chubbs

Same old clown story from JB. On a more optimistic note. Solar is dominating electricity addition in the US. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels. "Nearly two-thirds of US generating capacity additions in the next three years will be fulfilled by solar, with the technology’s share of power generation in the country set to almost double, according to a report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). " “Moreover, if the current trajectory persists or accelerates, generating capacity by the mix of all renewables should overtake that of natural gas before 2030 and possibly much sooner.” https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-to-dominate-us-capacity-additions-73gw-expected-through-2025/

Its not hard to find the most important breakpoints (station changes) on your own by comparing to nearby stations. Here's an example from Coatesville at the end of World War II. Roughly a 2F drop relative to other regional stations. That will help obscure the true warming trend. The adjusted data is also available. Here is Coatesville raw vs bias adjusted. The difference is roughly 2F over the period mainly due to station changes before 1950. Manmade forcing began to dominate around 1970 before that natural variability and local air pollution were more important. Since 1970 the raw data doesn't need much bias adjustment and the warming rate for both series is around 3F.

A figure from a recent Hanson paper (pre-publication undergoing peer review). Shouldn't take long to see if he is right. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474

When something doesn't look right I compare to other observations. Measurement problems at phl last year and ptw over the recent past have been well documented on the other weatherboard.

Lets broaden out the analysis. Here is the philadelphia airport vs other Mt Holly long-term climate sites and the NOAA climate series for SE Pa. Yes Philadelphia was too warm last year. The problem started at the end of 2021 and ended late in 2022. Easy to see by comparing with nearby stations. Over the long-term though there is good agreement among the climate sites and with the NOAA regional record. phl is warming a bit faster and abe a bit slower, but good agreement overall. What about the coop stations? Lets go back to the 1940s. The COOPs were using mercury max/min thermometers that were reset between 5 and 7 PM. This alone added roughly 1F of warming bias, vs the climate sites that were on a midnight-to-midnight basis. There may have been other differences between the climate sites and coop stations. Secondly, The chart you posted shows poor agreement among the Chesco sites both year-to-year and over the long-term. As an example below is a chart I have handy comparing Glenmoore and Coatesville 2W. Both of these stations can't be right. Fortunately the NOAA bias adjustment can sort out the station updates and measurement problems. In the chart below Coatesville is good and Glenmoore way off. After adjustment the coops come into much better agreement and look like the other regional data. Regarding "heat island" effects. You've been reading too much Tony Heller and other climate deniers. This isn't a rapidly growing area. The airport doesn't change much from year-to-year or even decade-to-decade. Certainly not enough to impact temperature measurements.

The 1970-2015 temperature detrending in this Hanson chart isn't strong enough for 2015+. Another sign temps could should pop to a record when the nina reverses.

Nice job of cherry-picking. Pottstown has a bad sensor and kqms is a site with a relatively low # of 90F days. Per chart below the other regional airports all trend with Philadelphia. I have excluded 2022 because of the bad sensor at Philadelphia. You have also ignored my comment about the inconsistency in your dataset. Other sites in Chesco had the following # of 90F days last year: Phoenixville 33, Glenmoore (very close to East Nantmeal) 18, West Chester airport 19. These are in-line with the data from Coatesville posted above. East Nantmeal only had 1 90F day last year, an outlier to the other Chesco sites, and poor choice to combine with older Chesco data to determine climate trends.

Lets look under the hood at your dataset. Below is chart of 90F days at the three sites you are using. Plus a table comparing the three sites with Philadelphia (non-airport prior to 1940). 100+ years ago Coatesville 1SW was often the warmest site in the Philadelphia region, with more 90F days than Philadelphia. Coatesville 1SW had cooled by the 1970s, probably due to station modernization. The two Coatesville sites are similar. I am comfortable combining them but only after 1970, when the Coatesville 1SW bias adjustments are small and can be ignored. The chart I posted earlier showed that all the Coatesville sites (1SW, 2W and Coatesville airport after 2007) and Philadelphia airport have had very similar temperature trends since 1970. East Nantmeal has many fewer 90F days than either of the Coatesville sites. On hot summer days East Nantmeal is often the coolest site in the Philly region. Your dataset has a relatively warm site at the beginning and a cool site at the end, relative to other regional stations. Not a good basis to estimate long-term regional climate trends or to evaluate the quality of nearby stations like the Philadelphia airport. Phila Chescowx 1894-1930 17 23 1970-81 22 13 1982-2003 29 16 2004-22 30 5

Come on Paul, you have strong unorthodox views on climate change that skew your outlook and analysis. You complain about NOAA, but you are making huge adjustments in your own analysis. You are appending the records of three separate Chesco stations end-to-end-to-end to make a one longer record. Three stations with different elevation, latitude, sun exposure, equipment, etc. I've provided plenty of information on the dissimilarity of your stations. The data isn't wrong, but your analysis is. You have missed 3 to 5F of warming compared to other analyses.

