chubbs

Every time I look at your stuff I find more problems. The table above has fake or estimated data for Chadds Ford, Glenmoore, and partially for West Grove. Per NCDC, Chadds Ford and Glenmoore were precip only, while West Grove only has temperature data after April 1963. With your method, removing the fake data will change your result. That will be the third or fourth change to Chester County's climate you have made in the past year or two. Meanwhile NOAA is spot on.

Glad to see Grok make good use of the information in the Table. The table was criticized as "unscientific" by our local "expert" when it was originally posted

You are in dismissal mode. Throwing out the same old whatabouts. What about this. What about that. If you want the answer to your questions look at the material I have posted above. As an example, between 1945 and 1948, Coatesville moved twice and West Chester didn't. Between 1945 and 1948, Coatesville cooled by 2.1F, while West Chester only cooled by 0.3F. Using West Chester data alone justifies a 1.8F cooling adjustment to the pre-move Coatesville data. But there are many more stations besides West Chester that support the Coatesville bias adjustment. NOAA and other groups use the year-to-year changes to make bias adjustments. Why?, year-to-year temperature changes are correlated for hundreds of miles. Within a region, year-to-year temperature changes that occur at all stations are weather-related; but, year-to-year changes that occur at only one station are due to station changes not weather. When you have thousands of stations, with overlapping correlation across the county, the procedure is bullet-proof. Per chart, Allentown agrees with West Chester on the flat temperature trend between 1945 to 1948; and, there are many more regional stations that support West Chester and Allentown. The correlation of year-to-year temperature changes goes way beyond the border of Chester County. A cool year in Chester County is a cool year in the entire Mount Holly service area and beyond. The adjustments are based entirely on raw data. No, there's no doubt that the Coatesville cooling between 1945 and 1948 was due to a station move and not weather. The raw data is the proof. Now its your turn. Where's your validation? You are treating the Coatesville cooling between 1945 and 1948 as completely weather-related. Where's the evidence to support that. Same question for West Chester in 1970. You also need to justify using the City of Coatesville, the Borough of West Chester, the Borough of Kennett Square and Phoenixville as a county average. Finally to justify a simple average, you need to show that the station network doesn't change with time. Good luck with that.

When adjusted for the post-WWII station moves to a cooler location, the Coatesville data agrees very well with the NOAA county temperature series; over the entire record back to 1895. The move-adjusted series uses raw data from 3 Coatesville stations since 1948 and NOAA bias-adjustments before 1948 when the 1SW station moved between several Coatesville city sites. The Coatesville data, properly corrected for station moves, is a very good proxy for the county-average temperature. Once again NOAA is spot on.

Earth's storage of water in soil, lakes and rivers is dwindling. And it's especially bad for farming Their paper, published Thursday in the journal Science, finds that global warming has notably reduced the amount of water that's being stored around the world in soil, lakes, rivers, snow and other places, with potentially irreversible impacts on agriculture and sea level rise. The researchers say the significant shift of water from land to the ocean is particularly worrisome for farming, and hope their work will strengthen efforts to reduce water overuse. Earth's soil moisture dropped by over 2,000 gigatons in roughly the last 20 years, the study says. For context, that's more than twice Greenland's ice loss from 2002 to 2006, the researchers noted. Meanwhile, the frequency of once-in-a-decade agricultural and ecological droughts has increased, global sea levels have risen and the Earth's pole has shifted. https://phys.org/news/2025-03-earth-storage-soil-lakes-rivers.html

CERES net radiation spiked up in January reaching pre-nino levels of monthly positive imbalance. The series is noisy and the December value was relatively low. Will have to see if January is a merely a monthly outlier or signals a return to more rapid heat uptake.

OK, but you need to understand the impact of the 1970 West Chester station move. Before 1970 there is a roughly 1.8F offset between West Chester and NOAA reflecting the warmer West Chester location in the middle of town. Per the chart below, NOAA tracks West Chester closely for the entire 1895-1969 period once the offset is removed. After the move, West Chester cooled and the offset disappeared. Once again NOAA is spot on. After the station moves are accounted for, Coatesville and West Chester validate the entire NOAA series. Phoenixville also confirms the warming over the 1895-2024 period, recognizing that Phoenixville ran too warm during the 1930s-50s, as we discovered last year. That is the vast bulk of the county long-term data supporting NOAA. Where's your validation?

LOL, you are using plenty of data that isn't "certified" NWS Cooperative, your own house to start with, also DEOS, airport ASOS, etc. You results can't be evaluated without knowing how the Chesco station network has changed with time and you don't provide that information. The first thing a technical group would want to see is something similar to the chart I posted above. How many of your readers know that the early Coatesville data is from the City of Coatesville or that the station cooled significantly when it was moved after the war. We've been discussing Coatesville for years and that was news to me until I found out for myself last year.

