chubbs

Annual update to IPCC indicators through 2023. Heat balance chart below. Not surprisingly estimated budgets for 1.5, 1.7 and 2C continue to shrink. Honga Tonga is assessed to have a minimal effect on volcanic forcing (water and sulfur cancel). The indicators show that, for the 2014–2023 decade average, observed warming was 1.19 [1.06 to 1.30] °C, of which 1.19 [1.0 to 1.4] °C was human-induced. For the single year average, human-induced warming reached 1.31 [1.1 to 1.7] °C in 2023 relative to 1850–1900. This is below the 2023 observed record of 1.43 [1.32 to 1.53] °C, indicating a substantial contribution of internal variability in the 2023 record. Human-induced warming has been increasing at rate that is unprecedented in the instrumental record, reaching 0.26 [0.2–0.4] °C per decade over 2014–2023. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high of 54 ± 5.4 GtCO2e per year over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the last decade has slowed compared to the 2000s, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track a change of direction for some of the indicators presented here. https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-149/

Apparently it is difficult for you to detect bias in your own analysis. The station additions after 2000 have fewer 90F days than the stations that make up your network before 2000 (see Table below). That fact biases the results. Its easy to get a rough estimate of the impact of station mix change by holding 90F days constant at each stations average level for each year the station was active. If there was no station mix bias you would get a flat trend with time since each station is being held constant. Per chart below, station mix changes after 2000 have a large impact. The changes in station mix alone would drop the number of 90F days from around 15 between the 1950s and 1990s to a little over 8 in the 2020s. As I expected, the changing station mix is driving your results not climate trends. You should repeat this analysis with the low elevation stations. Just looking at the low elevation station results for 2023, the same station mix problem appears to be present. Of course stations are always changing as old ones drop out and new ones start up. NOAA and other experts have developed methods to account for station mix changes. If you don't employ the proper methods your results will be biased. Doubly important to follow proven methods if you aren't aware of your own bias.

Sorry Paul, your handwaving isn't convincing, The three stations averaged (Glenmoore, Honey Brook and Coatesville 2W) have a clear uptrend, supporting my previous statement. The high elevation stations the coop data doesn't support the results you obtain. I didn't discuss Coatesville 1SW, as its not a high elevation station, but now that you have brought it up. The high number of 90F days in the early portion of its record are not supported by other coop sites. A good argument for bias correction.

You misinterpreted or didn't understand what I said. Let me try again because it is an important point. With the same weather conditions East Nantmeal will measure fewer 90F days than Coatesville 2W. We know that by comparing years when both stations operate. If the station population is changed by replacing Coatesville 2W when it shuts down with East Nantmeal when you moved there, then the 90F days will be reduced due to the difference in 90F days measured at the two stations. You aren't determining the County climate trend. Instead you are producing a station population trend, Your station population is trending cooler and with less 90F days with time. Below is what I have gathered so far on the elevated sites. I only had time to get the last 2 years at Atglen and Glenmooredeos. Clearly the changing station population is driving the results, not the climate. The older stations with longer records: GlenmooreCoop, Honey Brook and Coatesville,all have a similar and increasing level of 90F days over multiple decades. The newer stations with shorter records: KMQS (Coatesville Airport), East Nantmeal, Atglen and GlenmooreDeos are also similar. All have intrinsically fewer 90F days than the three older stations. Clearly seen by comparing the years when older and newer stations are operating. There is a big change in station population in going from Glenmoorecoop, Honey Brook and Coatesville2W alone in the 50s-90s. To a station mix which is primarily made up of stations with relatively low 90F days from 2004 onwards. Now that GlenmooreCoop, the last of the older station, has shut down, 90F days are going to trend down going forward no matter how much Chester County warms. You will be trumpeting the results I am sure. Finally your house is not exactly a minute part of the elevated stations and is clearly pulling down the elevated 90F average since 2004. The more I see of your new method the worse it looks. More biased than Chescowx for sure. Shows how good a bias metric NOAA is. The further away you are from NOAA the more bias you are introducing.

Don't disagree. Am posting mainly because the local data and how it is tortured is of interest. This week I've learned that most of our coop sites that cover multiple recent decades have an upward trend in 90F days.

