chubbs

We don't have any Chesco stations that haven't major changes. But one station, Phoenixville, provides consistent data for 1890-1926 vs present. Phoenixville has had moves and station changes, but has remained on the local water property site since 1893. This site has not seen any significant during the period of station operation. There are major station changes at Phoenixville. The station ran very warm, particularly on summer afternoons, between 1927 and 1949 and ran cool in the 1990s. Charts below: 1) Phoenixville and NOAA Chesco showing good agreement on the overall Chesco temperature rise between the 1890s and present, roughly 4F. 2) Adjusted and unadjusted temperatures for Phoenixville showing minor adjustments at beginning and end of data record, but large adjustments for 1927-49 and the 1990s as discussed above, and 3) Annual 90F days for Phoenixville and other stations showing a large spike at Phoenixville in the 1927-48 period that isn't matched at other stations.

All I know is that you are good at ignoring data that doesn't agree with your worldview. The station move data is unambiguous. Coatesville in 1945 and 1948. Surprised a heat island expert like yourself can't see the difference in these two sites, built up town vs very rural. I certainly wouldn't expect them to have the same temperature. The raw data from surrounding stations allows the effect of the Coatesville move to be determined accurately. This isn't a small change; easy to see the overall effect by comparing the relative position of Coatesville before and after the moves. Before the move, Coatesville was warmer than West Chester and almost as warm as Philadelphia. After the move Coatesville was as cool as Allentown. Roughly 2F cooling overall. Furthermore there many stations other than these 3 that confirm the magnitude of the Coatesville move. It's an open and shut case. We know the when and where of the Coatesville move and we know how Coatesville changed relative to other stations in the region. The evidence for the West Chester move in 1970 is just as strong. Very easy to separate weather from station moves when you know how to do it.

Those aren't NOAA's adjustments. Looks like the difference between your results and NOAA's. The table below, which you are ignoring, shows that NOAA agrees very well with the raw data when station moves are excluded. So they are your adjustments not NOAA's. Adjustments are needed in Chester County because of all the station moves and other station changes. Every time we've looked at a station move, NOAA has been spot on in adjusting the station data. You haven't identified a single station adjustment that isn't warranted.

The only adjustment to the West Chester and Coatesville raw data is to take out the temperature difference between the two stations by setting 1950 to zero. The year-to-year change in temperature is exactly what the raw data shows at Coatesville and West Chester. A little over 4F warming between 1894 and present, the same as NOAA. Like I said above you are not even close to what the raw data is showing. Below is a comparison of individual stations to NOAA, excluding station moves of course. The agreement is very good both recently and before the major station moves.. If anything NOAA is underestimating the recent warming in Chester County. Why don't you provide the equivalent trend values for your Chesco average so we can see how you stack up.

Not even close to being right. You are cherry-picking the data you like, the temperature values, and ignoring the rest of the information associated with the raw data: the station locations, the station moves, and the relative temperature between stations. Easy to spot the station moves and other major changes by tracking changes in the relative warmth of the Chesco stations. Its well proven science. That's why NOAA's results are different than yours. I get very similar results to NOAA by using the raw data at West Chester (before move) and Coatesville (after move) and avoiding the station moves. We saw in the other thread that the individual station data agrees with NOAA. Why wouldn't it? NOAA uses all the information and well proven science.

More charts

We're currently the biggest drag on climate progress, along with other big oil producers: Russia and the Middle East. The global south is moving quickly to clean tech for energy using gear they are buying from China. We are losing a race that we don't even know is going on.

Switzerland lost 3% of its glacier mass this year. The 4th highest yearly loss. https://scnat.ch/en/uuid/i/9d883a30-136c-55b8-8cde-a6b4c1851dee-And_Swiss_glaciers_continue_to_melt

Here's a new one, recently emerging Antarctic methane seeps. Could be an important climate feedback. A priority for research funding I would think; but, we will have to rely on other nations to carry the ball. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63404-3.pdf

Boston 2015/16-now, 34.7, matches BWI 1951-80, 34.6.

2015-16 to present matches Richmond's average winter temp 1951-1980 - 38.4.

