worst long term prediction ever ?

[ChescoWx]

6 minutes ago, wkd said:

Catastrophe?  I doubt it from my elevation (120').  But tell me the truth from your perspective, as you live relatively nearby.  Have average rainfall amounts per event increased in the last one or two decades.

HI Wkd - no they have not we have had some very wet years but nothing out of the ordinary across my 129 years of local suburban Philly climate data. As always the perception is it rains more....just like I have folks who tell me on my FB weather page that it used to snow more when they were kids....then I share the facts that no it actually snowed more the last 2 decades then it did when they were kids....and they are stunned!

[Cobalt]

46 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Not really that difficult - it's the simple cyclical nature of our climate....we warm - we cool - we warm - we cool... rinse and repeat. The actual data is clear climate change is real and the cycles are constant it both warms and cools.

So do you believe the steady trend of an increase in global heat content in the oceans (as depicted in the graph above), will reverse its trend and decrease, or will this be a localized cooling trend while average of the planet's surface continues to warm?

[ChescoWx]

1 minute ago, Cobalt said:

So do you believe the steady trend of an increase in global heat content in the oceans (as depicted in the graph above), will reverse its trend and decrease, or will this be a localized cooling trend while average of the planet's surface continues to warm?

It is all part of the balancing that our planet does....it will ebb and wane - increase and decrease just like it always has and always will.

Certainly this is nothing to worry about!  However, thanks to the almost religious zeal of climate alarmists...kids today actually rank climate change as one of their biggest fears!! They have even been scared enough by these dire predictions that they are now worried about having children because the world may not be here in 50 years. What lunacy!!!

[Cobalt]

14 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

It is all part of the balancing that our planet does....it will ebb and wane - increase and decrease just like it always has and always will.

So you're saying after the recent 50 year increase in global heat ocean content, we will now see a decrease? 

[ChescoWx]

6 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

So you're saying after the recent 50 year increase in global heat ocean content, we will now see a decrease? 

Sure you don't think the earth will balance this out like it always has before since the dawning of the planet??

[Rjay]

This thread is hilarious 

[CAPE]

Morons can be 'entertaining' if engaged.

Jordan Klepper knows how to do it.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, CAPE said:

Morons can be 'entertaining' if engaged.

Jordan Klepper knows how to do it.

Thanks Cape - Agreed!! LOL!! Facts always get in the way of models and feelings!!!

[chubbs]

17 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

North Carolina huh? I suspect that "predicted event" will go the same way as all of the other climate predictions....nowhere fast!! LOL!!

Per chart below,  in the past 50 years Philadelphia has become Richmond and Coatesville (far NW burbs) has become Philadelphia. The local warming is spot on with climate science predictions from the 1970s. Locally we are having a Raleigh Durham winter, circa 1970, with both Philadelphia and Wilmington averaging close to 40F since Dec 1. A 40F winter is much more likely locally now  than it was 50 years ago.

Science predictions are clear, the warming will continue until we get emissions under control. Extending the regression line, by 2039 Philadelphia will have Raleigh's climate and Coatesville will be half way to Richmond. That's why it will be very easy to see that we aren't having a cooling trend way before 2039. 

Your spiel in this thread is "the climate has always changed". An effective talking point for deniers, but doesn't say anything about why climate has changed. If you don't know the cause of the current warming you can't predict the future.

Just because you don't know why climate changes doesn't mean that no one knows. Science solved this problem a long time ago. Same thing with climate predictions. Just because you aren't aware of any successful predictions, doesn't mean they don't exist. Obviously you don't want to recognize sound climate prediction. We gave you several examples and you blew them off.  As my mom used to say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Per chart below,  in the past 50 years Philadelphia has become Richmond and Coatesville (far NW burbs) has become Philadelphia. The local warming is spot on with climate science predictions from the 1970s. Locally we are having a Raleigh Durham winter, circa 1970, with both Philadelphia and Wilmington averaging close to 40F since Dec 1. A 40F winter is much more likely locally now  than it was 50 years ago.

Science predictions are clear, the warming will continue until we get emissions under control. Extending the regression line, by 2039 Philadelphia will have Raleigh's climate and Coatesville will be half way to Richmond. That's why it will be very easy to see that we aren't having a cooling trend way before 2039. 

Your spiel in this thread is "the climate has always changed". An effective talking point for deniers, but doesn't say anything about why climate has changed. If you don't know the cause of the current warming you can't predict the future.

