Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

NOAA is in complete agreement with the raw data when you keep the station population constant and separate out the major station moves. Per chart above there are only a handful of long-term climate stations in Chester County. Both West Chester and Coatesville moved from towns  to cooler rural locations and cooled by roughly 2F. It is easy to remove the station moves by plotting the before move  and after move data separately.  Before the moves West Chester and Coatesville are both about 2F warmer than NOAA.Not unexpected because these the town locations were warm sites, similar to Wilmington De. NOAA matches the year-to-year and long term trend of the before move data at both stations. After the stations moves, West Chester and Coatesville were more representative of the county close to NOAA . Like the before move data,  NOAA matches the long-term trend  and the year-to-year of the after move datra. The only exception is a warm spike at West Chester in the 1980s and 1990s. Which is clearly bad data.

Chesco's claim that NOAA doesn't match the raw data is a complete strawman. He's the one who doesn't match the raw data. Why should NOAA match his faulty analysis?

 

[ChescoWx]

40 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Here are the stations by year. What Chesco call's "Actual" is far from it. There is a big change in the station population from warm to cool, towns to rural, south and east to more centrally located, with more stations in the cooler north and west section. Most of the stations have short records and don't provide any climate info.

 

Fake and false Charlie there are actually only 6 stations currently north of 40.0 N and 14 stations in the warmer south and eastern sections!!

[chubbs]

Here's another way of comparing  NOAA to the raw data. Easy to normalize the data using a common year, 1950 in this case. This removes differences between stations to better  isolate the long-term trend. Again NOAA and the raw data are in  complete agreement on the long-term trend, roughly 4F of warming in Chesco.

[chubbs]

4 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Fake and false Charlie there are actually only 6 stations currently north of 40.0 N and 14 stations in the warmer south and eastern sections!!

There were no stations in the northwest part of the county back in the day.

 

[ChescoWx]

Just now, chubbs said:

There were no stations in the northwest part of the county back in the day.

 

And how many stations are in the NW part of the county today vs. the South????

[ChescoWx]

4 minutes ago, chubbs said:

There were no stations in the northwest part of the county back in the day.

 

11 of the 17 current stations in the data set are in the warmer southern Chester County area below 40 degrees 

[chubbs]

16 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

And how many stations are in the NW part of the county today vs. the South????

The main point is that the stations have changed. Taking  a simple average skews the data. The 1900 station network (City Of Coatesville, Kennett Square borough, West Chester Borough, and Phoenixville) is completely different than  the current. Mainly towns in the early days. No towns now.

 

[chubbs]

2 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

11 of the 17 current stations in the data set are in the warmer southern Chester County area below 40 degrees 

Most of those stations are giving you zero climate information because they don't have long records. Only Phoenixville has data before 2007.

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Most of those stations are giving you zero climate information because they don't have long records. Only Phoenixville has data before 2007.

As always Charlie you try to explain away factual data vs. recast adjusted data which is just never a good look....that said let's take your revisionist Cyclical Climate Denialism back over to the Chesco thread to better expose this alternate facts view you traffic in!! LOL!!

[chubbs]

Here's another chart (from Financial Times) which shows how our fossil-fuel energy system is falling behind China's. Energy use and emissions are reduced with electricity due to higher end-use efficiency. For instance a gasoline car is 15-20% efficient while an EV has 90+% end-use efficiency.

[TheClimateChanger]

16 hours ago, chubbs said:

Most of those stations are giving you zero climate information because they don't have long records. Only Phoenixville has data before 2007.

Is there any evidence these are actually stations used by NCEI? That seems like a lot for one county. Why would they add 16 stations in the past two decades?

[TheClimateChanger]

9 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Is there any evidence these are actually stations used by NCEI? That seems like a lot for one county. Why would they add 16 stations in the past two decades?

Anyways, I went through the raw published figures for the month of July for Pennsylvania's Division 3 [Southeastern Piedmont] back to 1957, and the raw numbers were warming at 3.3F/century. Climate at a Glance shows 5.8F/century. This isn't evidence of any error or nefarious intent, however; the "raw" trend that I calculated is just the change in the simple arithmetic mean. I did not make any adjustments/homogenization for changes in site location, elevation and urban character. The early years were "Philadelphia heavy" so they would be inflated relative to the recent means, with up to 4 of the stations being in the city. For comparison, PHL shows a warming trend of 7.8F/century over the same time frame. Given the changing composition of the stations, I suspect the reported trend is closer to the actual trend, although I can't rule out it being slightly overstated.

[TheClimateChanger]

I will say the adjustments are not perfect. There was one thing that had me scratching my head. I was confused that I thought I had made a mistake and was looking at the wrong data!

1976 is shown as the fifth coldest July on record for Pennsylvania's Division 3, with a reported mean of 71.2F on Climate at a Glance. This appears to be entirely an artifact of whatever adjustments they are making.

The raw data reflects a cooler than normal July, but only by a little bit. The reported mean is 74.6F.

