Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

8 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

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?)

Typo: 3 feet not 3 meters.

[ChescoWx]

7 hours ago, chubbs said:

You aren't listening. Averages of an ever-changing network are skewed, doesn't matter how you tweek them..

And no matter how many machine produced non-Chester County obs you put forth.....we know it is not real or factual data. The facts are not supportive....I feel your pain!!

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Typo: 3 feet not 3 meters.

No worries Don....I have made a few of those myself!  Even though we may disagree on some of these big issues I still enjoy your posts!! take care!!

[Stormchaserchuck1]

At least he offers an alternative view.. I get what he's saying, it doesn't seem like locally especially with not super hot Summers, like the trend is that significant. Wintertime temps in the 50s is because of ridging and warm fronts, you can always tell that severe cold is always possible. It just hasn't been able to dig since the late-1970s. I "feel" it as a wave, and this wave is warm. Maybe the ultimate thing is a super warm endless wave, but there a lot of snowless years recorded in the old journals from the 1700s and 1800s, and that's really not that far off from what's going on now, less than I would think.. 

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

And no matter how many machine produced non-Chester County obs you put forth.....we know it is not real or factual data. The facts are not supportive....I feel your pain!!

No pain at all.  You aren't producing any evidence and I am used to your rhetoric.

I have a question about the coop data. Researching station histories at NCDC, several coops are shown as having rain gauge data only, no temperature data. Chadds Ford, Glenmoore, and Honey Brook have no temperature data at all. West Grove only has temperature data from 1963 to 1976, rain gauge only before that. I had obtained data for those stations from IEM; but, on checking, the IEM temperature data is flagged as “estimated” in the station data table. Apparently IEM backfills from surrounding stations when coop data is missing. Looks like historic Chester County data is even more limited than we thought. Can you check?

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

No pain at all.  You aren't producing any evidence and I am used to your rhetoric.

I have a question about the coop data. Researching station histories at NCDC, several coops are shown as having rain gauge data only, no temperature data. Chadds Ford, Glenmoore, and Honey Brook have no temperature data at all. West Grove only has temperature data from 1963 to 1976, rain gauge only before that. I had obtained data for those stations from IEM; but, on checking, the IEM temperature data is flagged as “estimated” in the station data table. Apparently IEM backfills from surrounding stations when coop data is missing. Looks like historic Chester County data is even more limited than we thought. Can you check?

The only issue I found during my QC was that they had simply mirrored Devault data with Phoenixville from 1893 thru 1951. Devault did not begin daily temperature obs till 1951....so I deleted all of those years for Devault. Otherwise the data is consistent but with clear obs variations between the various stations see below for example.

[bluewave]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:40 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I agree. Even worse, that incorrect reading is recognized as the state record.

My guess is that 108° is probably the actual PA state high temperature record set in 2011, 1936, and 1918.

 

Monthly Data for July 2011 for Pennsylvania
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

NORRISTOWN	COOP	108
READING REGIONAL AIRPORT	WBAN	106
LEWISTOWN	COOP	106
STEVENSON DAM	COOP	106
Reading Area	ThreadEx	106
SAFE HARBOR DAM	COOP	105
NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT	WBAN	105
SHIPPENSBURG	COOP	105
MILLHEIM	COOP	105
NEW CASTLE 1 N	COOP	105
LOCK HAVEN SEWAGE PLANT	COOP	105
RENOVO	COOP	105
HERITAGE FIELD AIRPORT	WBAN	105
DOYLESTOWN AIRPORT	WBAN	105

 

Monthly Data for July 1936 for Pennsylvania
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

MARCUS HOOK	COOP	108
FARRELL SHARON	COOP	108
CHAMBERSBURG 1 ESE	COOP	107
LAWRENCEVILLE 2 S	COOP	107
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD	COOP	107
SPRING GROVE	COOP	106
EPHRATA	COOP	106
GEORGE SCHOOL	COOP	106
WILLIAMSPORT (RIVER)	COOP	106
FRANKLIN	COOP	106
Williamsport Area	ThreadEx	106
VANDERGRIFT	COOP	106
HANOVER	COOP	105
YORK 3 SSW PUMP STN	COOP	105
WEST CHESTER 2 NW	COOP	105
NESHAMINY FALLS	COOP	105
LEBANON 4 WNW	COOP	105
LOCK HAVEN	COOP	105
ARDMORE	COOP	105
SUMMERDALE NEAR	COOP	105