Just because you don't know why climate changes doesn't mean that no one knows. Science solved this problem a long time ago. Same thing with climate predictions. Just because you aren't aware of any successful predictions, doesn't mean they don't exist. Obviously you don't want to recognize sound climate prediction. We gave you several examples and you blew them off.  As my mom used to say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

As always climate alarmists/cycle deniers like above only show data since 1970. However, if we review and analyze the actual readings going back to the 1890's...we clearly do not support any significant warming at all!!.  As we can easily see in analyzing the actual un-adjusted long term data for the 1st ~90 years of data (1894-1982) vs. the last ~40 years of data (1983-2022) - of course no such moves to a climate in Coatesville/Chester County like Philadelphia with only a 0.3 degree increase in the last 40 years vs the previous 90 years. In fact of course 6 months are trending warmer and 6 months have trended cooler!!  Why do the cycle deniers fail to look at older data to see the true cycle and only cherry pick since 1970? My local ABC news outlet in Philly does the same trick..

[ChescoWx]

So let's help the cycle deniers out and actually look at the comparison to Philadelphia long term data to a rural non UHI impacted data site like the Western Burbs of Philadelphia in Chester County PA....that trend in Philly is clearly accelerating out of control while back in the burbs....are temps rising at all???? Yet people continue to use PHL as their proof of warming....interesting... Also note how the decade of the 1930's was actually exactly the same temperature in Philadelphia as the 2000's - not much warming in those 70 years - is that why they don't look back further in history??

[bdgwx]

10 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So let's help the cycle deniers out and actually look at the comparison to Philadelphia long term data to a rural non UHI impacted data site like the Western Burbs of Philadelphia in Chester County PA

I assume you are referring to USC00369464? How did you handle the 12 breakpoints shown for this station?

[csnavywx]

Doesn't matter what ya throw at him. It won't work. The only thing that matters is this when engaging in this sort of discussion:

What would it take to invalidate your position?

If he can't state it clearly at this point -- block and move on.

Tired of the years of coddling this shit on this board. It's tiring.

[bdgwx]

On 2/3/2023 at 7:22 AM, ChescoWx said:

Right...."properly analyzed" is your code for post observation adjustments that help address that pesky warming cycle that throws the monkey wrench in any analysis of actual data that purports to show a never ending warming pattern

The adjustments are done to address known biases caused by breakpoints like station moves, instrument package changes, time-of-observation changes, etc.

On 2/3/2023 at 1:48 PM, ChescoWx said:

Sure you don't think the earth will balance this out like it always has before since the dawning of the planet??

Yes it will...eventually. This will happen via an increase in temperature resulting in a larger upward terrestrial radiation push.  Unfortunately the temperature feedback (the T^4 relationship from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) response is slower than the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) increase so don't expect the warming to stop anytime soon. In fact, it will take decades of increasing temperatures to get the planet balanced again and that's assuming the GHG and aerosol forcing stops increasing immediately.

I should point out that we cannot eliminate the possibility that the balance could be delayed for thousands of years. It is possible the current concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere have tipped the planet into the slow feedback spiral. This slow feedback response is driven by long duration processes like ice sheet melting, deep ocean mixing, permafrost melting, etc. It is believed this tipping point exists somewhere around an increase of CO2 of 1.5 and 2.0x CO2. Increases in CO2 of 2.0x or higher all but guarantee that the ice age ends albeit after several thousands of years.

[chubbs]

The information below, and more, has been exchanged with Chescowx (Paul) multiple times without having any impact on his analysis. Don't expect it to have an impact this time either, but is posted here to provide background to others.

There are multiple problems with Paul's chart. First the Philadelphia obs moved from center city to the airport in 1940, causing a 1-2F cooling. The chart below compares the Philadelphia airport to other Mt holly main climate sites (Wilmington, Atlantic City, Allentown airports). The main climate sites have similar trends since 1940,  nothing unusual about the Philadelphia airport. The Philadelphia airport has a small amount of additional warming vs other regional sites (<1F) that is accounted for in NOAA bias adjustments.

ln comparison with the Mt Holly climate sites the Chester County coop sites show more cooling between the 1940s and 1970s as the Coop sites were modernized. One obvious difference is the use of max/min mercury thermometers at the coop sites, which introduces time of day bias.

Finally Paul fails to mention that the Chescowx series, uses 3 separate coop sites, end-to-end-to-end. His own house, picked for max snow is last.  Between modernization of the coop sites and station moves, there is 2-3F of bias in the Chescowx series, vs NOAA bias adjusted temperature series for Chester County (bottom). 

[ChescoWx]

13 hours ago, bdgwx said:

I assume you are referring to USC00369464? How did you handle the 12 breakpoints shown for this station?