Yes, I am going to stick with NOAA over an amateur who is motivated to get an answer that differs from expert opinion. The link below describes one source of bias in the US Coop data. https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

Per chart below comparing Philadelphia and Wilmington airports, Philadelphia airport had a bad sensor or some other measurement issue starting at the end of 2021 and lasting most of last year. It was corrected in Dec and is now running cooler. So yes the Philadelphia airport was roughly 1F too warm last year, but not due to "heat island contamination" The difference between Chester County coop stations and the Philadelphia airport is mainly caused by excess cooling at several of the the coop stations between 1940 and 1970 as the stations were modernized (clearly seen in your chart). Below is the bias-adjusted data for Chester County from NOAA since 1940. When properly adjusted, the Chester County data shows considerable warming since 1940, in good agreement with the Philadelphia airport. Finally you have biased the Coatesville Coop data by tacking on your own cooler house since 2004. The non-adjusted data from Coatesville by itself matches the airport very well as shown below. If you exclude 2022, with the bad airport sensor, warming since 1970 is 3.3F at Philadelphia and 3.5F at Coatesville. What you attribute to "heat island contamination" is just poor analysis and confirmation bias on your part.

We've been over this a million times. When properly adjusted for measurement method changes over the years, the Chesco coop data shows warming. West Chester as an example below (this site only has plots through 2013), note the multiple station changes. After 1970 the data doesn't need much adjustment. This is also the period of strongest warming. Coatesville, ENantmeal, and phl below. The "heat island" hasn't missed Chesco Finally NOAA's long term temperature trend for Chesco, using all the local temperature measurements.

8/30 and 8/31 at Freya glacier in eastern Greenland roughly 3000'. The interesting weather continues next week with a big melt event to kick off the accumulation season.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-the-uks-insane-40c-heat-was-forecast-weeks-in-advance/

Per this study, AMOC collapse promotes La Nina. https://phys.org/news/2022-06-huge-atlantic-ocean-current-downif.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01380-y

Why are Atlantic hurricane seasons becoming more active? Per this study, its roughly a 50/50 split between more favorable weather patterns/ENSO etc. and a warming ocean. https://wcd.copernicus.org/articles/3/471/2022/wcd-3-471-2022.html

My bias is consensus science. What's yours?

Good thread on what is needed for 1.5C. Top 15 solutions below. Nothing earthshaking. Mainly renewables, diet, and better stewardship of natural world. Dr. Jonathan Foley on Twitter: "At Project Drawdown, we evaluated many different climate solutions -- for their potential size and cost. Here are the top solutions to get to 1.5˚C https://t.co/4DFKeoq68E" / Twitter

India's power generation mix. They are "onboard" with renewables, but growing too fast to reduce fossil fuel use. Note that use factor for fossil is much higher than renewables.

Prior to the past few months, haven't noticed any de-coupling of global temperature from enso.

Matches up with re-analysis data indicating a roughly 9-month warming period now, despite the nina. Wondering if this is recovery from the Australian fire aerosol. In any case, the next nino is going to find an atmosphere that can hold more heat than 2016.

Made an attempt to check how the recent past has tracked the paper findings. Below is 2011-2021 against a 1981-2010 normal, i.e the last ten years vs the previous 30. The AMOC signal can be seen but the cooling center is SE of Greenland and S of Iceland and heights have tended to rise recently near Greenland. Also visible is broad global warming, and a nina signal in the Pacific. The nina signal is not surprising considering enso decade trends since 1980. Guess one message is be careful analyzing regional circulation trends.

There is going to be pain. That's the nature of fossil fuels, particularly oil. A commodity based on a resource that depletes. New field/wells are constantly needed to maintain current production. Now we are chasing oil sands, deep offshore, fracking etc. These are all expensive and need ongoing large investment just to maintain current production. Fracking is particularly problematic from a boom/bust standpoint, because individual wells deplete rapidly. Our current pain started in the pandemic when oil prices crashed, causing investment to slow. US oil production dropped giving OPEC more pricing power. At that point an oil shortage and price increase was inevitable. Putin is taking advantage of the commodity cycle just like Middle East oil barons did 50 years ago. Nothing new. Too late to impact this crisis, but we could minimize the next. The resource base for renewables is larger than fossil fuels and more evenly distributed. Solar and wind are mass produced in automated factories. They can ramp quickly, doubling every 2-4 years recently. Renewables and EV have finally reached the scale where one or two more doublings will have a big impact in reducing fossil fuel demand. Yes, a transition will take time, money and innovation. Target the bad actors from a geopolitical, economic and climate standpoint first. A transition is going to happen anyway, as renewable, EV +storage economics are outpacing fossil/combustion. Just a matter of whether its fast enough and targeted properly to minimize future geopolitical, economic, and/or climate pain.