 

Monthly Data for August 1918 for Pennsylvania
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

CLAYSVILLE 3 W	COOP	108
COATESVILLE 1 SW	COOP	107
LANCASTER 2 NE PUMP STN	COOP	107
SADSBURYVILLE	COOP	107
PHILADELPHIA	WBAN	106
PALMERTON	COOP	106
LEBANON 4 WNW	COOP	106
Philadelphia Area	ThreadEx	106
BEAVER DAM	COOP	106
CLEARFIELD CLIMAT	COOP	106
HANOVER	COOP	105
GETTYSBURG	COOP	105
YORK 3 SSW PUMP STN	COOP	105
QUAKERTOWN	COOP	105
BETHLEHEM LEHIGH UNIV	COOP	105
INDIANA	WBAN	105
GEORGE SCHOOL	COOP	105
READING 4 SW	WBAN	105
LEWISBURG	COOP	105
VANDERGRIFT	COOP	105
Reading Area	ThreadEx	105

 

 

[bdgwx]

Death Valley set a new record for July 5th of 127 F yesterday.

All time record highs may get challenged today in California and Oregon. 

[bdgwx]

I'm not sure how I missed this one yesterday...Palm Springs, CA set a new all-time record high. 124 F.

 

[ChescoWx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

I have a question about the coop data. Researching station histories at NCDC, several coops are shown as having rain gauge data only, no temperature data. Chadds Ford, Glenmoore, and Honey Brook have no temperature data at all. West Grove only has temperature data from 1963 to 1976, rain gauge only before that. I had obtained data for those stations from IEM; but, on checking, the IEM temperature data is flagged as “estimated” in the station data table. Apparently IEM backfills from surrounding stations when coop data is missing. Looks like historic Chester County data is even more limited than we thought. Can you check?

Hey Charlie looks like quite a bit of missing data under the IEM sites. To your point they list Glenmoore as having no temperature data for March 2009 (see below) but there were temperature obs taken per obs sheet. They do correctly record the precipitation however. These reading align with  my dataset for Glenmoore for that month. The metadata sourced from the Penn State Climate site also shows no temps and only rain data....strange!

 

[chubbs]

6 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Hey Charlie looks like quite a bit of missing data under the IEM sites. To your point they list Glenmoore as having no temperature data for March 2009 (see below) but there were temperature obs taken per obs sheet. They do correctly record the precipitation however. These reading align with  my dataset for Glenmoore for that month. The metadata sourced from the Penn State Climate site also shows no temps and only rain data....strange!

 

Below is the the IEM data table for July 1990. IEM flags temp as E for estimated. E flag is explained in header. Can't find any IEM data for Glenmoore that doesn't have an E flag. Same for the other sites I mentioned. Based on what I see at NCDC and IEM don't think there is any temp data for Glenmoore or the other sites with an E flag. 

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Below is the the IEM data table for July 1990. IEM flags temp as E for estimated. E flag is explained in header. Can't find any IEM data for Glenmoore that doesn't have an E flag. Same for the other sites I mentioned. Based on what I see at NCDC and IEM don't think there is any temp data for Glenmoore or the other sites with an E flag. 

 

Even though it has an E flag on the Data Calendar below there actually is submitted NWS Coop forms (see below) that show the actual observations taken. The dataset I am using for the analysis matches the below official coop data form and does not use the estimated figures on the data calendar. You can see the differences below. Not sure why they would put estimates in when we have actual data?

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Even though it has an E flag on the Data Calendar below there actually is submitted NWS Coop forms (see below) that show the actual observations taken. The dataset I am using for the analysis matches the below official coop data form and does not use the estimated figures on the data calendar. You can see the differences below. Not sure why they would put estimates in when we have actual data?

Per NCDC, the Glenmoore temperature data was deleted because it didn't meet NWS standards. Looks like the temperature sensor was added in 2009.  Honey Brook, Chadds Ford, and West Grove prior to 1963 all get the E flag at IEM. Per NCDC only rain gauges were present. I don't think there was any temperature data at those stations.

