chubbs

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.

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.

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/

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

Here's a climate first. The Colorado snowpack is gone 15 days before the typical peak.

Animation showing the records tied or broken in the past 24-hours. Pink are March records.

A couple of points to add to Don's. The absorption bands of CO2 and H2O are different. There's overlap in some regions, but CO2 also absorbs in regions where H2O doesn't. More importantly H20 has a much higher boiling point than CO2 and is a liquid at atmospheric temperatures while CO2 is a gas. Because of the higher boiling point, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. As Don points out, CO2 is more important relative to H2O in the upper atmosphere where heat is radiated to space and it is too cold to hold much water vapor. Per paper below, CO2 is the earth's thermostat. CO2 controls the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. If there was less CO2 there would be less water vapor and vice versa. As the paper states: Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190653

Funny people can take the same data and come to different conclusions. The point you are missing is that energy technologies: solar, wind, batteries, EV etc., are getting better and cheaper on well established technology improvement curves. Until recently these technologies weren't competitive with fossil fuels. However, going forward they are going to have an increasing cost advantage and subsidies will be less and less important. As an example, China is ending their subsidies of electric cars. Yes, China is still building coal plants, but renewable share of electricity generation is still growing rapidly, and coal use in China dropped last year.