No see above coop station references -continual data from 1894 thru Present using Coatesville 1SW / Coatesville 2W and NWS spotter data

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

The information below, and more, has been exchanged with Chescowx (Paul) multiple times without having any impact on his analysis. Don't expect it to have an impact this time either, but is posted here to provide background to others.

There are multiple problems with Paul's chart. First the Philadelphia obs moved from center city to the airport in 1940, causing a 1-2F cooling. The chart below compares the Philadelphia airport to other Mt holly main climate sites (Wilmington, Atlantic City, Allentown airports). The main climate sites have similar trends since 1940,  nothing unusual about the Philadelphia airport. The Philadelphia airport has a small amount of additional warming vs other regional sites (<1F) that is accounted for in NOAA bias adjustments.

ln comparison with the Mt Holly climate sites the Chester County coop sites show more cooling between the 1940s and 1970s as the Coop sites were modernized. One obvious difference is the use of max/min mercury thermometers at the coop sites, which introduces time of day bias.

Finally Paul fails to mention that the Chescowx series, uses 3 separate coop sites, end-to-end-to-end. His own house, picked for max snow is last.  Between modernization of the coop sites and station moves, there is 2-3F of bias in the Chescowx series, vs NOAA bias adjusted temperature series for Chester County (bottom). 

 

 

Welp for the who knows how many times.... let's try to explain this again with some actual facts and real world scientifically rigorous data. First off the data I show if you just look back a couple posts include all multiple available Chester County sites not just one site! When I do show the one site I have appropriately referenced the sources. Regarding the sources of the one station Charlie mentions above. We will reiterate the detailed scientific methods and analysis that took place to validate this numerical data being used.

The data set comprises only the National Weather Service COOP observations from 1888 to 1982 for Coatesville 1SW when that station moved per NWS direction to a nearby location in Coatesville beginning in 1983. That location was only 2 miles to the NW at an additional 300 ft elevation change - that station remained in use till 12/31/07. The data of both of those stations was deemed acceptable (In to whatever analysis done by the PA Climate Office I also performed a null-hypothesis significance test which validated with a highly statistical p-value) and combined by the Pennsylvania State Climate Office and is posted on their website with climatology stats using the combined 2 stations. So now we have data from 1888 through 2007 that is included in this data set.

However, the Coatesville NWS observer stopped reporting in December 2007. Without that data I was required to do a statistical analysis to determine if the daily data that had been recorded at both the Coatesville NWS observer station and my NWS spotter data in East Nantmeal for Chester County (at the same elevation ~660 ft ASL) which were taken concurrently daily from 12/1/2003 through 12/31/2007 would be found statistically the same - this is critical because if this statistical significance test had failed we would not have been able to use this data for the ongoing analysis we perform. Remember the null hypothesis we had to put forth is that the data at the 2 stations is NOT the same - However, based on the detailed statistical analysis performed we were able to reject that null hypothesis and therefore we have proven with data certainty that the data from both stations are found to be statistically one and the same based on the highly significant ( p-value results were well under 0.05 required) and we are then allowed to combine this data as scientifically one and the same. This detailed statistical analysis provided the support that allows us to have high confidence that the total data set being used is valid and appropriate for analysis. Hope this helps!! Paul

 

[ChescoWx]

Hi CSNavyWx I am simply showing actual data - with supporting documentation and references.  I unlike some I have met on the other side of this debate... can have calm rational discussions on the data without anger. I have no expectation of changing your views - that is your right.  See answers below.

Doesn't matter what ya throw at him. It won't work. The only thing that matters is this when engaging in this sort of discussion:

What would it take to invalidate your position?

• Actual climate data with a longer period or record than only since 1970.
• Data and analytics should include at the very least data from the 1890's without post observation adjustments for the 1930's-1950's
• A forecast model that has been proven to accurately predict 2m temperatures for decades ahead of today. The fact our models today still struggle with 2m temps for even 1 month ahead call this into question.  One can't test a model prediction until we have future data to validate the forecast, Unfortunately this makes it unfalsifiable and clearly outside of the scientific method. So we should really pay little attention to data derived from climate models.
• That said - Irrespective of any modeling if 50 years from now we are reviewing actual real un-adjusted data and every single decade has continued to warm - I will be on board with this non-stop warming hypothesis that has not yet been proven as we stand here today in 2023. The non-stop warming hypothesis is of course not the famed "settled science" we too often hear as a response to debate.

If he can't state it clearly at this point -- block and move on. This is a very sad statement and sentiment but so  very common today in our society that simply shuts down and does not wish to debate any topic. This is why we now have "safe spaces" in our colleges and universities - let's just shut off and cancel or block any dissenting opinions - so sad to see!!