CERES has been updated through July. Recent months have been increasing erratically a sign that the enso-cycle bottom has been passed. The three-year average net radiation remains at a high level, well above the initial heat imbalance when CERES started collecting data in 2000. The recent net radiation uptick is also consistent with the large rise in ocean-heat content in 2nd quarter which was posted above. Both energy balance metrics indicate that the earth continues to warm rapidly.

Found this 2017 article in the Pages2k magazine that provides a nice summary of regional temperature change since 1500. There is regional variation in the detectable onset of man-made warming. As you suggest warming was already detectable by the mid-1800s over the ocean and Northern Hemisphere land masses. Makes sense as greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise slowly by 1800. https://pastglobalchanges.org/sites/default/files/download/docs/magazine/2017-1/PAGESmagazine_2017(1)_71-74_2k.pdf

A quick check indicates that CO2science is not a balanced website. Its advocating against US regulation of CO2 emissions and focusing on the benefits of CO2 on plant growth without acknowledging offsetting adverse impacts. I'd put it in the climate denial camp. I ourworldindata piece I linked above is more trustworthy. Recent gains in yields are mainly from improved seed genetics and increased fertilizer and other inputs. You have to strip that out to get climate change impacts. I googled up this recent Nature paper which finds significant future negative impacts on agriculture, even after farmer adaptation, albeit from a high emissions scenario. I haven't gone through the literature review section but that would be a good place to start on recent scientific work in this area. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w.pdf

Do you have a reference for this? Per the articles below, we have had larger crops due to technology improvement not climate change. The impact of climate change depends on the crop and region. No large net impacts so far. On a global average, doesn't look like a disaster in the future either; but, some regions and crops may have significant negative impacts. Also need to consider extreme events which will pack a bigger punch in a warmer world. A bad year can be destabilizing regionally. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields-climate-impact https://ourworldindata.org/will-climate-change-affect-crop-yields-future

Battery costs are declining along well established cost curves. This ongoing cost decline is hammering the competitiveness of fossil fuels. Cheap batteries mean solar and wind are no longer intermittent and transportation is readily electrified. This article shows how battery-electric trucks will quickly become more cost-effective than diesel. This is being driven by China which has recognized the long-term strategic opportunity. They are electrifying their economy to reduce oil imports and sell increasing amounts of high value gear to the rest of the world. Meanwhile our leadership is in denial. Doubling down on outmoded energy technology. Going to be tough to be competitive if we are uncompetitive in energy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44333-025-00029-5.pdf

China's CO2 emissions are peaking not accelerating. That said China coal use is massive and coal interests are putting up a fight. Its unclear how China's policy towards coal will evolve. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-solar-growth-keeps-chinas-co2-falling-in-first-half-of-2025/ https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/chinas-coal-is-losing-ground-but-not-letting-go/

Trump's speech showed how unprepared the US is becoming for the future. https://electrotechrevolution.substack.com/p/rewiring-the-energy-debate?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

Here are some snow stats for I95 cities. Last 10 years have been below normal at all cities. Philly to Boston are above average over last 30 years. This year 95/96 will be dropped from 30-year average, so 30-year averages are likely to drop.

Wildfire smoke is having an increasing US health impact. Likely also cooling our summers. https://bsky.app/profile/shannonosaka.bsky.social/post/3lz4nvt3eqc2f https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09611-w#Sec4

Some charts from the recent climate experts review of the recent DOE CWG report. The first chart shows how misleading taking an average of GHCN stations is because: 1) the stations are not spread uniformly across US and the 2) station network has changed with time both equipment and station locations. The second chart shows that a proper analysis shows heat wave days are increasing in the US and are now well above 1930s levels. The final chart shows that mid-latitude extreme temperatures are increasing much faster outside of the US. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knIpC4vGrZXDsrF13RC2CujCjhbILgaa/view?usp=sharing

Clear we have passed an energy tipping point, with fossil fuels becoming increasingly uncompetitive. China's large manufacturing scale key in driving down costs. Countries without entrenched fossil fuel interests are leading the way and China will sell them the gear. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-energy-transition-review-2025/

PIOMASS sea ice volume is currently number 2 behind 2012. Volume losses were unusually low this year in June, similar to 2017 in that regard.