category 3-5) Atlantic basin hurricanes. ➍ Why do you think temperature departures from the 1850 climatic baseline mean is the sole metric which determines human welfare? Why would the climate of the Little Ice Age be preferable than today's climate? What was better about the climate in 1850 than that of 2024? Is today's climate too dangerous? If so, why? Provide data and evidence to support your reasoning. The climate baseline is used to assess the change in temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial age due to anthropogenic climate change. It is not and never has been used by climate scientists to make broader claims about human welfare. ➎ What is the “correct” atmospheric carbon dioxide level? What dry-air volume or a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be optimal for plant growth? Show me data and explain why. The question is another “red herring.” Climate scientists reference the relatively stable pre-industrial level of CO2 (roughly 280 PPM). They also assess climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. They do not make claims about a “correct” figure. ➏ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was popularized as the biggest piece of climate legislation in history. But, since it was signed into law, climate activists say climate change has only gotten worse. Why? The Inflation Reduction Act, by itself, provided incentives for the use of cleaner energy sources. It contained no binding provisions for the reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption. Fossil fuel production and consumption has also continued to increase, even as clean energy usage has also increased due to the overall increase in global energy demand. As long as greenhouse gas emissions are net positive, additional warming will occur. Some climate scientists such as James Hansen believe that even when net zero is reached, there will be additional warming for some time. ➐ Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on so-called “climate action” over the past 35-years. When will that give us that perfect climate, and when it does how will we know? What measure? The IMF has estimated that annual global subsidies (direct and indirect) for fossil fuels now amounts to $7 trillion globally. ➑ If the U.S. spends hundreds of trillions of dollars to decarbonize our economy to achieve “net zero” by the year 2050, then how much will it reduce GMST by the year 2100, assuming the climate models are accurate? Please round your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math! There is no evidence, budget projections, or proposals related to the U.S. spending “hundreds of trillions of dollars” on decarbonization. This is an invented figure that has no basis in reality. Projections can be made based on the greenhouse gas emissions and IPCC has offered a range of scenarios. Projections are not run for concocted make-believe scenarios. ➒ If you can't provide me with an answer to question eight, then here's my follow-up: If you don't know how much net zero emissions in the U.S. would reduce GMST by 2100, are we supposed to just spend all that money and see what happens? Question 8 has no basis in reality. No such proposals exist. If the author of the post says they do, he should provide a link or links to the appropriate documentation. Nothing like that is found in a search of CBO and OMB, projections. Ongoing modest efforts fall far short of the threshold cited by the author. ➊⓿ Why do efforts to mitigate exclusively center on reducing carbon emissions, and ignore more effective strategies such as building weather-resilient infrastructure and enforcing stricter zoning codes? Addressing climate change requires mitigation and resilience. Mitigation is required to address the principal drivers of anthropogenic climate change (greenhouse gas emissions). Resilience is needed to adapt to the realities of the evolving climate. Without mitigation, today’s resilience initiatives will “buy” only a little time in the short-term, but will be largely ineffectual e.g., planned increases in street levels in Miami would be useless against a potential 3-meter or more increase in sea levels by 2100. Red Herring = No data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Red Herring = No dataAre you a flat Earther too?. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 9 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said: Are you a flat Earther too? . Facts over feelings!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, ChescoWx said: Red Herring = No data This seems to be in response to Don’s first 4 answers. What was your takeaway from his other answers to the questions? I find that his response was incredibly well-written. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 30 minutes ago, Cobalt said: This seems to be in response to Don’s first 4 answers. What was your takeaway from his other answers to the questions? I find that his response was incredibly well-written. I thought those that he answered were well thought out.....but as always with Don plenty of conjecture and some fearful prognostications (3 meter or more sea level rise over the next 75 years?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 6 hours ago, chubbs said: Not only is the 1936 record at Phoenixville flawed, Chesco's whole notion that the 1930s summers were warm in Chester County is questionable. Remove Phoenixville and the # of 95F days plummet in 1930s and 40s. Also note the smaller spike in 95F days at Coatesville in the 1890s+1900s. The NCDC station station notes for Coatesville (below) state that window blinds were used as a temperature screen around 1900. Also the station was located in the city of Coatesville in the 1890s and 1900s, then moved to a field, then back to the city, before finally relocating to a more rural site in the late 1940s. It was only in the late 1940s, at a more rural location, that Coatesville started to have fewer 95 days then Philadelphia on a routine basis. Actually Charlie when we exclude the Phoenixville Station.....the 1930's were still the warmest decade in County history. Summer temps are basically flat....nothing alarming