Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

1 minute ago, TimB said:

I don’t have an issue with you having multiple weather stations, I have an issue with you using “we” (plural) when talking about yourself (singular).

The we represents the entire Chester County Weather Team including our statisticians, IT team to support the website and FB page etc. 

[TimB]

Just now, ChescoWx said:

The we represents the entire Chester County Weather Team including our statisticians, IT team to support the website and FB page etc. 

Oh, pretending you’re all official and shit. Cute.

[ChescoWx]

Just now, TimB said:

Oh, pretending you’re all official and shit. Cute.

Would you like to join our growing team Tim???

[TimB]

1 minute ago, ChescoWx said:

Would you like to join our growing team Tim???

Is it a paid gig or volunteer? I know there’s big money in climate denial these days, but I ain’t doing it for free.

[ChescoWx]

Just now, TimB said:

Is it a paid gig or volunteer? I know there’s big money in climate denial these days, but I ain’t doing it for free.

It's more a passion than a job for my team! My human resource team includes a checkbox on the intake form that actually asks the following question (this is directly lifted from the form)

• Do you believe in climate change (yes) (no)

If they answer no and are a self identified climate denier - my HR Director immediately puts them in the left pile (left does not move forward in the process) We refuse to hire climate deniers as climate change is real and of course a stone cold fact!!

[FPizz]

37 minutes ago, TimB said:

I don’t have an issue with you having multiple weather stations, I have an issue with you using “we” (plural) when talking about yourself (singular).

Who cares really?  You think his temps and data are wrong, he thinks they are right.  Picking on some words he uses is childish.  

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, TimB said:

Is it a paid gig or volunteer? I know there’s big money in climate denial these days, but I ain’t doing it for free.

No idea what the conversation is about ... and don't wanna know. But this statement in a vacuum is pretty funny -

[chubbs]

20 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Can you show me the exact bias adjustment made to the Coatesville obs (not for all of Chester County) if there was a cool bias....why did NOAA with their adjustments for Chester County take the temperature lower than all stations in the county for many of those years?? Wouldn't they have adjusted the temps up for the cool bias??

Here is the raw and bias-adj values for Coatesville 1SW. Bias adjustment starts today and works backward, so the Doe Run Road site sets the baseline for Coatesville 1SW. Bias adjustments are small for Coatesville 1SW after the move to a rural site in 1948. Note there are some small cooler adjustments in the 1970s.  Before 1948 the bias adjustments are variable, reflecting the many moves and other station changes, but generally increase with time.  The adjustments are largest for the 1893 to roughly 1920 period. This agrees well with the 95F+ chart I posted earlier and other charts I have posted over the years in various forums. Coatesville has more hot days in that period than other stations in this region, including stations outside the county in warmer locations, like Philadelphia.

Per your question, sounds like you are still having problems understanding NOAA's methods, despite my previous explanations. Here is one more attempt. ALL THE BIAS ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO THE STATION DATA. There are no further adjustments once the station adjustments have been made. THE OLDER COOP STATIONS ARE IN WARM LOCATIONS. Not surprising that the county average is warmer than the station results. The same thing occurs today. Phoenixville is always warmer than the county average.

After the stations have been bias adjusted, NOAA maps the station values to a 5 by 5 km grid across the country. At this point the County boundary has not played any role. Why would it? The atmosphere doesn't care about the county boundary. Only at the very end are values for the county, climate division (SE PA Piedmont), state, etc, calculated from the 5 by 5 km gridded values.

[segv]

Good lord, how did "Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change" become "Continuous Discussion of Irrelevant Data from Some County in Pennsylvania".  Can't we create another thread for this discussion?

[ChescoWx]

12 minutes ago, segv said:

Good lord, how did "Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change" become "Continuous Discussion of Irrelevant Data from Some County in Pennsylvania".  Can't we create another thread for this discussion?

LOL Charlie and I have been doing this for years! If folks don't like it let's start another thread....or just ignore me (could be best solution)

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Here is the raw and bias-adj values for Coatesville 1SW. Bias adjustment starts today and works backward, so the Doe Run Road site sets the baseline for Coatesville 1SW. Bias adjustments are small for Coatesville 1SW after the move to a rural site in 1948. Note there are some small cooler adjustments in the 1970s.  Before 1948 the bias adjustments are variable, reflecting the many moves and other station changes, but generally increase with time.  The adjustments are largest for the 1893 to roughly 1920 period. This agrees well with the 95F+ chart I posted earlier and other charts I have posted over the years in various forums. Coatesville has more hot days in that period than other stations in this region, including stations outside the county in warmer locations, like Philadelphia.

