chubbs

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.

Where is the courage of your convictions? We'll have North Carolina's climate by end of the next decade. And you will still be in denial. With steady warming it didn't take long to see that JB was wrong and it won't take long to evaluate your prediction either.

lol, waffling already

How about we track your cooling cycle prediction in this thread? Lets see if you do any better than JB.

We've been over this a million times. The coop stations cooled when modern equipment was introduced. Fortunately, as shown in your chart, the coop station changes occurred at different times and can be easily identified by comparing stations. When properly analyzed, the "cooling" shrinks, leaving a long-term warming trend.

Over 90% of the heat in the climate system is stored in the ocean. Currently, the climate system is out of equilibrium and warming rapidly on a geologic scale (ocean warming below). Good luck getting a "cooling cycle" when more energy is coming in from the sun than being radiated out. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-023-2385-2.pdf

This is a heck of a way to run a "cooling" cycle.

You are asking the wrong question. Going back 50 years, scientists have made very accurate predictions of future warming (see link below). Scientists have also gotten the consequences of warming right, but have underestimated the speed in many cases. For instance, sea level rise is proceeding at the upper end of projections. Ice sheets, permafrost, forests are all changing faster than anticipated. There is lag in the climate system. due oceans and ice sheets which have large thermal mass. While we see the impact of warming today: heat waves, flooding, forest fires, drought, sea level rise etc; much bigger change is projected for the future; unless we get our act together. How about your own predictions? Below is a recent one that didn't take long to go belly up. Not surprising, deniers/skeptics have a horrible track record. The next cooling cycle is always just around the corner. Has been for decades. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288430943.pdf

Sure we will still be using a lot of fossil fuel in 2030. Its going to take decades to make a complete transition from fossil fuels. We should have started a long time ago. Still the trajectory is clear. According to FERC,between 2022 and 2025, there will be virtually no net additions of natural gas and nuclear in the US as additions and shut-downs are nearly balanced, while coal capacity will continue to drop. Wind will also grow but not as fast as solar. All of the grid additions to 2025 will come from renewables, while at the same time shrinking coal. Furthermore solar will be even cheaper in 2025. Here's a $6 billion investment in China. A 50GW per year PV manufacturing facility coming on-line in 2024. At a 15% use factor that's 5-10 nuclear power plants per year, from a highly automated facility. While the energy source is diffuse, solar is developing a massive scale advantage vs fossil and nuclear at the manufacturing plant. https://www.pv-tech.org/longi-to-invest-us6-7-billion-in-building-new-production-base-in-china/

Same old clown story from JB. On a more optimistic note. Solar is dominating electricity addition in the US. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels. "Nearly two-thirds of US generating capacity additions in the next three years will be fulfilled by solar, with the technology’s share of power generation in the country set to almost double, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). " “Moreover, if the current trajectory persists or accelerates, generating capacity by the mix of all renewables should overtake that of natural gas before 2030 and possibly much sooner.” https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-to-dominate-us-capacity-additions-73gw-expected-through-2025/

Its not hard to find the most important breakpoints (station changes) on your own by comparing to nearby stations. Here's an example from Coatesville at the end of World War II. Roughly a 2F drop relative to other regional stations. That will help obscure the true warming trend. The adjusted data is also available. Here is Coatesville raw vs bias adjusted. The difference is roughly 2F over the period mainly due to station changes before 1950. Manmade forcing began to dominate around 1970 before that natural variability and local air pollution were more important. Since 1970 the raw data doesn't need much bias adjustment and the warming rate for both series is around 3F.

A figure from a recent Hanson paper (pre-publication undergoing peer review). Shouldn't take long to see if he is right. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474

When something doesn't look right I compare to other observations. Measurement problems at phl last year and ptw over the recent past have been well documented on the other weatherboard.

Lets broaden out the analysis. Here is the philadelphia airport vs other Mt Holly long-term climate sites and the NOAA climate series for SE Pa. Yes Philadelphia was too warm last year. The problem started at the end of 2021 and ended late in 2022. Easy to see by comparing with nearby stations. Over the long-term though there is good agreement among the climate sites and with the NOAA regional record. phl is warming a bit faster and abe a bit slower, but good agreement overall. What about the coop stations? Lets go back to the 1940s. The COOPs were using mercury max/min thermometers that were reset between 5 and 7 PM. This alone added roughly 1F of warming bias, vs the climate sites that were on a midnight-to-midnight basis. There may have been other differences between the climate sites and coop stations. Secondly, The chart you posted shows poor agreement among the Chesco sites both year-to-year and over the long-term. As an example below is a chart I have handy comparing Glenmoore and Coatesville 2W. Both of these stations can't be right. Fortunately the NOAA bias adjustment can sort out the station updates and measurement problems. In the chart below Coatesville is good and Glenmoore way off. After adjustment the coops come into much better agreement and look like the other regional data. Regarding "heat island" effects. You've been reading too much Tony Heller and other climate deniers. This isn't a rapidly growing area. The airport doesn't change much from year-to-year or even decade-to-decade. Certainly not enough to impact temperature measurements.

The 1970-2015 temperature detrending in this Hanson chart isn't strong enough for 2015+. Another sign temps could should pop to a record when the nina reverses.