chubbs

Nope. He is tracking the daily temperatures on ACIS. Here's the year to-date from ACIS

Per a recent Brian Brettschneider tweet, winter was the warmest ever in the US and Spring was 5'th warmest through May 29.

Yes it is the sun, as expected when GHG increase. In a warming world outgoing infrared radiation increases but GHG are slowing the increase so outgoing radiation can't keep up with increased absorbed solar. Why is absorbed solar increasing? - less snow and ice and fewer clouds on average as the world warms, supplemented by reduced air pollution which dims the sun. Currently there is much more energy coming into the climate system than going out; 90% of which goes into the oceans. Per the chart, absorbed solar has gone up by roughly 1% in the past 15 years. That is equivalent to turning up the sun by 1%. No wonder it is getting warmer.

Yes climate change doesn't have to be steady, particularly at the regional level. Our regional snowfall history is uneven so wouldn't expect a linear change. Its possible that the 2015/16 nino kicked us into a new regional winter/snowfall state. If so the current nino may kick us into another. Using global SST as an example the impact on the global climate system is just as large. Of course in the absence of a good scientific study, its also possible that our snowfall wasn't impacted by the 15/16 nino. We'll see.

Yeah his data checks out vs NOAA. Its when he puts his data together with other stations that problems arise.

No, you aren't posting any actual data. Your county "average" skews the actual data by not accounting for changes in station mix. Here's some actual data - your own house is warming faster than NOAA. Are you altering temperatures? or perhaps you have a heat island in your backyard.

Does sound like Chester County - deniers spreading misinformation. The changes to Hadcrut that are being criticized are: 1) very minor compared to the observed warming, and 2) completely justified as described in peer review papers (see blog article). You are repeating conspiracy theories we heard here a decade+ ago. They were silly then and even sillier now with no evidence of any conspiracy or technical shortcoming and warming continuing unabated. https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/05/26/rtfm/

"In the next 10 to 15 days, the country will experience the highest temperatures ever recorded," researchers from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) said in a statement earlier this week. They called the heat wave "unprecedented." https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mexico-heat-wave-1.7214308 edit -good call: Mexico City recorded its highest-ever temperature on Saturday when thermometers hit 34.7 degrees Celsius (94.46 degrees Fahrenheit) as a deadly heatwave scorches the country. https://www.zawya.com/en/world/americas/mexico-city-records-highest-ever-temperature-of-347-c-g5y68e0n

NOAA ocean content has been updated through end of first quarter. No surprise the sharp upward trend continues. Hard to tell if there is acceleration.

A couple of SST datasets go back to 1850. Some ups and downs between 1850 and the 1982 start of the satellite dataset I posted, but only a small increase. Most of the SST rise has occurred in the past 50 years and even that rise has been back-end loaded, with a couple of nino jumps in the past decade.

SST including May to-date. The fall off from the nino peak continues, but the ride down is much slower than the ride up. The fall off is In-line with past ninos so far.

You are completely missing the point. That's just another example of how the county average you are producing doesn't match the individual station data.

As usual you aren't addressing the issue. The station network has shifted north and west to higher and colder locations. Whether you acknowledge or not, the facts are clear from your station list. Even if station locations weren't shifting. Your analysis method of simply averaging station data skews the results. Stations can differ for a variety of reasons: sun exposure, degree of urbanization, vegetation, terrain slopes, etc. In any climate analysis of weather station data, differences between stations needs to be accounted for to remove station mix effects. You aren't doing it, so you are getting the wrong answer. The elevated group is a good example of the bias you are building in. I have data for 5 of the 7 stations. The other 2 only started in 2014 so don't have a big influence. Below is a plot showing linear temperature trends at the 5 individual stations and the linear trend for the 5-station average. Easy to see that simply averaging the raw data for these 5 stations biases the result. The 2 older stations, Glenmoore and Honey Brook, are warmer than the newer stations, Coatesville 2W, East Nantmeal and KMQS. This can be seen by comparing periods when one or more old and new stations are both in operation. All 5 stations have warming trends, with the most rapid warming in the three newer stations, which are warming as fast or faster than NOAA. Yet because they are cooler than the older stations, the 3 new stations cool the 5-station average when they start operation and enter the dataset. As a result the trend-line of the average of the 5 stations is completely flat. Despite the fact that temperatures are increasing at every single station. The relatively flat lines or lack of warming that you are getting is merely an artifact of the analysis method and doesn't reflect the underlying data. You aren't producing any evidence about Chester County's climate, NOAA, or the Philadelphia Airport. Instead you showing how to introduce bias in the analysis of weather station data, i.e., how not to analyze data.