You aren't providing any evidence on heat island impacts at PHL. PHL 90F days tracks other I95 airports in our area closely. ILG (Wilmington) and VAY (Mt Holly) are much smaller airports that aren't changing very quickly. Meanwhile your data is filled with inconsistency with station locations varying with time moving north and west. To say nothing of subbing in your own house which hardly ever gets a 90F day. Heat island mainly impact nighttime temps. Effects on daytime highs are much smaller. My own station tracks closer to PHL than your house, both for summer high temperatures and number of 90F days. In the past 3 years phl has averaged 36 90F days and I've averaged 20. PHL gets about the same number of days above 92. Considering I'm at almost 300' with a heavily shaded back yard bordering on woods, That doesn't leave much room for a big heat island effect on PHL 90F days. In terms of climate trends for our area I'll take phl, a single site with a long-term record, over your biased county average any day.

Yes the final chapter on the overall impact of HT hasn't been written yet. Whatever it is its not likely to be large. Much smaller than the CO2-related warming we are experiencing. A couple of points: 1) The warming effect of H20 in the stratosphere is due to infrared absorption just like CO2, 2) H20 has a much bigger infrared effect in the upper troposphere because infrared upwelling is larger in the troposphere and H2O concentrations are higher. Increased tropospheric water is virtually all from CO2 feedback. Anyone making the case for a large HT impact is making the case for an even larger CO2 warming effect.

You can't say that because, unlike NOAA, you haven't checked for bias. As shown above there are big differences in 90F days from station to station. So its critical not to allow station selection or measurement bias to impact the results. You are making rookie mistakes by just averaging the station data without any attempts to remove bias. To detect climate change you need to remove measurement inconsistency; but instead, you are adding inconsistency be shifting station locations. Instead of criticizing NOAA you should be learning how to improve your results. As I said above you are beating a dead horse. One flawed analysis after the other. All very similar, No new information. Meanwhile, as the data from your own house shows, our local climate steadily warms. As I have said many times in the past. You are going to be the last guy to realize Chesco is warming.

Here's 90F data from two of your 500"+ sites, from your Chescowx series. No wonder you are finding a decrease in 90F days. There are other factors besides elevation that impact 90F. Factors you aren't considering. You still haven't addressed or justified your N+W station shift. The difference in 90F days between Coatesville 2W and ENantmeal is the kind of information you don't disclose when you release an analysis. You have been putting out misleading local climate info for decades. Good thing we have NOAA for groundtruth.

You are beating a dead horse

You are much better off believing a government climate scientist than a climate denier. Misinformation and lies from climate deniers like Tony Heller or Steve Milloy have been well documented. I am not aware of any misinformation coming from a government scientist.

You are missing or ignoring my point. Your county “average” of raw data has less warming than Phoenixville's raw data. Whether it is April, the start of the year, or the annual average shown below. As shown above you are also missing the warming in your own Chescowx raw data series. That's Chesco's two longest sets of raw data. You also ignored the point I made about your station mix changing from warmer S and E to colder N+W, particularly in the last two decades. How can you justify that? You are the guy adjusting our climate data to the wrong result not NOAA.

Finally got around to looking at the Phoenixville raw data for April and year-to-date. Our only Chesco station with data going back into the 19'th Century. This is the sixth warmest start in Phoenixville in 132 years according to the raw data. Doesn't look like your county average. I've only compared two sites, Coatesville and Phoenxville, but your new metric isn't performing very well against the raw data. Does a good job of minimizing the warming though.

Sorry that's all I have. Here's a plot for Phoenixville from the GISS site. You can also download data in this plot. Notice that the Phoenixville adjustments are very different from Coatesville. Phoenixville has relatively large adjustments in the 1930s+40s and late80s through the mid-90s. Otherwise adjustments were small. This is a data driven process. Adjustments are determined solely by the raw data collected in the region. By dissing the adjustments you are dissing the raw data. With proper analysis, scientists can get much more information from the raw data than you can. A well proven method, stable for decades, and updated every month for 25,000 stations around the world. Again skeptics have been complaining about the result for decades; however, the skeptic contribution to advancing science in the is area is zip, zero, nada. Not one good idea for improving the analysis of weather station data. Not one bias adjustment overturned based on scientific evidence. Good luck in being the first to succeed.

