chubbs

21 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

@chubbs - this is all a bunch of subterfuge. In the vast majority of cases, NOAA systematically reduces the reported temperatures from the observed temperatures on a county-by-county basis, often in ways that make little logical sense. Chester County may very well be the only county in Pennsylvania where the opposite is true. So if there is a conspiracy, it's in the opposite direction as the one presupposed with this analysis.

 

 

 

The Chester County deep-dive has shown that a county station average is a terrible way to evaluate NOAA. The available stations aren't designed to produce county averages by simple averaging and the stations change with time. The average shelf life of a coop station isn't very long. Even stations with long-term records have station moves and equipment changes.

The NOAA method is well proven for getting the right answer from a constantly changing station network. If the stations didn't change then simpler methods would also work; but, as we have seen in Chester County the simpler methods breakdown when there are large changes in the station network with time.

An interesting study that helps explain other recent findings. 

Plain Language Summary

Another paper in the high climate sensitivity camp. This paper says that low-climate sensitivity models can't match CERES satellite radiation measurements, i.e. climate models are underestimating warming on average.

"The CERES satellite measures Earth's energy imbalance—specifically, how much solar radiation is absorbed compared to how much heat (longwave) radiation is emitted back into space. The data show a significant increase in absorbed solar radiation, partly due to reduced snow and ice cover, but also because of changes to clouds. At the same time, Earth is emitting more heat, driven by rising surface temperatures.

The satellite measurements have been compared with results from 37 climate models. The study shows a clear connection between climate sensitivity in the models and the ratio between increased absorbed solar radiation and increased heat radiation from Earth. Climate models with low climate sensitivity show small changes in the energy imbalance in the individual contributions from absorbed solar radiation and increased terrestrial radiation from Earth, and are less able to reproduce what is measured from satellite data."

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-climate-sensitivity-greenhouse-gases-align.html

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt0647

New paper analyzing the flowering date of Kyoto Cherries. Warming began to impact cherry flowering around 1890. Per the paper, urbanization and changes in cultivation are unlikely to have had much impact at that time.

https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.70268

Solar by the numbers. The solar age is here.

https://aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/the-coming-solar-era-in-numbers

29 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Hey Charlie,

 Do you have any changed thoughts regarding the possibility of Hunga Tonga’s modern times unprecedented thrusting of so much water way up into the atmosphere being the main reason 2023 global temps had the sharp rise?

 

No I haven't changed my views. Here's an estimate of volcanic forcing through  the end of 2024. Sulfur from HT has decreased faster than H2O, so the current impact of HT has changed from neutral to warming, but the effect is small, and partially balanced by a small volcano last year. Note that there has been a slight increase in volcanic activity in the past 5 years. So volcanoes would be producing a slight cooling without the HT water vapor.

Blog article by Tamino on paper using statistics to determine if warming has accelerated. The paper is being revised in response to peer review comments. The updated statistics estimate that the warming rate has roughly doubled in the past decade. We are have received 2 decades of warming in the past decade. Tamino notes that some slowing off this spike should be expected.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/06/08/picking-up-speed/#more-12598

10 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

For a actual view of the real data see the below....can you see the UHI problem clearer now Charlie?

You have Chester County as warm as Philadelphia in 1942. That's your UHI problem. Other local data warms in line with Philadelphia. including Coatesville after its 1946+47 station moves. 

Chester County only had 3 stations in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Two of them, Coatesville in 1946+47 and West Chester in 1970, had station moves from town---> rural that produced roughly 2F cooling. Since you aren't correcting for station moves and network changes you are baking a reverse heat island effect into your calculations. Surprised a heat island expert like yourself, can't understand that.

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Funny how Charlie picks his starting point as 1970...I wonder why?? Oh wait I see it below - he starts with one of our coldest decades...cyclical climate change FTW!! 

Nope, I was just matching the years when you claimed the Philadelphia Airport was having a big heat island effect. I am happy to go further back. I extended my chart back to 1941, the origin of temperature data collection at the Philadelphia airport. The Philadelphia airport matches Coatesville fairly well until the big Coatesville station moves in 1946 and 1947, whose effect is clearly seen.  Before the station moves, the Coatesville station was located in a built up section of the City of Coatesville. Roughly as warm as the Philadelphia Airport. Not representative of Chester County. The big heat island effect on this chart is in Chester County not Philadelphia. The reverse heat island due to the Coatesville station move to a more rural location. 