You are giving us the Tony Heller denial explanation: Urban Heat Island, bias adjustment, blah, blah, blah. Why would the heat island effects at Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Wilmington and Allentown all be the same? Seems very unlikely. The airports are all different, with different levels of urbanization and airport growth. And you have zero evidence to support your UHI assertion. Even more unlikely the bias adjustments for Chester County are the same as the UHI impacts at the regional airports. But wait there is more. The raw temperature measured at Coatesville and East Nantmeal (Chescowx) agree with the airports and NOAA. Whats the problem in your own data? Urban heat Island or is it bias adjustment? No there's a much simpler explanation. Chesco is warming and your latest data concoction is way off. The reason is in your comment Regarding the sites in more detail yes there was as a % more lower elevation sites in the past....which likely skewed those results too warm Finally there is something we can agree on. But its more than elevation. As outlined above multiple factors have skewed your station mix.

Wow that's lame. West and east aren't critical? Where's the evidence? That's not what your website says: “The National Weather Service split out this zone (PAZ101) from the lower elevations seen across most of Eastern Chester County (PAZ102) a few years ago to better distinguish the climate differences attributed to relative elevation and more inland location from the Atlantic Ocean.” Temperature is a variable that isn't impacted by elevation? Are you kidding? And you completely overlooked north in your comment. Are you denying that north, west and elevated are colder in Chester County? Finally as I showed above your elevation split is inadequate to remove bias. The new 550+ stations added after 2000 have many fewer 90+ days than the pre-2000 stations.There are other factors besides elevation which impact the station temperatures and skew the results. Without properly accounting for station differences you are cooking the books. You assertions are to the contrary are worthless without evidence.

The NWS climate sites (abe=Allentown, ilg=Wilmington, acy=Atlantic City) in our area all show warming similar NOAA Chesco and the Philadelphia Airport. We don't have quality sites that differ from NOAA in recent decades. Another indication that he is way off.

Your "facts" don't address my criticism. I said the station mix is CHANGING WITH TIME. You didn't mention time above. I posted the table below many pages ago and you have been ducking the station mix issue ever since, despite having multiple opportunities to respond. This isn't a complicated point. The station mix is shifting N+W and to higher elevation with time. Compare 1930-52. There are many more stations north of the Turnpike, 6 vs 1, and above 550', 5 vs 0, now vs 1930-52. Also fewer south and east on a % basis. Makes sense population has been steadily N and W in the County, out of the older valley towns.

Love the little dig at the end. It isn't difficult to figure out what you are doing: bad analysis to fit your worldview. More data is not better for long-term climate analysis if it isn't consistent. That is what you don't understand about NOAA. They take great care to remove as much inconsistency as possible, to make data taken 100+years ago as consistent with the data taken today as possible. Your 27 station network, on-the-other-hand, is very inconsistent in its make-up. The station population changes with time, as old stations drop out and new ones are added. Most of the 27 stations are recent, mainly from the Deos Network, with short data records; so they don't provide any climate information. They are however cooler as a whole than the Coop stations that make up the historic Chesco data. Why are they cooler? They are further N+W, higher elevation, and located primarily in parks instead of backyards. In this case "more" stations is degrading local climate information. As I showed above, all you are showing with your plots is the effect of changing station mix. The 3-station Coatesville/ENant data is much more consistent than your 27 station network and hence provides a more accurate picture of our climate. Once again you have fallen in love with an answer that fits your worldview. So much so that the Chescowx data posted on your website, as representative of Chesco's climate, is tossed aside. Just like the winter "weenies" on this board fall in love with a 10-day snowfall map. Very easy for me, and others, to see the bias you are introducing in your new Chesco analysis. Its the same bias you've exhibited for a decade or more.

The Philadelphia Airport, NOAA Chesco and Paul's own Chescowx series are all in very good agreement on the local warming since 1970. Chescowx is 2 Coatesville COOP stations and Paul's house (since 2004). The other NWS climate sites in our area are also in good agreement (Atlantic City, Allentown and Wilmington). It has warmed strongly in our area since 1970 and high quality datasets show it. Paul you are wasting our time by repeating essentially the same chart over and over again. Yes, we know you don't know how to analyze weather station data and that you are unaware of your own bias.

Spring temp ranking in the Northeast thru Sunday. Warmest ever in WPa and WV, mainly top 5 elsewhere.

GISS was another record in April. Probably, getting close to a peak in the 12-month average, May is the last month with before temperatures surged last year. In hindsight the 2015-16 nino kicked us into a new global temperature range. Guessing this nino will also, but we will see. This nino is weaker than 2015./16.

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/