chubbs

20 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

"That is a clear sign of a major station change, probably at Morgantown." That would be incorrect Charlie no station changes took place at all during the period that temperatures were reported by the NWS Coop observer. There were some moves after those temperature obs ended and they moved to just precip and snow obs. 

 

Raw data determines whether there was a station change not NCDC documentation, which can be incomplete. The 2F cooling of Morgantown relative to Coatesville is clearly a station change of some kind. The Morgantown site was didn't operate for 5 months in the summer of 1966, station changes in Chester County that I have investigated usually coincided with station shutdowns.

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Even vs. Morgantown a few hundred feet higher we see the same telltale pattern of chilling the past - altering those stations below what any actual station shows for the area. 

First of all no data is altered. That is a false, misleading claim on your part. The adjustments are merely a step in the climate data analysis process. They are never purported to be actual measurements. Second the adjustments make sense if you know how they are calculated and used. 

Plotting the data in your table shows that Coatesville and Morgantown do not agree at times on the year-to-year temperature changes. The largest discrepancy, roughly 2F, is between 1966 and 67. That is a clear sign of a major station change, probably at Morgantown. Congratulations you've identified another major COOP station change ,

The station change doesn't mean that the data is bad. Only that station change needs to be accounted for when estimating long-term temperature trends. Otherwise roughly 2F of bias will be introduced. Also note that a change between 1966 and 67 would trigger station adjustments in all the prior years. That's why you find so many large positive adjustments in the older West Chester, Phoenixville and Coatesville data. All of the stations experienced moves from warmer to cooler sites between 1946 and 1970.

19 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Thank you! You finally admit you don't know which stations were used from the 1930's thru 1980's to make those chilling adjustments to the one specific station (Coatesville 1SW) for each of those adjustment years!!

It only took several years LOL!!!

The exact stations are immaterial. Very easy to spot the large station moves using the Chester County stations. The proof is in the pudding. NOAA matches the raw Chesco data once the big moves are removed, particularly the overall warming in the past 130 years.

20 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So show us the exactly which "other stations" you are referencing that were used for the calculation? You say Coatesville 1SW results/raw vs the NCEI adjusted figures above for Coatesville 1SW don't provide evidence about the adjustments. Agreed that is what I am looking for evidence and the underlying calculation based on the "other stations" you reference so we can tie down those annual adjustments from the raw to the adjusted/altered figures. Those adjustments above are unique to the Coatesville 1SW station so show us the reference stations used to make the call to adjust lower than Morgantown and in many cases lower than any reporting station at all in Chester County. You never show any of that data...you simply keep saying just believe that NCEI "could be right"

I don't know which stations were used. However the number is more than adequate. There is a dense network of stations in this area.

Below is a comparison of raw data to NOAA.  The raw data is the same chart that was posted above; but, with Avondale, 10 DEOS stations and E Nantmeal added. As described above, I've taken out the important post -war station moves: Coatesville (46+48), Phoenixville (48), and West Chester (70). I've also removed the temperature difference between stations by taking an anomaly. The anomaly period has been shifted to 2012-24 since all stations except West Chester pre-1970 operated in this period. Anomalies for West Chester are obtained using the 2.1F difference between 2012-24 and 1949-69 from the Phoenixville and Coatesville records.

Removing the large post-war station moves and the differences between stations is sufficient to bring the raw data and NOAA into very good alignment for the long-term climate trend.. Not surprisingly, there are short-term differences between between the raw data and NOAA, mainly Phoenixville and Coatesville, between 1960 and 1990, when these stations had periodic adjustments. This shows that for the big picture long-term trend, most of the NOAA adjustments don't move the needle.  Only the big moves, with roughly 2F cooling, obscure the warming. 

NOAA's goal is to remove station changes from the raw data leaving only weather and climate. This comparison shows that NOAA has met their objective in Chester County. If you aren't matching NOAA, you aren't getting the county climate right.