Per your question, sounds like you are still having problems understanding NOAA's methods, despite my previous explanations. Here is one more attempt. ALL THE BIAS ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO THE STATION DATA. There are no further adjustments once the station adjustments have been made. THE OLDER COOP STATIONS ARE IN WARM LOCATIONS. Not surprising that the county average is warmer than the station results. The same thing occurs today. Phoenixville is always warmer than the county average.

After the stations have been bias adjusted, NOAA maps the station values to a 5 by 5 km grid across the country. At this point the County boundary has not played any role. Why would it? The atmosphere doesn't care about the county boundary. Only at the very end are values for the county, climate division (SE PA Piedmont), state, etc, calculated from the 5 by 5 km gridded values.

Thanks Charlie I am still not clear is the above the NCEI adjustments to the data for the entire county or for Coatesville? I have not found the individual station adjustments yet. If the above is just for Coatesville can you send me the link to that site? . I would like to see the bias adjustments for Phoenixville and West Chester etc. individually for comparison purposes and adds to my data set. Thanks!

[FPizz]

44 minutes ago, segv said:

Good lord, how did "Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change" become "Continuous Discussion of Irrelevant Data from Some County in Pennsylvania".  Can't we create another thread for this discussion?

The thing is, people can probably do this for many stations around the country, we are just lucky enough to have people doing it here for a county.  There are also hundreds of ghost stations around the country too that don't exist but are assigned temps from surrounding areas.  Look that up, it is interesting.

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Thanks Charlie I am still not clear is the above the NCEI adjustments to the data for the entire county or for Coatesville? I have not found the individual station adjustments yet. If the above is just for Coatesville can you send me the link to that site? . I would like to see the bias adjustments for Phoenixville and West Chester etc. individually for comparison purposes and adds to my data set. Thanks!

Not clear? ALL THE BIAS ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO THE STATION DATA. Stations have adjustments, not counties, not states, not climate divisions, etc..  

I showed you how to access the station adjustment information upthread. Not the first time either. Answering a previous question, I posted the Phoenixville chart below about a month ago; and got a very snide response. There are two main periods with Phoenixville adjustments: the warm spike in the mid 20'th century, that we have already identified and a cool period in the 1980s and 90s. 

West Chester (also below) appears to be similar to Coatesville, with a likely move-related cooling. The last move to a suburban site occurred in 1970. Since that time bias adjustments have been minimal. The only exception is a big spike around 1990,  when the time of observation changed. The bias adjustments that we have investigated are justified and accurate. The past months deep dive into Chesco's climate data has left NOAA smelling like a rose. Thanks for kicking it off.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/

 

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

The thing is, people can probably do this for many stations around the country, we are just lucky enough to have people doing it here for a county.  There are also hundreds of ghost stations around the country too that don't exist but are assigned temps from surrounding areas.  Look that up, it is interesting.

Can you give me an example of one of these ghost stations? I'd like to research that.

[bdgwx]

Relevant to this discussion is [Menne & Williams 2009] which documents the pairwise homogenization algorithm. Like @chubbs said it is done for each station individually to identify the changepoints and quantify and correct the bias that it introduces. This technique was introduced so that GHCN (including USHCN and now nClimDiv) was robust enough to handle stations that did not have adequate metadata (like is available in the HOMR database) to know when significant changes occurred to them. Even in the US the HOMR database does not always capture every change to a station.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Not clear? ALL THE BIAS ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO THE STATION DATA. Stations have adjustments, not counties, not states, not climate divisions, etc..  

I showed you how to access the station adjustment information upthread. Not the first time either. Answering a previous question, I posted the Phoenixville chart below about a month ago; and got a very snide response. There are two main periods with Phoenixville adjustments: the warm spike in the mid 20'th century, that we have already identified and a cool period in the 1980s and 90s. 

West Chester (also below) appears to be similar to Coatesville, with a likely move-related cooling. The last move to a suburban site occurred in 1970. Since that time bias adjustments have been minimal. The only exception is a big spike around 1990,  when the time of observation changed. The bias adjustments that we have investigated are justified and accurate. The past months deep dive into Chesco's climate data has left NOAA smelling like a rose. Thanks for kicking it off.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/

 

 

 

Thanks Charlie this is great!  I have just started downloading this data and will add it to my data set and use it for more analytics and review.

Thanks again!
 

