chubbs

The Chester County COOP stations have had numerous moves and station changes over the years. Fortunately, the changes are easy to spot by comparing against other COOP stations. The 1970 West Chester move is a good example. The top plot shows the monthly temperature difference between West Chester and Coatesville. Before the move, West Chester was roughly 1.5F warmer than Coatesville. When the station re-opened in May 1970 after the move, West Chester was roughly the same temperature as Coatesville. The difference between West Chester and Phoenixville changed in exactly the same way as a result of the move (second plot). Before the move, West Chester and Phoenixville had similar temperatures. After the move West Chester was cooler than Phoenixville. The cooling nature of the move is easily spotted by inter-comparing the three stations. West Chester experienced a permanent change in temperature that wasn't weather related. The NOAA bias adjustment captures the West Chester move perfectly. Before 1970, the West Chester data is biased warm because the data was collected at a warmer site. This simple example shows how NOAA uses science to get the correct information from the raw data, what the raw data really saw about our climate. Bias adjustment is critical in Chester County because all the Chesco stations operating in 1945 experienced cooling moves between 1946 and 1970: Coatesville in 1946 and 1948, Phoenixville in 1949 and West Chester in 1970. You won't get the right answer in Chester County without bias adjustment.

Article on disaster recovery industry in the US, not the growth industry that we want. No paywall. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-disaster-industrial-complex-us-economy/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTc2MTUyMDQyNywiZXhwIjoxNzYyMTI1MjI3LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJUNEkyRTBHUFdDSUowMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQ0NGODY3Qzk2ODk0MzJDQjRBMEMwM0FENDNGNTJENyJ9.6iPDZtLjiXpOkigBvxm123_KbyMeWuSopTRZeGoG36E&leadSource=uverify wall

Here's a 1987 start.

China, India and Indonesia are shifting increasingly to solar and other renewables which should peak their CO2 emissions by 2030. These countries are the largest growth market for coal since the Paris Agreement. https://bsky.app/profile/creacleanair.bsky.social/post/3m46yyz2dor2a

Global Cat 5 in satellite era of good detection. ( Jeff Master's blog article on Melissa) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/10/jamaica-braces-for-cat-5-hurricane-melissa-earths-strongest-storm-of-2025/

Here are a couple of blog articles with links to scientific assessments on the volcano and an explanation for why the impact is small. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-real-lesson-of-the-hunga-tonga

Below are monthly NINO3.4 and GISS stating in October 2022 and running through 2023. I don't see anything here to indicate that el nino wasn't the trigger. NINO3.4 started rising rapidly early in 2023 and GISS followed with a slight lag. The nino doesn't explain monthly spikes in March and September; but, Hungo Tonga doesn't explain the monthly spikes either as the eruption occurred in 2022.

Per link below the 2023 warming has been attributed to El Nino. The article does say that the warming came on more suddenly and lasted longer than a typical nino. But that is probably due the increasingly positive radiation balance due to cloud feedback and air pollution control. I haven't seen the Hunga Tonga volcano linked to significant warming in a scientific paper. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt7207

Satellite SST estimates show that the 23/24 nino cycle had a similar warming effect on global SST as the 2015/16 nino. Together these two nino's have triggered roughly 0.4C of global SST warming.

Per gfs, the end of October is going to be warm. The highest global anomalies so far this year.

A bit of a hyprocrite aren't you? You are cluttering up this thread with Chester County charts. Are you saying that your arguments are poorly constructed because the Chester County data is independent of the rest of the world? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Chester County is relevant to the rest of the world; Philadelphia, Allentown and Newark Ag station are relevant to Chester County. In any case the science is clear on this point, weather data is correlated for hundreds of miles. Chester County doesn't cool when the surrounding stations don't. In fact, as I showed in the Chester County thread, there is a very good match in the warming rate at the airport and individual Chesco stations. Finally we don't need any data outside of Chester County to know that Coatesville cooled significantly after the war. The tables posted above show that Coatesville cooled relative to Phoenixville and West Chester after 1945 and Phoenixville cooled relative to West Chester and Coatesville between 1948 and 1949. The data from outside Chester County merely confirms what the Chester County data is already showing.

The mistake you are making, is thinking that the move date is important. Coatesville cooled by roughly 2F relative to the other local stations after World War II, indicating a major station change. I substituted 1949 for 1948 in the Coatesville move table. The change increased the move-related cooling at Coatesville to 2.5F. The Coatesville move is complex: a big move in 1946 and a smaller one in early 1948. You only see a small part of the move by comparing 1948 to 1949. Note that Phoenixville also moved to a cooler location in 1949. So can't be used to estimate Coatesville station changes between 1945 and 1949. Since you have provided your “True Actual Average “ for the 1945 to 1950 period. Lets see how well you and NOAA match the station data for that period. I have separated stations into two groups, stations with moves and the stable stations without moves. The stations without moves show that there wasn't any significant local temperature change between 1945 and 1950. Those stations are only 0.1F cooler on average in 1950. In contrast, the 2 stations with moves, Phoenixville and Coatesville, cooled by 2F on average. Cooling at these stations is spurious, caused by station changes not weather. NOAA captures our local weather well, matching the stable stations, with a modest 0.3F cooling between 1945 and 1950. In contrast your “True Actual Average” cooled by 1.4F, much larger than the weather-related temperature change captured the stations without moves. Station changes at 2 of the 3 Chesco stations active in this period contaminate your results. For all your complaints about NOAA, you are the guy who is altering our past weather. Introducing a phantom, move-related, "cooling cycle" to the 1945-50 period. The difference between your results and NOAA's highlights the importance of bias adjustments in Chester County. Our COOPs experienced one change after the other. Finally why is NOAA warmer than the 1940s coop station population? Easy, the 1940s stations are warmer than the county as a whole due to their location in built up towns. When they moved out of towns they cooled. Your "True Actual Average" is almost as warm as Philadelphia in 1945. Notice that Coatesville matches NOAA exactly in 1950. Makes sense, unlike Coatesville City, the new rural Coatesville location is representative of the county as a whole. NOAA isn't fooled by station moves, that's a rookie mistake.

Here's sea level data for the Battery, in New York. Sea-level rise has accelerated this century along the US east and gulf coast. https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/

Your table shows the 2F cooling associated with the Phoenixville move, but you need to go back to 1945 to capture the Coatesville move. Here are two data tables which isolate the moves more clearly. Roughly 2F cooling according to the raw data. Regarding the site photos which you complained about. Coatesville's housing stock is almost entirely pre-1920, the city's population peaked in 1930, so todays photos provide useful information about conditions in 1945.

Suggest you look more carefully at the data I am presenting without dismissing it out of hand.