9 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie again you are not following! If after the 1948 move it was colder than the City of Coatesville riddle me why they continued the same chilling adjustment to the newer chillier location? Not just for 1 year but for every year but 1 from 1948 through 1971. Even more bizarre can you explain why those NCEI number in 15 of the 20 years from 1952 thru 1971 were actually adjusted by NCEI to averages even lower than the high elevation station in Morgantown? Where is the control arm station that figures let's cool down the new chiller station location to even colder than a higher elevation further north station? There is absolutely zero support for these adjustments!

1948	51.2	50.0	(1.1)
1949	53.4	52.6	(0.8)
1950	51.1	50.8	(0.3)
1951	52.2	51.2	(1.0)
1952	52.4	51.6	(0.8)
1953	53.7	52.8	(1.0)
1954	52.3	51.8	(0.6)
1955	52.3	51.9	(0.5)
1956	51.3	49.6	(1.7)
1957	52.6	52.0	(0.6)
1958	50.2	50.2	0.0
1959	53.5	51.8	(1.8)
1960	51.7	51.2	(0.5)
1961	52.3	50.4	(1.9)
1962	51.0	49.8	(1.2)
1963	50.7	49.5	(1.2)
1964	51.8	49.8	(2.0)
1965	51.8	50.3	(1.5)
1966	51.4	50.3	(1.2)
1967	51.1	49.6	(1.5)
1968	51.9	50.8	(1.1)
1969	51.5	50.2	(1.3)
1970	51.5	49.8	(1.7)
1971	51.7	50.7	(1.0)

No I can follow your argument. You are making an argument of incredularity, a common logical fallacy. You can't believe that NCEI could be right. The problem is you don't understand how adjustments are estimated. There is an easy explanation for your list of #. The 1946 and 48 moves are not the only station change at Coatesville. Other station changes occurred before 1948.  Adjustments start at the present and work backwards. The most recent Coatesville 1SW data is from 1982. You have to start in 1982 and work back in time. To evaluate the adjustments you have to compare Coatesville to raw data from other stations. Station changes are identified when Coatesville doesn't match other regional stations.  Coatesville results by themselves, as you have listed, don't provide any evidence about station adjustments. 

19 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Easily disproved by the actual NCEI adjustments made - see below. Based on what you show above there was no need for cooling from 1941-1946 yet look at what NCEI did...actual raw on left adjustment on left.

47	1940	49.1	47.6	(1.5)
48	1941	53.8	51.6	(2.2)
49	1942	53.6	51.3	(2.3)
50	1943	53.4	50.4	(3.0)
51	1944	53.8	51.2	(2.7)
52	1945	53.6	50.8	(2.8)
53	1946	53.5	51.3	(2.2)

You don't understand how adjustments work. A single station move triggers adjustments for every year before the move. The City of Coatesville was warmer than Doe Run Road in 1946, 1945 , 1944, 1943 and so on. Clearly seen from the chart. That's how we know the cooling was move-related. The effect is persistent.

7 hours ago, AdMC said:

What a sad existence

NCEI uses a proven scientific procedure to find inconsistencies between stations in the raw data. All the adjustments come directly from the raw data. There is no human intervention during the adjustment process. As an example, easy to see the impact of the two Coatesville moves in 1946 and 1948.  Easy for most people that is. These charts are all posted upthread.

1945 site

1948 and later site

Another perspective on global oisst. So far this year looks a lot like 2023, which had a large rise in SST at the very beginning of the nino cycle. This year started its rapid rise even earlier around New Years.

https://cyclonicwx.com/sst/

9 hours ago, gallopinggertie said:

Those past catastrophic events in the geological record didn’t have anywhere near as rapid a rise in CO2 as we are causing now, yet still caused mass extinctions. It’s easy to forget how truly short our lives our - the fact that baby boomers have seen a rise of about 30%, give or take, in CO2 levels over the course of their lifetimes, is crazy.

Linked the Geological Society of London's 2021 review article on climate change in the geological record.

