chubbs

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.

Our winter temperatures are well correlated with global temperatures. When global warming accelerated around 1970 our winters followed suit, roughly 1F per decade winter warming in our region since 1970. The last 2 ninos have spiked global temperatures. We had a notable change in our winters after the last nino. It would not surprise me to see another shift after the recent nino. Not sure what the shift will be, given large variability in local winters and our new global temperature range. We pull our winters from a deck of potential outcomes. With each passing year we know less and less about the individual cards in the deck.

No I don't think "absolutely no current evidence" is right. First off the model results in the chart are evidence, the best evidence we currently have; and, second as stated in the paper the available limited measurement data supports the model results (quote below): "The remote reaches of the oceans that surround Antarctica are some of the toughest regions to plan and undertake field campaigns. Voyages are long, weather can be brutal, and sea ice limits access for much of the year. This means there are few measurements to track how the Antarctic margin is changing. But where sufficient data exist, we can see clear signs of increased transport of warm waters toward Antarctica, which in turn causes ice melt at key locations. Indeed, the signs of melting around the edges of Antarctica are very clear, with increasingly large volumes of freshwater flowing into the ocean and making nearby waters less salty and therefore less dense. And that’s all that’s needed to slow the overturning circulation. Denser water sinks, lighter water does not."

Another news article on the Antarctic Current study. Found this write-up, by the study authors, more insightful. Not good news, study predicts we are on the verge of a slowdown in Antarctic overturning. Also linked the study journal article. We’ve long known the North Atlantic overturning currents are vulnerable, with observations suggesting a slowdown is already well underway, and projections of a tipping point coming soon. Our results suggest Antarctica looks poised to match its northern hemisphere counterpart – and then some. https://theconversation.com/torrents-of-antarctic-meltwater-are-slowing-the-currents-that-drive-our-vital-ocean-overturning-and-threaten-its-collapse-202108 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05762-w

What we did Advances in ocean modelling allow a more thorough investigation of the potential future changes. We used Australia’s fastest supercomputer and climate simulator in Canberra to study the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The underlying model, ACCESS-OM2-01, has been developed by Australian researchers from various universities as part of the Consortium for Ocean-Sea Ice Modelling in Australia. The model captures features others often miss, such as eddies. So it’s a far more accurate way to assess how the current’s strength and behaviour will change as the world warms. It picks up the intricate interactions between ice melting and ocean circulation. In this future projection, cold, fresh melt water from Antarctica migrates north, filling the deep ocean as it goes. This causes major changes to the density structure of the ocean. It counteracts the influence of ocean warming, leading to an overall slowdown in the current of as much as 20% by 2050. Far-reaching consequences The consequences of a weaker Antarctic Circumpolar Current are profound and far-reaching. As the main current that circulates nutrient-rich waters around Antarctica, it plays a crucial role in the Antarctic ecosystem. Weakening of the current could reduce biodiversity and decrease the productivity of fisheries that many coastal communities rely on. It could also aid the entry of invasive species such as southern bull kelp to Antarctica, disrupting local ecosystems and food webs. A weaker current may also allow more warm water to penetrate southwards, exacerbating the melting of Antarctic ice shelves and contributing to global sea-level rise. Faster ice melting could then lead to further weakening of the current, commencing a vicious spiral of current slowdown. This disruption could extend to global climate patterns, reducing the ocean’s ability to regulate climate change by absorbing excess heat and carbon in the atmosphere. https://theconversation.com/melting-antarctic-ice-will-slow-the-worlds-strongest-ocean-current-and-the-global-consequences-are-profound-251053

Interesting, Berkeley Earth has estimated land temperatures back to 1750. How far back they go in a region depends on the availability of measurements. Below is Pennsylvania where the first available measurement is 1758. Berkeley's estimates for the US as a whole go back to the early 1800s. Berkeley's results are similar to those you obtained from GROK. It has been flat or warming since the 1700s with the bulk of the warming in the past 60 years. The Berkeley uncertainty estimate increases going back in time as the number of available measurements shrinks.