Interesting test of Grok. I'd give it a failing grade. This statement says it all: "@ChescoWx's refusal to share raw data or engage peer review undermines their case". How can you give "partial merit" to Chescowx's claims if you don't know what was done. The reality is that Chesco's claims are flat-out wrong. The raw data shows plenty of warming in Chester County, but he doesn't know how to analyze it. Per chart below, Chescowx's monitoring network has changed significantly. The stations of the past tended to be warmer. Chescowx takes a simple average and Its well known that a simple average of a changing temperature station network skews the results. No wonder he can't find the local warming. Recognize that it is hard for Grok to evaluate Chescowx, since the methods aren't fully disclosed and Chescowx is constantly overselling his analysis. A problem with Grok, though if it can't distinguish between BS and science. There is another technical problem here that Grok should detect even if they know nothing about Chescowx's methods. Weather data and climate trends are correlated over hundreds of kilometers. This was established long ago by testing temperature data. There is no indication that Chester county is behaving differently from nearby counties. Finally both NOAA and Chescowx have track records. No one complains about NOAA's climate analysis in a technical forum. On the contrary, there are many papers that demonstrate sound results, including independent tests with synthetic data. Meanwhile Chescowx has no publication in any technical forum and is constantly repeating climate denier talking points. Grok's performance here makes me question the value of AI. Can provide general information but no insight. Also can't distinguish BS. Perhaps the training on twitter is the problem. Garbage in garbage out.

Nice insult at the end. What I have come to expect when we exchange data/information. I have shown you umpteen charts which validate NOAA. You dismiss/deny them all. Here's another. After the big moves, Coatesville and NOAA had exactly the same warming between 1948 to 2024. Once again NOAA is spot on.

The circled yellow numbers and your "post hoc adjustment" rows are meaningless and don't shed any light on NOAA's work. Why? The average of the city of Coatesville, Phoenixville, West Chester Borough, and West Grove is not the county average, not even close. Those stations are all warmer than the county as a whole. Of course the NOAA number is cooler, that isn't surprising at all.

I don't follow your comment at all. I added NOAA to the chart I posted above. Per the chart, before 1947 the Coatesville station was much warmer than NOAA. As I stated above in #4 this is not surprising. Pre-move, the Coatesville station was located in a built-up area subject to heat-island warming. After the post-war moves NOAAChesco and Coatesville are very close, reflecting the roughly 2F cooling associated with the post-war moves. As I said above, the raw data completely verifies the Coatesville bias adjustment. There is no "chilling, no data alteration. On the contrary, the bias adjustments are completely derived from the raw data, the best climate information the raw data can provide.

We've been over this at length. What you are showing isn't close to the station adjustments. You have been criticizing NOAA for months without understanding NOAA's methods. The data is your table only shows how warm the Chesco stations were in the period 1927-1951: Is it surprising that West Grove is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. This site is in the S part of the County at low elevation. Is it surprising that Phoenixville is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. The Phoenixville station is warmer than the county average today Is it surprising that the borough of West Chester is warmer than Chester County. No not surprising. West Chester is in the SE portion of the county. Between 1927 and 1951 the station was in a built up area. The station moved to a roughly 2F cooler location in 1970. Is it surprising that the city of Coatesville (1927-1945) is warmer than Chester County? No not surprising at all. Coatesville is at low elevation and has always been heavily built-up. My spot checks of current stations in the City of Coatesville are quite warm. Finally is it surprising that the rural Coatesville site (1948-1951) matches NOAA. No not surprising at all. The rural Coatesville site is a good proxy for county as a whole. Low elevation isn't as important at a rural site due to relatively cool nights which compensate for warm days. Bottom-line your table doesn't support the points you are making. The older Chesco coop data was collected at warm sites, mainly in towns in the south and east portion of the county. The warmth is illustrated by the 2 major station moves at Coatesville and West Chester, which cooled those stations by roughly 2F. We don't have to make any assumptions, the raw data shows the effect of the station moves. If you don't correct the Chesco data for station location, which has changed significantly over the years, you won't get the right answer.

Evade, evade, evade. Not a difficult question. Did the post-war move cool the Coatesville station?

As usual you are evading my point. Did the post-war move cool Coatesville by roughly 2F yes or no? The difference between NOAA and the individual stations in your table shows how warm our older stations are: in towns and the warmer part of the county. When Coatesville and West Chester moved out of built-up areas they cooled by 2F.