Observations from the geological record show that atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are now at their highest levels in at least the past 3 million years. Furthermore, the current speed of human-induced CO₂ change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/jgs2020-239

21 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Sorry but the notion that *any* person or organization could have enough information to make such a judgment - let alone there be "consensus" on it, is laughable.   This kind of judgment requires essentially omniscience - a full and complete view of the long lists of benefits and drawbacks, with appropriate weighting, and timescales, applied to each.   This is some that people and organizations - even collectively - don't have.   Let alone on an individual basis, such as what would be required for "consensus".

In case you're wondering why there's so much pushback - this is why.   People don't like baseless statements like this.

 

Developing consensus is key part of the scientific process. Below is the leading paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on scientific consensus. Scientists are well aware of the scientific consensus in their field. They have to know the current state of knowledge to advance further. In the case of climate change, with high impact and a wide range of scientific disciplines,  there are also governmental and technical organization activity to help develop and document the scientific consensus. IPCC is the leading example but there are many others.  I encourage you to look at IPCC reports (link below). Most of our debates on this forum can be traced back to a lack of awareness of the scientific consensus. Often we are arguing about things that were settled decades ago.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.^[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic.^[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Charlie.

1. Isn’t the range of science based predictions of the amount of GW in the very longterm in a pretty wide range as opposed to a narrow range? My understanding is that he’s near the lower end of that range.

2. In addition to the warming effect of increased CO2, there are other factors that could come into play. Spencer believes that there are negative feedback factors that will ultimately limit the amount of GW compared to most model projections. That’s supposedly why he’s near the lower end of the range.

3. He said it MAY even be beneficial not that it would definitely be beneficial. There’s the potential benefit of larger global crop sizes due to a greener planet resulting from a combo of longer growing seasons where they’re currently grown, an increase in the amount of crops grown in higher latitudes, and the increased CO2 photosynthesis effect. Also, cold has killed a good bit more than heat from what I’ve read. However, I do realize that eventually deaths from heat will rise enough to potentially start killing more than cold though that would likely still be a long ways off if that were to happen.
 
Could these good things outweigh the bad things and make it net beneficial? I’m not saying that but it could be debated. Personally, I’m worried about rising sea levels.

4. A greener Earth could be one of the negative feedbacks that Spencer has cited since greener means cooler highs such as has occurred in the Midwest. In addition, drought frequency in the Midwest has dropped since the 1990s.

The entire climate sensitivity range is the scientific consensus. By excluding most of the likely range, Spencer severely underestimates climate risk.

There is low and diminishing technical support for low climate sensitivity.  Spencer's views are inconsistent with the temperature rise we have already experienced.  Other arguments against low sensitivity include: large and increasing earth energy imbalance and the growing consensus on positive cloud feedback. 

The scientific consensus is that the long list of CO2/warming debits far outweigh a couple of benefits. 

13 hours ago, GaWx said:

Charlie,

 I assume you realize that Roy’s been dismissive of alarmism related to AGW rather than the science of AGW, itself. He agrees that the globe has warmed due to AGW but doesn’t accept anything close to the worst case scenarios as being realistic because he feels that the warming from it is/will be less than the amount needed to result in the worst case due partially to negative rather than positive feedback. He feels that the alarmism is being largely fueled for political reasons.

 Due to extreme difficulty in predicting how much more the globe will warm, his being on the lower side is imho not contradicting science. We’re dealing with variables rather than exact answers.

 I personally feel that politics has a nontrivial affect on both sides of this issue as it affects so many things unfortunately. However, I do realize that outright AGW deniers do mainly reside on the conservative side of the aisle. These two statements aren’t conflicting.

Spencer is a long time critic of the scientific consensus on climate change.  Its not that hard to predict the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We have warmed pretty much as expected, much faster than Spencer acknowledged or expected. The scientific consensus does not describe the warming we have experienced as slow or beneficial. 