The West Chester station experienced a similar move to a cooler, less built-up, location in 1970. The 1970s are cool in your chart because of faulty analysis. If you correct for the station moves and other network siting changes over the years, like NOAA does, the 1970s don't stand out as a cool decade.

Funny that you complain about heat island effects in Philadelphia but ignore them in Chester County.

Melting picked-up in May allowing 2025 to close the gap with the lowest year,  2017. Melt was focused in the peripheral areas and the Atlantic front under an AO+ regime. Need the favorable AO+ regime to persist to avoid a low year.

18 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

As always Charlie with zero facts and just says the adjustments were justified but without any actual data to back up his claims. As he shows above all of the stations were clearly altered and chilled from the 1920's thru the 1950's....without those chilling tweaks there is little if any warming. They are the facts not the fiction that Charlie continues to peddle!

Your in denial mode. These two charts fit together well. The station moves at Coatesville and West Chester produce spurious cooling if they are left in the raw data. That's why NOAA matches raw data without station moves and you (COOP station avg) don't. You have Chester County as warm as the Philadelphia airport before the station moves. How silly is that.

16 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Our climate change to less and less 90 degree days continues in the Philly burbs of Chester County PA....however over at our old UHI problem spot the PHL Airport we continue to see more and more 90 plus days each summer season! Out here in Chester County Coatesville 2W/KMQS we are averaging only 6 such days each summer over the past 2 decades.

 

Coatesville 2W has more 90F days than kmqs. That's the reason for the Chesco decrease. Easy to see when you separate the stations.

Looks like the Philadelphia heat island extends all the way to rural Chester County.

6 hours ago, GaWx said:

I agree 100% in the Pacific. But why the drastic cooling in a large part of the Atlantic, which is what he’s addressing? Maybe this is the start of a transition to -AMO?

I missed the Atlantic focus. One factor in cooling the tropical Atlantic are higher surface wind speeds this year vs last.

53 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

No thats not all of it, climate change doesn't mean higher highs here in the northeast, at least in the areas where we live.  It's not about *sensors running warmer* I lived through the 1991, 1993, 1999, 2002 great summers when we had 100 degree days.  I measured the heat myself and it was more excessive than what we see now.   Cities like PHL, NYC, JFK are on record lack of 100 day streaks now.  It's because *climate change* does not mean *global warming* not every place is experiencing higher temperatures, especially higher maxima.  In the winter sure, it's getting warmer, but the summer-- not so much.  The averages are getting somewhat higher yes, but that is driven by higher minima, extreme heat is being blunted by more rainfall.  You can see this with how heatwaves are much shorter than they were back in the period I referenced, with drier hotter summers in the 90s up to 2002 we had much longer heatwaves.  2002 was our last summer with two 7+ day heatwaves and we have not seen 100 degrees here since 2013, and this record applies to all three cities.

 

Agree that 100+ days are not increasing locally, but average summer temperatures are. Below are monthly temperature trends for the Philadelphia airport (PHL) and for Coatesville, Chester County in the far N+W burbs from 1970 to 2024. As you say the winters are warming the fastest, but all months are warming.  Added a chart for philadelphia airport average summer high temperature. Summer highs are increasing, although nights are warming the fastest as expected with GHG. 

38 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Yesterday from Joe D’Aleo at WxBell:
 

“Ocean(s) in transition?

The SSTA last 30 days (-15 to +15C)

Comparing 2025 to 2024:

January to May 2024 vs 2025:

Is this the start of a transition back to a negative AMO? The ocean changes modes on a multi-decadal cycle - 30 years of a positive this cycle followed a cold of 30 years, which followed 40 years of warm, which followed what appears 25 years of cold.

The cold AMO/NAO/AO favors colder (US) regardless of ENSO.”

What I would expect coming out of a nino. The ocean is cooling overall and the warm anomalies are migrating away from the tropics.

A reminder that adjustments to temperatures in the US, 6% of the world, don't matter. 

https://x.com/RARohde/status/1779044943501152416

On 6/3/2025 at 4:49 PM, ChescoWx said:

Funny how even the entire USA needed to be chilled back in the 1930's thru 1950's. There appears to have been no warming at all during the month of May during the last 100 years....welp unless we you know chill the past data. See the below altered May data vs the raw.....same story not just in Chester County PA

Shewchuk is telling us something we already know: raw COOP data in the US is biased. We've known this for decades. Deniers have been making the same complaint for decades; but they haven't provided a single document in a scientific forum to back up their claims. As we have found out in Chester County, NOAA's adjustments are completely justified. Stations moved, sensors/shelters ran warm, etc. Every time we checked, the raw data at nearby stations verified the adjustment. At this point you might as well complain that the sky is blue or the world is round.