[TheClimateChanger]

On 7/5/2024 at 10:48 PM, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

At least he offers an alternative view.. I get what he's saying, it doesn't seem like locally especially with not super hot Summers, like the trend is that significant. Wintertime temps in the 50s is because of ridging and warm fronts, you can always tell that severe cold is always possible. It just hasn't been able to dig since the late-1970s. I "feel" it as a wave, and this wave is warm. Maybe the ultimate thing is a super warm endless wave, but there a lot of snowless years recorded in the old journals from the 1700s and 1800s, and that's really not that far off from what's going on now, less than I would think.. 

How about a hot multi-millennial scale tsunami? I think that might be the better analogy.

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Per NCDC, the Glenmoore temperature data was deleted because it didn't meet NWS standards. Looks like the temperature sensor was added in 2009.  Honey Brook, Chadds Ford, and West Grove prior to 1963 all get the E flag at IEM. Per NCDC only rain gauges were present. I don't think there was any temperature data at those stations.

 

Plenty of inconsistencies in the above Glenmoore PA comments. First we are told that there was not any temperature data at all for this station and only rain. Later...sorry no actually it looks like the temperature sensor was installed in 2009. But as we see below we have the evidence that the observer has been reporting temperatures to the NWS consistently at least as far back as nearly 20 years! (see below August 2005 handwritten submitted obs).  So Then we see that the NCEI Historical Observing Metadata Repository site has begun to erase the fact that data was observed at least that far back.... but has not yet apparently updated for 2009 (still listing temp obs). NCEI true to their word is well on the way to revising the past data as we can see they have "cleaned up" August 2005 below with their updated computer output eliminating the Glenmoore handwritten obs. Call me stunned NCEI adjusting or eliminating data after the fact - I never would have thought such a thing LOL!!

Now we need to ask well where is the analysis to support the deletion of this station data? Well they do mention above these supposed reliability concerns....sounds fair but where is the analysis against a control station or 2 to show how unreliable this station supposedly is? Is that station running "statistically" higher or lower than surrounding "valid" stations to invalidate the readings? Well, no details have been provided of that analysis.... just we feel like there are "reliability concerns" and it is not NWS approved. A little analysis and comparison to the closest surrounding stations does not show any issues with the data. In fact in the final year that Glenmoore/Coatesville and East Nantmeal (2007) all reported they were within 0.1 degree of each other in average temperature. East Nantmeal is within 2 nautical miles of the Glenmoore COOP observer within 60 feet of elevation. So even though not NWS approved that data sure passes the statistical p-value to validate and remains extremely consistent with the current Glenmoore MADIS station and of course East Nantmeal.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Now we need to ask well where is the analysis to support the deletion of this station data? Well they do mention above these supposed reliability concerns....sounds fair but where is the analysis against a control station or 2 to show how unreliable this station supposedly is? Is that station running "statistically" higher or lower than surrounding "valid" stations to invalidate the readings? Well, no details have been provided of that analysis.... just we feel like there are "reliability concerns" and it is not NWS approved. A little analysis and comparison to the closest surrounding stations does not show any issues with the data. In fact in the final year that Glenmoore/Coatesville and East Nantmeal (2007) all reported they were within 0.1 degree of each other in average temperature. East Nantmeal is within 2 nautical miles of the Glenmoore COOP observer within 60 feet of elevation. So even though not NWS approved that data sure passes the statistical p-value to validate and remains extremely consistent with the current Glenmoore MADIS station and of course East Nantmeal.

With all the above up there said I am not sure exactly what is going on and will go back and do some further analytics. I just love these kind of puzzles!!. I am after all a recovering accountant/finance guy! 

I am sure it will become clear if NCEI simply copies certain stations over - as I found in the past with old Devault data. But the big question comes if they are using averaged data from 1 station or some sort of derived estimate and then paste it across additional stations that would of course impact any calculations done....thus weighting more heavily on estimated data or adjusted data - if in fact this data is actually used as part of NCEI's adjustment to the actual or calculation of their adjusted averages. Should be fun!