here at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 A great point again from Chris Martz. "You’d think hearing the good news that the planet isn’t facing some sort of climate catastrophe would bring a sigh of relief to climate alarmists. Instead, they cling to irrational fear and get angry when presented with evidence that extreme weather isn’t increasing (generally) and that human welfare has never been better than it is today across all metrics that have at least some link to climate (e.g., crop yields, life expectancy, nourishment and to an extent, disaster-related deaths). Until the data on these metrics begins to trend in the opposite direction, I remain unconvinced that we’re facing a “climate crisis.” People who suffer from “anxiety” over the weather suffer from a mental health issue. It’s not a “different opinion,” it’s not normal. If it has to be normalized, it isn’t normal. Period." I will do my small part by continuing to share the good news that at least here in Chester County PA our climate is not warming at an unprecedented or alarming rate.....see our unscary summer warming above!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 4 hours ago, ChescoWx said: We have much better station coverage and representation today and going forward across Chester County than we have ever had in the past. That said the old stations are well represented with some stations within a couple NM and at the same elevation (West Chester / Devault). There is a great mix of lower and higher elevation sites. By analyzing this data we actually can and are getting more accurate data. I agree completely with your first sentence. We have a much better network today. Better equipment and different locations, not restricted to the warmer parts of the county. But you aren't telling us anything about the climate, only how much the network has changed. You have stacked the deck against warming, by throwing in a lot of cooler stations at the end of the period. Stations with different characteristics than the COOPs, which skews the trend analysis cooler and you still find a warming trend.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 34 minutes ago, chubbs said: I agree completely with your first sentence. We have a much better network today. Better equipment and different locations, not restricted to the warmer parts of the county. But you aren't telling us anything about the climate, only how much the network has changed. You have stacked the deck against warming, by throwing in a lot of cooler stations at the end of the period. Stations with different characteristics than the COOPs, which skews the trend analysis cooler and you still find a warming trend.. Not true again Charlie there are more stations similar to the old lower elevation sites than the relative higher and we can split them out and analyze them see below summer only lower elevation (warmer) sub 410 ft. stations. Same story cyclical changes and minor unalarming gentle warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Now that I've found out about the station moves at Coatesville. It is likely that the relative cooling at Coatesville after the war is caused by the station move to a more rural location. Per NCDC, there are two post-war station moves: one in early 1946, and a second move in 1948. After 1948, NOAA matches the Chescowx (two Coatesville stations and East Nantmeal) closely. This is raw coop data from 2 Coatesville stations and Pauls's house in East Nantmeal. All relatively rural after 1948. Before 1948, NOAA matches the bias-adjusted values for Coatesville. Per chart above the Coatesville experienced a city-->rural move related warming that deserves a bias adjustment. As shown a few posts up, Coatesville had more 95 days than Phiadelphia before the move. More strong evidence that NOAA is spot on and Chescowx is way off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, chubbs said: Now that I've found out about the station moves at Coatesville. It is likely that the relative cooling at Coatesville after the war is caused by the station move to a more rural location. Per NCDC, there are two post-war station moves: one in early 1946, and a second move in 1948. After 1948, NOAA matches the Chescowx (two Coatesville stations and East Nantmeal) closely. This is raw coop data from 2 Coatesville stations and Pauls's house in East Nantmeal. All relatively rural after 1948. Before 1948, NOAA matches the bias-adjusted values for Coatesville. Per chart above the Coatesville experienced a city-->rural move related warming that deserves a bias adjustment. As shown a few posts up, Coatesville had more 95 days than Phiadelphia before the move. More strong evidence that NOAA is spot on and Chescowx is way off. Fortunately we have plenty more stations that say.....sorry Charlie!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 25 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: Not true again Charlie there are more stations similar to the old lower elevation sites than the relative higher and we can split them out and analyze them see below summer only lower elevation (warmer) sub 410 ft. stations. Same story cyclical changes and minor unalarming gentle warming. You aren't listening. Averages of an ever-changing network are skewed, doesn't matter how you tweek them.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 21 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: Fortunately we have plenty more stations that say.....sorry Charlie!! Sorry Paul. More data is your hands results in a poorer analysis and a loss of the warming signal. Why? You don't know how to analyze it. More data in NOAA's hands results in a better analysis. NOAA is using much more data than you are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhs1975 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 I thought those that he answered were well thought out.....but as always with Don plenty of conjecture and some fearful prognostications (3 meter or more sea level rise over the next 75 years?)Yeah some colossal chunks of Ice would have to fall in to get 3 meters.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now