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie what you meant to say was Why? Because every single station in Chester County shown above and all of the other stations have had adjustments made to the raw actual data that only after that post observation alterations are made can we see any statistical warming at all. Charlie which of the stations Coatesville, Phoenixville, West Chester, Allentown, Quakertown, Reading etc. did NOT have chilling adjustments made to the 1920's thru 1950's with man made climate change adjustments to the raw data??
 

You are spouting conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. The adjustments all come from the raw data. The two big moves are by far the biggest adjustments in Chester County. Completely justified as we have seen. Let's go through the adjustments in detail.

The West Chester move in 1970 triggers large adjustments before the move. 70+ years of large warm adjustments that are completely justified in the raw data. The other west Chester adjustments are relatively minor.  Not that when  the West Chester adjustment is less than 2F in the pre-move period it is a cooling adjustment relative to the warm town baseline.

Coatesville1sw is similar to Coatesville with the 1946-47 moves being the main adjustment. Again completely justified.

Coatesville 2W gets a small cooling adjustment. 

Phoenixville gets a warm adjustment in the 1930-1950s period. Again completely justified. Other than that the adjustments are minor.

Like Coatesville 2W, Devault gets a warming adjustment.

The bottom-line is that the major Chesco Coop adjustments are completely justified.  The other Chesco adjustments don't impact the long-term climate trend as they are: smaller, shorter duration, and go both ways. You have complained for over a year about a scientific method you don't understand. During that time you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims. On the contrary, the County adjustments that we have looked at are all completely justified by the raw data. Coatesville and West did have major cooling moves. Phoenixville did run warm in the 1930-50s.

Your complaint boils down to the fact that you don't like the answer.  What about this adjustment, What about that adjustment. That doesn't move the needle. You need to look at the raw data that triggered the adjustment. Telling us that there adjustments that you don't like doesn't move the needle. Science isn't going to change because you don't like the answer. 

13 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

If we could only find some actual real station data to use from someplace close to an actual NWS station that helps support these 1 to 4 degree annual average temp adjustments to these many NWS Cooperative Observer stations....we of course cannot find any of those - hence our problem! But if you have those please produce them as Charlie certainly never can seem to come up with any actual real stations with data....

We have thousands of weather stations in the US making it very easy to separate station changes from weather. Year-to-year temperature changes are correlated for hundreds of miles. If West Chester is 2F cooler one year, Coatesville will also experience similar cooling. Why? every station in Chester County and the region experiences the same weather. 

The effect of the Coatesville station move is very clear in the chart below. Other than the move years of 1946 and 1947, both stations have the same year-to-year temperature change. This illustrates the close correlation in the between nearby stations when there are no station changes. However Coatesville cooled significantly relative to West Chester in 1946 and 1947.  Proof that a big station change occurred in that period.

Station changes are permanent. The rural Coatesville Doe run location (1948 and later) is always cooler than the West Chester town location and the city of Coatesville (1945 and earlier). That's why the city of Coatesville gets an big positive adjustment every single year.  Similarly before the 1970 move, West Chester always gets a large positive adjustment because it is warmer than the post move West Chester location.

This isn't rocket science.  Every NOAA adjustment that we have looked at has been spot on based on the raw data and other evidence. Is there something about the chart below you don't understand? 

2 hours ago, forkyfork said:

it seems like this whole thread is based on faulty data. sad

The thread is based on faulty analysis not faulty data. The data is complicated with numerous station changes (see table below). If you ignore the station changes, like Chescowx does, you don't get the right answer for Chester County.

As an example, here's a comparison of the Chesco Coop average to Philadelphia (PHL) and Allentown (ABE). Between 1941 and 1945, the Chester County COOP stations were as warm on average as the Philadelphia airport, much warmer than Chester County as a whole. By 1970 the stations had cooled on average to the level of Allentown. The cooling corresponds to COOP station changes as the County network transitioned from built-up towns to more rural locations. The biggest changes were the Coatesville (1946+47)and West Chester (1970) moves to less built up sites. Both station cooled by roughly 2F as a result of the moves. Other changes included: Phoenixville cooling relative to other stations and new stations starting in West Grove and Devault both in less built up areas than the pre-1945 stations. 

NOAA is not fooled by the station changes, but Chescowx is. 