[ChescoWx]

Thanks to Charlie for the great heads up!!  While we need to do a bit more analysis.... but see below for an analysis of the IEM data set vs. actual obs. These estimates at least in this one month are running warmer than the actual obs by over 1 degree in August 2005. It is starting to look like some of these IEM stations and their data might be what some in the climate world have coined "ghost stations" where older stations are either replaced with these estimates - like we clearly see in near 20 years of the Glenmoore Data. If this is true I will of course strip out these "ghost" stations and only use real data. While the ghost data is similar between these ghost stations....there is some subtle differences. The blue is where the actual real obs are the same as the estimate for Glenmoore - with the yellow differences from the Glenmoore ghost data.

It will be interesting to see the impact of stripping out these non-actual data points.

 

 

[ChescoWx]

Some info on ghost stations - those E's that Charlie mentioned may indeed be these non-existent stations.

“They are physically gone—but still report data—like magic,” said Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist.“NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”

He calls them “ghost” stations. Of interest they are still finding more of these stations. In fact one that has been identified is West Chester which last reported real data back in 2017. Do we have more stations we have identified that we can send on over?

Mr. Shewchuck said USHCN stations reached a maximum of 1,218 stations in 1957, but after 1990 the number of active stations began declining due to aging equipment and personnel retirements.

NOAA still records data from these ghost stations by taking the temperature readings from surrounding stations, and recording their average for the ghost station, followed by an “E,” for estimate.

The addition of the ghost station data means NOAA’s “monthly and yearly reports are not representative of reality,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute.

https://amac.us/blog/health-and-wellness/hidden-behind-climate-policies-data-from-nonexistent-temperature-stations/

 

[ChescoWx]

As I continue to dig deeper into the analysis for my area of Chester County PA. So far I have found the following additional ghost station data adjustments, these are in addition to Glenmoore, Honey Brook, Chadds Ford, and West Grove (pre 1963)

• Devault reported ghosted Phoenixville PA readings starting from January 1893 thru June 1, 1951.
• Devault recorded their own actual observations from June 1951 through January 31, 1988
• Devault resumed reporting ghost data from Phoenixville on February 1, 1988 through April 3, 2005
• Downingtown PA 2000 thru 2003 all ghosted data looks to be aligned to the Chadds Ford Ghosted Data....
• Morgantown PA began ghosting data on February 2, 1986 following actual data from 1951 thru January 1986

[ChescoWx]

Below is an example of the newest Ghost Station in the Coatesville and Chester County data set. I am working up a list of all real vs ghosted data (and correct dates) to appropriately adjust the Chesco database. I actually have found 2 Ghost Stations in Coatesville one back in the 1940's-1950's and this new one since 2016. Both of these stations are actually NWS Coop precipitation sites that have had post hoc approximate temperatures added to their observations. Below is Coatesville 1E vs. KMQS Airport near same elevation and within 2 NM of the Airport. The month is August 2022. The Ghost Coatesville site reported 11 days over 90 degrees while KMQS and Glenmoore only reported 2 such days. The ghost data increased the average temperature by 1.2 degrees vs KMQS in just that month.

[chubbs]

51 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Below is an example of the newest Ghost Station in the Coatesville and Chester County data set. I am working up a list of all real vs ghosted data (and correct dates) to appropriately adjust the Chesco database. I actually have found 2 Ghost Stations in Coatesville one back in the 1940's-1950's and this new one since 2016. Both of these stations are actually NWS Coop precipitation sites that have had post hoc approximate temperatures added to their observations. Below is Coatesville 1E vs. KMQS Airport near same elevation and within 2 NM of the Airport. The month is August 2022. The Ghost Coatesville site reported 11 days over 90 degrees while KMQS and Glenmoore only reported 2 such days. The ghost data increased the average temperature by 1.2 degrees vs KMQS in just that month.

I've had a chuckle over the past couple of pages. As usual you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. The temperatures with an E flag are estimated by IEM. Says so at the top of the data tables. As an example below is Coatesville 1E for the same month. Whenever there is coop station in operation, but without temperature data, IEM dummies in temperatures from their own reanalysis program. Has nothing to do with NOAA or "ghost" stations. Just IEM's attempt to provide a temperature estimate for that COOP location.