[Bhs1975]

Not clear? ALL THE BIAS ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO THE STATION DATA. Stations have adjustments, not counties, not states, not climate divisions, etc..  
I showed you how to access the station adjustment information upthread. Not the first time either. Answering a previous question, I posted the Phoenixville chart below about a month ago; and got a very snide response. There are two main periods with Phoenixville adjustments: the warm spike in the mid 20'th century, that we have already identified and a cool period in the 1980s and 90s. 
West Chester (also below) appears to be similar to Coatesville, with a likely move-related cooling. The last move to a suburban site occurred in 1970. Since that time bias adjustments have been minimal. The only exception is a big spike around 1990,  when the time of observation changed. The bias adjustments that we have investigated are justified and accurate. The past months deep dive into Chesco's climate data has left NOAA smelling like a rose. Thanks for kicking it off:lol:.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
 

Looks like it's matching the sharp rise in global temps since 1975 to me.


.

[chubbs]

Here are the local temperatures before and after  the West Chester move in 1970. The move to a more rural location dropped West Chester temps close to Coatesville and NOAA.  Looks like a reverse heat island effect impacted 2 of the 3 main Chesco COOP stations.

[GaWx]

 Here’s a new paper with a hypothesis that the sudden strong warming surge that appeared last year was caused by the large amount of water vapor reaching well up into the strat. from Hunga Tonga:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/09/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/

 He says that this amount of water vapor increase that high up into the strat by a volcanic eruption was likely a 1000+ year event due to just the right combo of a submarine eruption located near that amount below sea level (150m down) and of this magnitude (VEI of 5+).

 He said, “We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year.”

 A key to possibly buying into the author’s hypothesis is to accept his reasoning for why it took over a year for the NH to warm from it. From his figure 13:

 Note that it took til very late 2022/early 2023 for the sudden significant increase in water vapor between 25 and 40 km up at 45N lat. 

 “Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.”

 “As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%. And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year.”

 Thoughts from anyone? I saw many comments from @bdgwxin the comments section. There is some really good discussion in there, including with the author.

[chubbs]

4 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Here’s a new paper with a hypothesis that the sudden strong warming surge that appeared last year was caused by the large amount of water vapor reaching well up into the strat. from Hunga Tonga:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/09/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/

 He says that this amount of water vapor increase that high up into the strat by a volcanic eruption was likely a 1000+ year event due to just the right combo of a submarine eruption located near that amount below sea level (150m down) and of this magnitude (VEI of 5+).

 He said, “We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year.”

 A key to possibly buying into the author’s hypothesis is to accept his reasoning for why it took over a year for the NH to warm from it. From his figure 13:

 Note that it took til very late 2022/early 2023 for the sudden significant increase in water vapor between 25 and 40 km up at 45N lat. 

 “Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.”

 “As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%. And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year.”

 Thoughts from anyone? I saw many comments from @bdgwxin the comments section. There is some really good discussion in there, including with the author.

The guy is a denier, not a climate scientist, who has been dismissing CO2 GHG warming for years. Now he is touting GHG warming from water vapor in the stratosphere. I don't think so. He lost me right at the start with handwaving arguments, so I didn't bother to read.

The blog below gives a good update on HT from a scientist. Note the part on the minimal importance of GHG effects in the stratosphere vs troposphere, based on calculations not handwaving. The water from HT went into the wrong spot to cause much GHG warming. The mid and upper troposphere is also very dry and far from greenhouse saturation, but there is much more material to radiate outwards in the troposphere because pressures are much higher. In other words, the para that you quoted above about the troposphere vs stratosphere is complete BS.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga

 

[bdgwx]

5 hours ago, GaWx said:

Thoughts from anyone? I saw many comments from @bdgwxin the comments section.

That guy has a long history of contrarianism and misinformation. I give him credit for a testable prediction, but it's going to end up being wrong. 

BTW...it's ironic how contrarians flock to the idea that 150 MtH2O can cause so much warming while simultaneously scoffing at the nearly 100,000 MtCO2 that humans pumped into the atmosphere in the 2.5 years since the HT eruption. I'm not saying HT didn't have a measurable effect on the global average temperature. I've been pretty open to the idea that it may have. But to claim that it is the primary cause of the recent spike while suggesting that ENSO had little if any effect is absurd.

I'm also disappointed with degreed meteorologists like @John Shewchuk who pop in from time to time on articles like that and in support of this kind of misinformation. John, having a genuine conversation with you is nearly impossible because of your challenges to fundamental and well established physical principals and laws, accusations that NOAA (who was at least at one time one of your customers) is wantonly committing fraud, and incessant gaslighting in general. I tag you here to give you the opportunity to defend yourself if you so desire.