8 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Your problem is you have zero proof any of those moves required a 2 to 4 degree temperature adjustment which is what took place. As a simple example (small sample size but enough to be clearly directional)  I have analyzed the difference between the relatively rural Coatesville 2W at 660 ft ASL vs Thorndale 290 feet above sea level and in the middle of a sprawling development but only a few nautical miles apart. Even a move from the relatively rural Coatesville 2W to an suburban sprawl development at almost 400 ft asl lower does not result in anywhere close to the magnitude of changes the NCEI tries to apply. 

I do have proof. I have showed it to you over and over again. It's the raw data from Coatesville or West Chester and other stations, before and after the moves. There is no need to guess or handwave. The raw data allows the effect of the moves to be determined very accurately.

Per chart below the 1946 and 1947 moves cooled Coatesville relative to West Chester and Allentown (ABE). Before the moves Coatesville was close to West Chester. After the moves it was much closer to ABE. I have just pulled and plotted a few stations. NOAA's software checks thousands of stations. So there is much more proof available than what I have shown here. There could be tens or hundreds of stations that shed light on the Chesco moves.

Your post demonstrates that you don't understand what NOAA does. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The raw data alone determines all the adjustments. Only stations that change their position relative to other stations get an adjustment. In the case of the big moves at Coatesville and West Chester the move effect is so large, roughly 2F, that it is impossible to miss. Very clear in the chart below.

10 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So for which stations and years did you eliminate the raw data in your efforts to subtract the constant? Below is the actual raw data for comparison to your altered data chart. The raw actual average temperatures have still never been able to eclipse the warming Chester County experienced way back in 1931. Minor cyclical warming is as always all the real raw data shows....

Your chart isn't raw station data. It's a station network average.If the station network is changing the station average will not match raw data from a single station.  Per table below, there are 3 major periods: 1893-1948 = all stations in towns and built-up areas, 1948 - 1970 = transition out of towns, 1971 - present = in suburban or rural. Your chart has spurious cooling in the transition period due to station moves and station start-ups in more rural areas.    

I have plotted raw data from West Chester before the move and Coatesville after the move because there is an overlap period between 1948 and 1969, which allows the stations to have a common baseline or zero point.  This provides a dataset without major station changes from 1893 to present. Phoenixville also provides long-term data at a single location, albeit with periods with other station changes. That's the main difference between my chart and yours. I have taken the major station moves out and you have left them in. When the station moves are removed the pre-1948 data isn't that warm and there isn't a big drop in temperature between 1948 and 1970. 

45 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

That chart does NOT equal the raw data. You continue to simply change past history by making random baseless changes to readings below any available station in the entire county. Or just eliminating select years of data. You simply are showing made up degrees of chilling and warming without any actual support for the degree adjustment that varied with each and every year. Where is the station in the county you are trying to adjust down and or up to???

You shouldn't criticize something you don't understand. The charts are 100% raw data. I've merely subtracted a constant from each station to set each stations to zero at a common point in time, either 1948-1969 or 1950. That removes the differences between stations which allows the year-to-year and long-term trends to be seen more easily. The year-to-year and long-term trends are not changed by the subtraction of a constant from each year.

Phoenixville and Coatesville warm by exactly the same amount either way. West Chester, at the pre-move location,  shows little change in temperature either way.

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Cmon Charlie do better than that...what is the base stations or station they are using to validate in their estimation that the raw data was wrong and throw out 66% of reporting stations in some instances/years? You never give real data just altered alternative facts and related data. 

All I am plotting is NCEI and raw coop data. Are you saying that the County COOP data are "altered alternative facts". 

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Fixed it for Chesco Why? Because NCEI uses science. Not new science either. Decades old. Bullet-proof due to the large number of stations in the US and the correlation of nearby weather stations. 

On 5/31/2025 at 2:35 PM, ChescoWx said:

@chubbssays "We have reviewed the raw data from those 3 stations over and over again. Coatesville and West Chester moved from towns to less built up locations and cooled by 2F. While Phoenixville ran much warmer than surrounding stations in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s due to higher afternoon temperatures and time of day bias"

You never answer the question if Coatesville and West Chester cooled with moves....why did NCEI cool those stations and the county to levels below any of those 3 raw station data?

Why? Because NCEI knows how to analyze weather data and you don't. Every time I compare NCEI to Chester County raw data they look damn good. Of course you need to take out the 2 big station moves. NCEI looks even better when data from outside the county is included. The evidence is overwhelming.