chubbs

Yes, Phoenixville clearly was too warm in the middle of the 20'th century. Other stations don't have the spike in 95 degree days that Phoenixville does. You get the wrong answer about our local climate if you don't bias adjust the Phoenixville data. Same with many of the other Chesco coops. Fortunately, we have a dense regional network to catch the mistakes. As I said above thank goodness for NOAA.

Long video (10 min), but a good depiction of on-the-ground conditions in Broward County Florida during ytday's flash flooding. Note that several flooded homeowners had damaging flooding last year. https://twitter.com/AstuteGaba/status/1801253815121015183

Finally got a chance to look at some of the Chesco coop high temperature data. Chescowx's averaging hides a lot of sins. There is a big disparity among the two main long-term stations that I checked: West Chester, and Phoenixville, Most noticeable, the Phoenixville data in the 1930s and 1940s has many more 95F days than West Chester and the other Chesco stations. Phoenixville is also much warmer than Philadelphia in this period, with over 3x the 95 degree days as Philadelphia in the 1930s and 40s. With only a handful of Chesco stations, Phoenixville skews the county average, giving Chester County many more 95F days than Philadelphia in the 1930s and 40s. A silly result. Of course this isn't the only problem. The shifting station population also skews the results. Many of the modern stations, at higher elevation like Chesco's house, rarely reach 95. This data is a good advertisement for bias adjustment. Problematic data, like Phoenixville's in the 30s and 40s, is easy to spot and correct by inte-rcomparing stations. That is the benefit of a dense US station network. A benefit completely lost on climate deniers. Thank goodness we have NOAA to provide unbiased estimates of our past climate.

Philadelphia shows a clear increase in 95F days vs 100+ years ago. The trend in 100F days is less clear, but certainly no decrease.. The linear trends since the 1880s are: +2.9 days per decade reaching 95 and +0.2 days per decade reaching 100F. Plenty of caveats in this data. The station equipment was different: non aspirated, different shelters, and mercury vs digital thermometers. The station locations are also different. Chescowx's results are skewed by the changing station population. The older stations are warmer with the biggest changes in occurring after 1980. It wasn't uncommon for the old Chesco stations to run hotter than Philadelphia. That is rare in the current station population. Of course the Philadelphia station locations also changed. The move from center city to the airport in 1940 being the most important. However there were also multiple station changes before 1940. Finally unlike Chesco, the Philadelphia data has one site per year.

As fossil fuels lose competitive advantage, investment is increasingly shifting from fossil fuels to clean energy. Our clean energy investment is growing but we are far behind China and Europe. Drill baby drill.

NASA also gives shifting rainfall as the main enso sea level effect https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/10/how-does-el-nino-fit-into-the-sea-level-rise-picture/

Sea level rise was a record last year with a boost from el nino. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-analysis-sees-spike-in-2023-global-sea-level-due-to-el-nino

Precipitable water from ERA5. Another metric that this nino has outperformed on. Not surprising considering warmth of tropical oceans.

Thread with additional background from shipping study co-author https://x.com/DanVisioni/status/1798314631771164817

Per this preprint out for comments, the reduction in sulfur emissions from shipping in 2020 has boosted forcing and temps recently; helping explain 2023. Much more important than the volcano from a forcing standpoint. https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1417/

UAH dropped in May, but remains near the peak. UAH thinks this nino packs an unusually strong warming punch and the warmth has stayed near the peak longer than other ninos.

I'm calling BS on the chart, a typical Tony Heller cherrypick. The charts below shows rankings for 80F days this year and the departure from normal for high temperatures. The only area that didn't reach 80 was Alaska. Most of the US has had an average or above average number of 80F days this year and almost the entire US had average or above average high temperatures. Its been a warm year so far. Tony picked the best stat he could find to hide it.

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.