Tired of the years of coddling this shit on this board. It's tiring.

[bdgwx]

12 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

No see above coop station references -continual data from 1894 thru Present using Coatesville 1SW / Coatesville 2W and NWS spotter data

I already posted the breakpoint analysis for the Coatesville. There were 16 breakpoints. How did you handle them?

 

11 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Data and analytics should include at the very least data from the 1890's without post observation adjustments for the 1930's-1950's

Dr. Hausfather's article here has links to all of the data. Here is the adjusted vs unadjusted comparison. 

[chubbs]

18 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

• A forecast model that has been proven to accurately predict 2m temperatures for decades ahead of today. The fact our models today still struggle with 2m temps for even 1 month ahead call this into question.  One can't test a model prediction until we have future data to validate the forecast, Unfortunately this makes it unfalsifiable and clearly outside of the scientific method. So we should really pay little attention to data derived from climate models.

Hanson Model prediction made in 1981. Global average temperatures.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378

[chubbs]

ExxonMobil model predictions from 40 to 45 years ago, internal memos that were not published - spot on. They also modeled the past 150,000 years accurately.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

• That said - Irrespective of any modeling if 50 years from now we are reviewing actual real un-adjusted data and every single decade has continued to warm - I will be on board with this non-stop warming hypothesis that has not yet been proven as we stand here today in 2023. The non-stop warming hypothesis is of course not the famed "settled science" we too often hear as a response to debate.

I

https://www.theonion.com/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-description-of-w-1819578104

[SnoSki14]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

https://www.theonion.com/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-description-of-w-1819578104

The oceans could evaporate and it could be 130+ everyday and they'll still deny it. 

There's no such thing as reality for these people 

[bdgwx]

22 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

A forecast model that has been proven to accurately predict 2m temperatures for decades ahead of today.

Here are the inputs for each scenario the IPCC considered with their inaugural prediction from 1990 documented in AR1. CO2 is running just slightly above B. CH4 is running at about C. And CFCs (incredibly potent GHGs) are way below scenario D due to the Montreal Protocol. Therefore the scenario that most closely matched that which humans choose was either B or more likely even C.

 

And here are the predictions for each scenario. Notice that 0.55 C of warming was predicted for scenario C with about 0.50 C for scenario D and 0.60 C for scenario B. According to Berkeley Earth the actual amount of warming was 0.66 C. The IPCC was very close and if anything they actually underestimated the warming.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, SnoSki14 said:

The oceans could evaporate and it could be 130+ everyday and they'll still deny it. 

There's no such thing as reality for these people 

Maybe If we could find any climate doomsday event(s) pushed by climate alarmists that actually has taken place and is attributable to climate change....like the above evaporating oceans or even rising oceans like the doomsday predictions of flooded Atlantic City casinos predicted by cycle deniers 30 years ago that have never come to pass.  If there was actual real world events that we can point to maybe folks would accept it better?

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

flooded Atlantic City casinos predicted by cycle deniers 30 years ago that have never come to pass

Can you post the peer reviewed literature which made that prediction? I'd like to review it if you don't mind.

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Can you post the peer reviewed literature which made that prediction? I'd like to review it if you don't mind.

This was the source data that was used for the prediction show. That 1.8 meter prediction is not tracking well...LOL!!

.https://books.google.com/books?id=c1Hls8bvKT8C&pg=PA39&dq=extrapolate the sea-level rise to the year 2000&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP4MffhJ_dAhUFEqwKHYOhDE8Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

This was the source data that was used for the prediction show. That 1.8 meter prediction is not tracking well...LOL!!

.https://books.google.com/books?id=c1Hls8bvKT8C&pg=PA39&dq=extrapolate the sea-level rise to the year 2000&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP4MffhJ_dAhUFEqwKHYOhDE8Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thanks. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. What page does it discuss the Atlantic City casinos? Where does it say sea level would rise 1.8 meters by 2022?

[csnavywx]

On 2/3/2023 at 8:07 PM, ChescoWx said:

Thanks Cape - Agreed!! LOL!! Facts always get in the way of models and feelings!!!

What would you have to see to change your mind?

Because I know what I would have to see for my position to be falsified. You need to state that here or expect to be challenged until you do.

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, chubbs said:

ExxonMobil model predictions from 40 to 45 years ago, internal memos that were not published - spot on. They also modeled the past 150,000 years accurately.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

it makes a strong case for government takeover of all corporations and a requirement for them to publish ALL data