ChescoWx

2 hours ago, Itstrainingtime said:

Our thread includes people who live in that area...

Of course but not for the counties in the southern areas of the thread area...my thoughts were clearly all about Chester County PA as I very clearly always state!  I am not commenting for those folks further to the West or North of Chesco...and never do. The area covered by this thread is too large and variable to make a blanket statement which I don't.

1 minute ago, Atomixwx said:

 

 

Right. Tornado may drop on somebody today, but great weather coming, this.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk
 

Threat for any damaging or tornadic stronger storms will be  near to north of I-80. The modeled line clearly weakens as it moves SE between I-80 and I-78. South of I-78 here in Chester County the storms or what's left of them will be showers at most.

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

There's more to the story. When the authors of the papers that expressed no view in the abstract regarding AGW were asked to self-rate their positions, more than 60% endorsed AGW. Rejection of AGW languished at 1.8%. In short, very few scientists actually reject AGW. The majority endorse it.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

Those numbers sure don't sound like consensus.....majority is far far from consensus!

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus is the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way"Michael Crichton

The fake news that the "science is settled" or the equally fake "90%+ consensus of scientists agree” from Lynas et al. (2021) was accomplished by pure selective math. To get that 90% plus "consensus" required dismissing over 68% of the studies reviewed. The real numbers paint a different story. Of the total 2,718 randomly-selected papers examined 1,869 (68.8%) expressed no position on human-caused climate change. However there were 849 of them did, and 845 indeed endorsed it. The 90%+ math comes from dividing 845 by 849, and ignoring the 1,869 other scientific studies that expressed absolutely no opinion. The true math actually comes out to  closer to 30% ....30% is of course quite far from consensus.

Today was the warmest day across Chester County since last October 28th. Some high temps across the area included as high as 79.7 at West Chester/ 78.9 at Warwick/ Nottingham and Devault / 76.1 at Atgen / 77.4 at Glenmoore / 77.3 at East Nantmeal and 77.0 at KMQS airport in Coatesville

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

I have no problem going back before 1960. I'll go way back, but I'm not going to limit myself to a small slice of biased data. No. I want to look at all the data and use the best methods to analyze it. From the last IPCC report

 

Let's go back even further Charlie! The Earth is essentially at its coolest point in the last 65 million years, but climate alarmist love to tell us the planet is “too hot” because temperatures are 1.2°C warmer than they were in 1850, the tail end of the Little Ice Age!!

We are told by alarmists that warming of the climate is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events. One key measure of this used by climate models is the annual maximum 1 and 5-day maximum precipitation amounts (Rx1day and Rx5day, respectively). The results below indicate that while both the Rx1day and Rx5day have increased across the US since 1960....of course if we choose to go back far enough, rainfall extremes were higher than recent decades between 1901 and 1930 across both measures. Funny how weather history if we go back far enough....shows us all that is happening now has indeed occurred before. No climate emergency at all to see here!

12 hours ago, chubbs said:

Chesco didn't show us Figure 1 and 2, must have been an oversight.

hey Charlie.....there is actually weather data before 1960.....some folks don't like that data - well unless we make some chilling adjustments as it does not support the non-stop warming story. The above charts I added do not omit the older data back in our last warming cycle that you likely forgot to add...

The below with a longer more appropriate time frame than Charlie showed above shows that the actual frequency of daily high temperature records in the U.S. [avg across ~540 GHCN-daily record stations] has actually decreased since 1911. The mean over the last five decades is almost 21% lower than the 1911-1960 average. Cold extremes have decreased too, and rather sharply since the 1980. Again can we say cyclical normal climate change and nothing at all to be alarmed at here??

12 hours ago, chubbs said:

This recent study shows that global heat waves are becoming more frequent, lasting longer, covering larger areas, moving slower, and bringing higher temperatures.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl1598

Compounding the effects of high temperature,  global dew point and wet bulb temperatures are also rising.

Of course climate did not begin in 1979....perhaps you overlooked that one....

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

You can't prove your assertions either. I can provide evidence of climate and weather change, reams of evidence. That's something you are short on..

Then produce some actual real weather data like below. Funny again Charlie that all of that coast to coast heat when it really was hot back in the 1930's and 1940's needed to be adjusted in all of the post hoc after the fact data you always show. So why are we having less heat waves??