In any case, there is no temperature data at several of the sites you were using.  When you pull the stations, your monitoring network average will change. Hopefully you will issue corrections to all the charts you have posted with a suitable mea culpa.

[ChescoWx]

1 minute ago, chubbs said:

I've had a chuckle over the past couple of pages. As usual you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. The temperatures with an E flag are estimated by IEM. Says so at the top of the data tables. As an example below is Coatesville 1E for the same month. Whenever there is coop station in operation, but without temperature data, IEM dummies in temperatures from their own reanalysis program. Has nothing to do with NOAA or "ghost" stations. Just IEM's attempt to provide a temperature estimate for that COOP location.

In any case, there is no temperature data at several of the sites you were using.  When you pull the stations, your monitoring network average will change. Hopefully you will issue corrections to all the charts you have posted with a suitable mea culpa.

I am having a blast with this!! Fortunately a bit slow at work so I am crunching away on where ghost data is and is not. Some stations have ghost data for decades and then over to actual for decades and then back to ghost! It will be fascinating to see how it all shakes out. I hope to get everything tied up later today or tomorrow. Wish me luck! Thanks again for the heads up!!

[bluewave]

Warmest start to the summer in portions of Eastern PA.

 

Time Series Summary for Reading Area, PA (ThreadEx)
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2024-07-07	76.7	0
2	1925-07-07	75.9	0
3	1966-07-07	75.8	0
4	1943-07-07	75.5	0
5	1949-07-07	75.3	0
-	1934-07-07	75.3	0
6	2010-07-07	75.1	0
7	1952-07-07	74.9	0
8	1923-07-07	74.5	0
9	2005-07-07	74.4	0
10	1957-07-07	74.3	0
11	2021-07-07	74.2	0
-	2013-07-07	74.2	0
12	2008-07-07	74.1	0
13	2020-07-07	74.0	0
-	2011-07-07	74.0	0
-	1953-07-07	74.0	0
14	1921-07-07	73.8	0
-	1919-07-07	73.8	0
15	1901-07-07	73.6	0

 

 

[chubbs]

1 minute ago, ChescoWx said:

I am having a blast with this!! Fortunately a bit slow at work so I am crunching away on where ghost data is and is not. Some stations have ghost data for decades and then over to actual for decades and then back to ghost! It will be fascinating to see how it all shakes out. I hope to get everything tied up later today or tomorrow. Wish me luck! Thanks again for the heads up!!

Unfortunately IEM doesn't provide enough warning that the data is estimated. Fooled me until last week.  Found this statement on the IEM reanalysis page that provides some info. All the COOP stations are "long-term tracked climate sites".

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Unfortunately IEM doesn't provide enough warning that the data is estimated. Fooled me until last week.  Found this statement on the IEM reanalysis page that provides some info. All the COOP stations are "long-term tracked climate sites".

Well I finished scrubbing and updating the data. The data looks much better!! I only had to totally delete the Chadds Ford and Honey Brook data. There were many years of good COOP data remaining at all other sites - so only had to delete years at the front or end of the station records. All in all it looks like it may end up with a bit cooler overall look regarding Chester County average temperatures through the years, Having the Phoenixville data ghosted into the Devault data and some of the other estimated data that looks to have skewed us a bit warm may make the difference. Will run some analysis later. Thx

[ChescoWx]

So with the new corrected actual COOP data for Chester County PA that eliminated any ghost/estimate data from the observation database we found the following.

• From 1893 thru 1927 no change in the data
• For 86 consecutive years from 1928 thru 2013 each year has now cooled with the elimination of the ghost/estimate data

See the actual average annual temperature variance (red with ghosted/estimated data included and blue with the revised clean actual data from 1893 thru 2023)

Clearly the elimination of these ghosted averages has further flattened the warming trend lines.....

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So with the new corrected actual COOP data for Chester County PA that eliminated any ghost/estimate data from the observation database we found the following.

• From 1893 thru 1927 no change in the data
• For 86 consecutive years from 1928 thru 2013 each year has now cooled with the elimination of the ghost/estimate data

See the actual average annual temperature variance (red with ghosted/estimated data included and blue with the revised clean actual data from 1893 thru 2023)

Clearly the elimination of these ghosted averages has further flattened the warming trend lines.....