On the contrary, its very easy to verify the benefit of bias adjustments using the raw data that they were derived from. Take Coatesville (Coat 1SW in chart) for example, the station was moved twice between 1945 and 1948, from within Coatesville City to a rural site outside. Before the move, Coatesville temperatures were close to West Chester on an annual average basis. After the move, the Coatesville station was roughly 2F cooler, closer to Allentown (ABE) than West Chester. There are many other regional stations that agree with West Chester and Allentown on the 1940s temperature trend. The post-war cooling at Coatesville is spurious. Hardly "climate realism" to include this spurious cooling in climate analysis. It is the opposite of realism you are after.

Interesting non-expert blog article below. We've stepped-up to a new global temperature range. ENSO is the trigger; but, the root cause is the increasing earth's energy imbalance. The warmth spreads unevenly, so it will take a while for the full effects to be felt locally. https://hswildman.home.blog/2025/01/26/2024/

More evidence that it hasn't been this warm in at least 120,000 years. Paleoclimatologists can determine how long bedrock beneath a glacier has been covered by ice using measurements of specific isotopes. When rock surfaces are exposed, isotopes such as carbon-14 and beryllium-10 form due to bombardment by cosmic radiation. If, however, the rock is covered by an ice sheet, it is shielded from this radiation, and these unstable isotopes gradually disappear through radioactive decay (with half-lives of 5,700 and 1.4 million years, respectively). This method, known as cosmogenic radionuclide dating, has been well-established for decades. The new study applied this method to examine several glaciers in the tropical Andes. In rock samples collected at the edges of the glaciers, researchers found isotope concentrations close to zero. From this, they conclude that these rocks must have remained covered by ice throughout the entire Holocene, shielding them from cosmic radiation. This indicates that these glaciers are very likely smaller today than at any point in at least the last 11,700 years. The Andes are not an exception: according to current research, global average temperatures today are very likely higher than at any other point during the entire Holocene. Given that an ice age lasted for more than 100,000 years before the Holocene, today’s temperatures are probably the highest experienced in about 120,000 years. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/03/andean-glaciers-have-shrunk-more-than-ever-before-in-the-holocene https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7546

Here's the NOAA link. I choose the lowess fit because, as you noted, there are warm and cool periods before 1970 that aren't fit well by a straight line. The fit only uses the data points plotted in the NOAA series, i.e. 1895 and later. If there was any change before 1895 wouldn't be reflected in the Lowess fit. In a quick search, found 2 local stations with long-term data without the station moves in the Detroit series: UM at Ann Arbor and Pontiac. NOAA used these stations and many more for the Wayne County series. Weather data is correlated for hundreds of miles so stations outside of Wayne County provide useful information. I spent 3 years in NW Ohio 1978-81 so can attest to how cold midwest winters were 45 years ago. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series

That's why I like NOAA (and other groups), who correct for inconsistency due to: station moves, measurement method changes, heat island, etc. Detroit winter warming looks very similar to other US cities.

The Metro airport obs only go back to 1958. Prior data probably isn't representative of the airport.

Yikes, found this chart in Zeke's thread. Odds of a record this year have increased to 38% from 6% at the start of the year; and, it is possible that we have crossed 1.5C for good on the Berkeley Earth series.

Googled up this 2024 study which uses a large dataset of surface and subsurface measurements shown on map below. Greenland is warming rapidly, 0.7C per decade since 1985. The ice surface and subsurface is responding to the warming atmosphere: The observation-based ANN also reveals an underestimation of the subsurface warming trends in climate models for the bare-ice and dry-snow areas. The subsurface warming brings the Greenland ice sheet surface closer to the melting point, reducing the amount of energy input required for melting. https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/18/609/2024/

The recent nino jumps are bigger because man-made forcing is increasing more rapidly, mainly because air pollution is going down while greenhouse gases continue to increase.

The difference isn't that surprising because there are regional differences and 80N is a small part of the globe. Did take a quick look however. First, my chart is GISS. Found the chart below which compares: global, land and arctic warming. Here the arctic is 67N, not the same as the ar4ctic in your chart. Arctic warming didn't take off till around 1990, so there isn't much difference between global land/ocean and arctic for the 1970-94 period. Note however the much larger year-to-year variability in the arctic. That's one of the benefits of the global average, a good bit of the plus and minus natural variability cancels when averaged over the entire globe. The global land average turns out to be a good proxy for the Northeast US. Global land has warmed by roughly 1.5C since 1970, or 2.8F. Winter is the fastest warming season locally, roughly 50% more than the annual average, so the 5F of winter warming we have experienced is close to what would be expected based on the global land average.