[ChescoWx]

Below is the impact of the altered data for Coatesville 1SW from 1894 thru 1982. The chilling adjustments were consistently applied to the first 71 years (1894 thru 1971) The greatest chilling adjustments were applied to the oldest data with at least 2 degrees F adjustments made from 1897 thru 1922 along with 1931-35 and 1941-45. The end result with the altered data flips what the raw data clearly shows as cooling trend during those years....to now a clear warming trend. The greatest overall chilling adjustments were made to the October thru December months. But 100% of all months for all years were chilled for April through October. February had the least number of months chilled with 75 of the 89 months while January and March both saw chilling adjustments to 78 of the 89 months on record.

[Bhs1975]

Below is the impact of the altered data for Coatesville 1SW from 1894 thru 1982. The chilling adjustments were consistently applied to the first 71 years (1894 thru 1971) The greatest chilling adjustments were applied to the oldest data with at least 2 degrees F adjustments made from 1897 thru 1922 along with 1931-35 and 1941-45. The end result with the altered data flips what the raw data clearly shows as cooling trend during those years....to now a clear warming trend. The greatest overall chilling adjustments were made to the October thru December months. But 100% of all months for all years were chilled for April through October. February had the least number of months chilled with 75 of the 89 months while January and March both saw chilling adjustments to 78 of the 89 months on record.

That just shows how bad the data is in the early years to need that much of an adjustment as it's obviously not cooling when the planet is warming extremely rapidly.


.

[etudiant]

1 hour ago, Bhs1975 said:

That just shows how bad the data is in the early years to need that much of an adjustment as it's obviously not cooling when the planet is warming extremely rapidly.


.

Not sure that follows. I see no reason why people back then would hike their numbers. 

Maybe the current models have weaknesses instead.

[ChescoWx]

Hey Charlie...of note when reviewing the Coatesville 2W data from 1983 to 2007. There seems to be no adjustments between raw and adjusted etc. for any years....but the raw numbers unlike the Coatesville 1 SW data seems to be off almost every month and generally warmer than the actual observations. One example is January 1985. The below is the observations and this matches the data set I have been using. This averages out to a 24.2 average temperature for the month but the NCEI data lists the raw average for the month as 25.0.  Any thoughts??

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Hey Charlie...of note when reviewing the Coatesville 2W data from 1983 to 2007. There seems to be no adjustments between raw and adjusted etc. for any years....but the raw numbers unlike the Coatesville 1 SW data seems to be off almost every month and generally warmer than the actual observations. One example is January 1985. The below is the observations and this matches the data set I have been using. This averages out to a 24.2 average temperature for the month but the NCEI data lists the raw average for the month as 25.0.  Any thoughts??

Won't be able to check till I get back from shore.

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

That just shows how bad the data is in the early years to need that much of an adjustment as it's obviously not cooling when the planet is warming extremely rapidly.


.

Yes, NOAA makes perfect sense when you compare to nearby stations and factor in station moves. To say nothing about regional and global warming.

[ChescoWx]

The West Chester Data set has a ton of gaps or corrupted data (see raw data below) on the NCEI Bias calculations. It appears that about 32% of the years from 1893 to 2017 are impacted.

[ChescoWx]

There continues to be an alarming rise in dust bowl heatwave deniers....they continue to attempt to use altered adjusted data to chill that historical heat. While reviewing all of the post hoc data adjustments details for the long term Chester County PA stations I found plenty of missing data points for both West Chester and Phoenixville.. I have included their raw unaltered data for the below summertime average temperature historical review of the years these deniers focus on most 1930's thru 1950's. Below is a comparison of the actual raw data along with the significant cooling adjustment following NCEI adjustments.  Coatesville individual post hoc site NCEI altered average summertime temperatures are in red. Chester County PA NCEI county wide altered average temperature following NCEI adjustments are in purple. Of note, as I dove into the handwritten observations for Coatesville  there appears to be no need for time of observation adjustments for Coatesville, During the time frame of all of these significant cooling adjustments the time of observation for Coatesville was taken by the observer at the following times. 1930 thru 1942 at both 8am and 8pm;  from 1942-1945 it was 8pm. After 1945 it was taken at 8am.

[csnavywx]

Stop giving him engagement. There is no scenario under which he would consider his hypothesis falsified. He's admitted this. It's now an article of faith by default. Discussing will only make him dig in harder.