In most decades the bias-adjusted data for Coatesville is a close match for the NOAA county average. The bias-adjusted Coatesville data makes a good proxy for the NOAA county climate result. The Coatesville bias adjustments are largest before 1950 and small after 1970. The bias-adjustments are a good way of judging the quality of raw data. After 1970 the Coatesville raw data is perfectly fine for climate analysis. However this is not the case at other Chesco coop stations. As I said above the adjustments are made to the station data based on other station data. All done automatically by software. The county average is calculated from the bias-adjusted station data, but not by simply averaging the data. As shown above, averaging would bias the result, since in many years available stations are often not representative of the county as a whole. Care is taken by NOAA to properly account for station location, and other characteristics. Temperature estimates are made on a 5 by 5 km grid across the entire country. The County, state and and other results are obtained from the gridded temperatures. NOAA isn't trying to "scare" you, just getting the best climate result locally, nationally and globally.

LOL you complain about the bias adjustments without knowing how they are done or why. If you paid better attention to the "rehashed verbiage" you would be much better informed. You can easily google up the information. The adjustments are made to the station data from other station data. County and other geographic averages are calculated from the adjusted station data. Below are some links. You can get plots of the individual station data at the GISS and Berkeley Earth links. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00950 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/ https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-station-list/

Which stations are from the warmer parts of the County? Chadds Ford, Phoenixville, Devault, West Chester and West Grove. The southern and eastern sections of the county and/or at low elevation are over-represented. Coatesville is in a valley, but at least it is centrally located in the County. Below is a comparison of the 1930-52 and 2010-24 stations you are using. The current set of stations has a much higher weighting of north of turnpike and high elevation. No wonder you can't find the warming that has occurred over recent decades. Most of the "adjustment" you are attributing to NOAA is just changes in your station population from year-to-year and decade to decade. Every time you sub in a station the nature of the station population changes. This is particularly important in the early decades when station numbers are low. You can't separate out climate information without removing measurement inconsistency. Scientists have spent considerable effort in developing methods to remove inconsistency in station location, equipment and errors. This work is decades old and very successful. There is very high confidence in the climate temperature datasets prepared by NOAA and other agencies around the world. Funny/sad that you think you can do a better job by averaging raw data in a spreadsheet without any consideration of station characteristics or data consistency. All of your criticism of the NOAA boils down to one thing. You don't like the NOAA answer. Now you don't even like your own Chescowx answer. Deniers/skeptics have been whining about temperature data for decades. However when it comes to scientific evidence its all talk and no action. Not a shred of scientific evidence has ever been produced. Meanwhile the scientific evidence for the warming we are experiencing in Chester County gets stronger every year, well documented by NOAA and other agencies.

Not sure, but that would make sense. There is a secondary peak in August.

Now you are giving us conspiracy theories. NOAA's climate data is widely used by industry and the general public and is well vetted by testing and comparison with other climate analyses. NOAA is the climate answer for our area. The chart you posted shows how far off your latest “answer” for Chesco is. Not too bad since 2000, where most your data is clustered and you have a representative spread of stations across the county. Then increasingly too warm going back in time as your stations numbers decline and the warmer parts of the county tend to become over-represented. You are the guy making improper adjustments. There is a big difference between your current answer for Chester County and what you were touting a couple of months ago. You have warmed the 1930s to 1990s by 1.4F. Guess a warming present demands a warmer past.

LOL ,It doesn't do you any good to have a lot of data if you don't know how to analyze it. "My data" is mainly your own Chescowx data. Now that it is showing enough warming to contradict your point of view you are disowning it. It obvious that you don't understand how to develop climate information from weather station data. There is strong correlation among weather stations in a region. The high quality stations in our area all show the same climate trend; which is well captured by NOAA. No need to dismiss the best stations when using the NOAA product. One of the main benefits of a dense observing network is station inter-comparison; well used by NOAA and other scientists to develop climate information. The climate trends over recent decades in our area are well established.

Yes the Atlantic MDR should be going up gradually, peaking in late summer, while the global average peaks in late March. I was referring to the recent spike upwards in MDR temps over the past week or so.

Don't know. Here's the site with the original chart (Kim Wood's) https://kouya.has.arizona.edu/tropics/SSTmonitoring.html