Nah, just shows how bad you method is. You've made a big change in your estimate Chester County's past climate. The second one you've made this year. Since you won't give us anything beyond a list of stations. I made up a simple chart that shows the station coverage by decade. A bolded capital X is a complete decade. A small x is a partial decade.

The monitoring network that you have put together is completely different that the one in 2000. Station changes increased in the 2000s and really ramped in the 2010s. The stations you have added recently, provide  very little information on whether Chester County has warmed, because the don't have a long record.  In fact the newer stations with longest records: your house and kmqs,  match NOAA's warming rate.

With the method you are using, all the new stations do is skew the recent decades cooler vs the old network. You aren't accounting for changes in station characteristics. The new stations are higher in elevation, further N and W, and located in parks or other public area i.e., more rural than the older stations. Even when they are close to the location of older stations they aren't a good match. Take West Grove for example. The current station is at the top of the regional landfill well N and W of West Grove. Per your daily reports, the new West Grove station runs as cool as your house on summer afternoons, rarely hitting 90F.

For long term-climate purposes we are stuck with a handful of stations. Four stations make up the bulk of the data: Phoenixville, West Chester and Coatesville (2 stations). If you want to look at raw data and argue that it hasn't warmed. Those are the stations you should focus on. The past couple of weeks have only strengthened my conviction that NOAA is spot on. We've found out the Phoenixville was a furnace in the 1930s-1950s, with a poor shelter and time of day bias, much warmer than nearby stations in or out of the county. Coatesville evidently moved from the city of Coatesville to a more rural location in the late 1940s, dropping temperatures by roughly 2F. Bias adjustments for those 2 stations are completely justified and accurate. I've always wondered why Coatesville cooled in the late 40s, now I know.

Bottom-line the more we find out about your analysis the worse it looks,  complete BS. You owe NOAA an apology.

 

 

[ChescoWx]

8 hours ago, chubbs said:

Nah, just shows how bad you method is. You've made a big change in your estimate Chester County's past climate. The second one you've made this year. Since you won't give us anything beyond a list of stations. I made up a simple chart that shows the station coverage by decade. A bolded capital X is a complete decade. A small x is a partial decade. Bottom-line the more we find out about your analysis the worse it looks,  complete BS. You owe NOAA an apology.

Charlie, no need for an apology to anyone as I only analyze the actual NWS data.

But since you say I never give you anything beyond stations....well below please find all the deep details for the NWS COOP and MADIS stations in our Chester County PA dataset. Included in the below chart - I also updated your above chart with the correct data inventory dates for all available complete years of record. Data provided below for all historical and currently available NWS COOP/MADIS stations includes station map coordinates, full years of data observations by station and elevation above sea level for each station of record.

Some interesting historical and going forward geographic data and station reporting splits.

• There are 704 complete years of all station historical data available through December 31, 2023.
• 368 years of total data or 52% of the years have been observed at elevations below 407 FT ASL (relative lower spots)
• 336 years of total data or 48% of the years have been observed at elevations over 440 FT ASL (relative higher spots)
• Pre-1990 we have 451 years of historical total station data
• 256 or 57% of those earlier observations were taken at relative lower elevations
• 195 or 43% of those earlier observations were taken at relatively higher elevations
• Going forward we will have a split of 8 stations located below 407 FT ASL and 8 stations above 440 FT ASL
• That said we only had 55 years of observations at the relatively highest levels above 600 feet prior to 1990.
• These ongoing observations will include 5 stations (31%) between 620 ft and 685 ft / 5 stations (31%) between 407 ft and 465 ft and 6 stations (38%) reporting data between 105 ft. and 348 ft.

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[bdgwx]

With the June update the warming rates of nClimDiv and USCRN are +0.58 F/decade and +0.70 F/decade respectively over their overlap period. It is important to note that nClimDiv uses pairwise homogenization to identify changepoints and correct the biases they cause. USCRN does not perform adjustments of any kind. So for those who think NOAA's adjustments are the cause of the warming trend this is strong evidence that the hypothesis is false. In fact, the opposite may be occurring. NOAA's adjustments may still be inadequate to fully remove the low bias.