Agree politics is important as is the action of powerful interest groups. Its the reason why most people don't have an accurate picture of what climate science is saying. Don't think Spencer has been helpful in that regard.

6 hours ago, GaWx said:

“It is human nature to think the weather we experience has some sort of global significance. But look at NOAA’s best estimate of March 2026 temperature departures from “normal” (1991-2020 average) over North America (below). Yeah, the U.S. was unusually warm. But what about all the unusual chill over the northern parts of North America? Alaska and most of Canada were below normal.

As part of our monthly global temperature updates (posted separately) here are the March temperature departures from normal for the lower troposphere, 1979 through 2026 in the Lower 48 (top panel of Fig. 2). Last month was clearly the warmest in the 48-year satellite temperature record.

 

But when we examine the bottom panel in Fig. 2 we see that, averaged over all land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including Canada and Alaska), March 2026 was uneventful, and was even cooler than 2024 and 2025. In fact, 2026 was right on the long-term trend line.

The message here is that the unusual (and likely record) warmth of March 2026 in the U.S. was largely due to normal month-to-month weather variations, while the large-scale climate signal shows March was a continuation of the slow (and largely benign, and possibly even beneficial) warming trend we have been experiencing in recent decades.”

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/04/march-2026-satellite-temperatures-record-warmth-in-u-s-but-uneventful-for-the-northern-hemisphere/

A couple of comments: 1) Yes, Roy is a long time climate dismissive 2) His dataset misses much of the warming in the early 2000s, 3) Best to look at the globe as a whole to judge warming, 4) Global UAH is more sensitive to ENSO than surface temperatures.5) Global UAH was very warm for a  La Nina in March, the first La Nina well above the linear trend.

We've reached the La Nina bottom in UAH. A typical nino spike in UAH from these levels would be hard to dismiss.

52 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Bad methodology. Notice he uses MT and WY. 90s in March are virtually assured to be near or at zero. Thus he assures himself the kind of conclusion he seeks. A more robust approach would involve standardized measurements, e.g., the number of highs 1 sigma, 2 sigma, etc., above the 20th century baseline. 

Another issue: the shelters 100 years ago were not aspirated. Inadequate or poorly sited shelter ran warm. With his number of days metric easy for one or two sites with bad data to bias the result. We saw that in the Chester county, where spuriously warm data from Phoenixville in the 1930s and 1940s biased the >95F day data, by providing the overwhelming majority of the County 95F+ days in that period. 

Better to show the data for every station like chart below. That way a few bad apples don't skew the data. Threadx cities plotted below have the longest climate records.

Solar uptake continued to accelerate in Africa in the last month before the energy crisis. 

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Cherry picking always gives the desired answer.....

Yes, here's a good example of cherry picking. Do you have any specific technical complaints? I'll be adding other stations; but, why would the results change?. The other stations all have much shorter record lengths. Plus the modern stations are all warming rapidly in complete agreement with the Coatesville and Phoenixville data. 

a

19 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah I've been keenly on this every day for the past month as we're globally getting set sail into this next ultimately unknown +ENSO.   The warm/NINO phase is all but certain, but ...the amplitude and so forth, tbd. 

The last time we were in switch from a NINA to NINO, there was a global temperature surge, air and sea, like never before observed since humanity first picked up the first burning stick, wondered, and the results of that wondering ultimately dooming their fate ( whole 'nother dystopian story).  It's not clear that the NINA/NINO switch was causal in the global multi-metric temperature surge in 2023; it in fact preceded the on set of the NINO.  However, intuitively ...having a warm tropical anomaly concurrent certainly is not helping to offset a warming world, incrementally. 

This is concerning, this hot water curve above.  +.58C as of that last tick ( to be verified but seldom do these not - ) is a mere .1 < than the 2024 historic max, which took place there nearing the end of April. 

This sets off a chain of reasoning for me...

Most of those curves, in fact all of them at a glance with the exception of last year ... were already beginning to fall by now, the Ides of March.  Last year, however, was the first in which that was not the case.  The SSTs gained yet for another month - doing so during a NINA, no less?!   The Earth had for the first time in decades, gained when the climatology inference clearly argued(s) it should have been falling.  I don't believe that it trivial, albeit easily overlooked. More on that in the bottom paragraph.

When looking at the recent month(s) of this year, and combining with those aspect... there's no sense there that this curve isn't going to set a new record.  We are preset at an elevated state, with yet an impending warm phase of the ENSO ...? Just beginning to register, and we only have .1 to spare. 

It's my opinion that we are not done with the 2023 burst.   I sense that was a first step during what could turn into a much more important total geological threshold/move.   Last years odd global SST gains is an insidious way of signaling we are still in burst-prone' state ... Possible the same burst, but to our perception moving too slowly to notice.  "Burst" in geologic time is misleading.  It is going to be difficult to see to a sentience ( us ) whose perception of time moves too swiftly?

Here's another perspective on the oiSST data which shows the similarity to 2023. The last data point is March to date.

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Try consolidating your data you will find the story matches my above analytics.

OK I took an initial stab at consolidating the data using Chester County's 3 long-term COOP stations. My consolidation doesn't look at all like your "analytics". Why? I only use periods without major station moves: 1949-2025 for Coatesville and Phoenixville and 1894-1969 for West Chester. I also use the 1949-1969 overlap period to take out the temperature difference between the 3 stations. While it doesn't look like your "analytics", my consolidation is a good match to the data collected at individual Chester County stations, posted above. That's gives my confidence in this approach and I plan to extend this method to the rest of the data.

Daily oisst has moved into record territory, continuing to track 2023; but 0.1 - 0.2C warmer. It is likely that SST will continue to set daily records until the developing nino fades sometime in 2027.

On 3/22/2026 at 4:52 PM, ChescoWx said:

Below is how much faster the warming is just since 1960 at our local PHL Airport with their growing UHI problem. That warming slope is a wee bit different just around 25 to 35 miles west of the concrete and river warm oasis that is PHL Airport! 

Reposting some of the charts I posted previously. Your line doesn't look anything like the raw data from individual stations. There is no significant difference in warming between individual Chester County stations and the Philadelphia Airport. Of course cooling station moves should be excluded. That's why the West Chester plot ends in 1969.

Per the table below, there are big changes in the Chester County station population that you aren't accounting for. In comparison, the Philadelphia airport heat island is mature and isn't changing much from decade to decade. If heat island is important, why ignore the movement of Chester County stations out of towns after World War II? 

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

Hey Charlie,

 I looked and looked at this and still can’t see how this doesn’t have errors. What am I missing? Am I having a brain fart? Is this the # of days within March 1-22, 2026, with highs of 80+?

 I came back and looked again to see if my brain had been missing something. I still don’t see how a good portion of the #s on the map aren’t off. Is this mislabeled?

 

I should have been clearer. The chart I posted is the ranking of the number of days over 80, with #1 being the highest. Below is the number of 80+ days on which the ranking is based.

Days hitting 80F, month to date.

2 minutes ago, paulm said:

Might have been a data artifact - am now seeing populated data for this chart:

Thanks for updating, what I posted must have caught the database at a bad time.

45 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Thanks for posting these. I’ve seen similar charts showing lowered global wx related disaster costs in more recent years. Does anyone know the main reasons? Despite these drops (assuming these charts are accurate and not deceptive/being presented in proper context, which may very well be the case), are they projected to continue dropping as we continue to warm? That’s key to know.

As explained in detail at the link below. Pielke's results have nothing to do with natural disasters. Instead they are an artifact of his analysis method. When the same database is analyzed properly. US disaster costs are increasing as percent of GDP and the number of disasters is increasing.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/334359/1/20251026_fix_roger_pielke_jr.pdf

58 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes, an NAO+ is correlated with warmth in the SW. In fact, it is correlated with almost CONUS-wide warmth.

 

That's what we have seen so far this month, CONUS-wide warmth.