By comparison, 1978 was much colder with a reported mean of 72.7F, yet Climate at a Glance has it at 71.6F or 0.4F warmer than 1976!

 

Looking at the station composition, they add Blue Marsh Lake, Octoraro Lake, and get rid of Philadelphia 2304 Mkt [inner city] and West Grove 1 SE. So the 1978 set is more rural and not directly comparable, but what's odd is if you compare every site that it's common to both datasets 1978 is still significantly cooler across the board. Yet Climate at a Glance shows it as warmer.  I highly doubt 1976 was actually the 5th coldest July on record for this climate division. I'm not really sure what's going on here, and whether it affects other districts. 1976 was the only year that had anywhere near that deviation from the mean. Wonder if it's just some sort of data error?

[TheClimateChanger]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I will say the adjustments are not perfect. There was one thing that had me scratching my head. I was confused that I thought I had made a mistake and was looking at the wrong data!

1976 is shown as the fifth coldest July on record for Pennsylvania's Division 3, with a reported mean of 71.2F on Climate at a Glance. This appears to be entirely an artifact of whatever adjustments they are making.

The raw data reflects a cooler than normal July, but only by a little bit. The reported mean is 74.6F.

By comparison, 1978 was much colder with a reported mean of 72.7F, yet Climate at a Glance has it at 71.6F or 0.4F warmer than 1976!

 

Looking at the station composition, they add Blue Marsh Lake, Octoraro Lake, and get rid of Philadelphia 2304 Mkt [inner city] and West Grove 1 SE. So the 1978 set is more rural and not directly comparable, but what's odd is if you compare every site that it's common to both datasets 1978 is still significantly cooler across the board. Yet Climate at a Glance shows it as warmer.  I highly doubt 1976 was actually the 5th coldest July on record for this climate division. I'm not really sure what's going on here, and whether it affects other districts. 1976 was the only year that had anywhere near that deviation from the mean. Wonder if it's just some sort of data error?

Here's the difference for each site. The rankings have 1978 as 0.4F warmer in this District. Idk.

Coatesville 1 SW: 0.7F cooler in 1978

Devault 1 W: 0.6F warmer in 1978

Drexel University: 2.2F cooler in 1978

Ephrata: 2.5F cooler in 1978

George School: 2.3F cooler in 1978

Graterford 1 E: 2.3F cooler in 1978

Holtwood: 1.8F cooler in 1978

Landisville 2 NW: 2.0F cooler in 1978

Lebanon 2 W: 2.2F cooler in 1978

Marcus Hook: 2.2F cooler in 1978

Morgantown: 1.0F cooler in 1978

Philadelphia (City): 3.8F cooler in 1978

Philadelphia (AP): 1.0F cooler in 1978

Phoenixville 1 E: 0.8F cooler in 1978

Reading 3 N: 1.6F cooler in 1978

West Chester 1 W: 1.1F cooler in 1978

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

Here's the difference for each site. The rankings have 1978 as 0.4F warmer in this District. Idk.

Coatesville 1 SW: 0.7F cooler in 1978

Devault 1 W: 0.6F warmer in 1978

Drexel University: 2.2F cooler in 1978

Ephrata: 2.5F cooler in 1978

George School: 2.3F cooler in 1978

Graterford 1 E: 2.3F cooler in 1978

Holtwood: 1.8F cooler in 1978

Landisville 2 NW: 2.0F cooler in 1978

Lebanon 2 W: 2.2F cooler in 1978

Marcus Hook: 2.2F cooler in 1978

Morgantown: 1.0F cooler in 1978

Philadelphia (City): 3.8F cooler in 1978

Philadelphia (AP): 1.0F cooler in 1978

Phoenixville 1 E: 0.8F cooler in 1978

Reading 3 N: 1.6F cooler in 1978

West Chester 1 W: 1.1F cooler in 1978

This is such a big anomaly, I wonder if it's just some sort of data entry error.

[bluewave]

On 5/12/2025 at 8:44 AM, ChescoWx said:

35 (70% of) U.S. states recorded their “all-time” high May temperature records before color TV in 1960!  Of that subset, 21 of them were set over a century ago.  In 1934, 10 states set their “all-time” May monthly high temperature records. In 1895 and 1911, seven and six states, respectively, set theirs.

All those 1934 records were the result of the farmers essentially turning the Great Plains into a giant paved over parking lot by removing the top soil. If we had maintained the same practices and not expanded the irrigation to record levels since then, those figures would get surpassed at least once every decade. The record monthly low of 70° for May at International Falls the other day is more impressive than any of those 1934 records. Simply for the fact that INL is one of the most rural areas in the U.S. and it’s on the Canadian Border. Anytime you see a record like that in what is considered the icebox of the U.S. you have to take notice. While the new all-time May max was only exceeded by 1°, that 70°  minimum is 4° warmer than any other on May minimum on record for INL. It’s also the earliest 70° minimum by over a month. 

 

Top 5 warmest May minimum temperatures at International Falls

 

Time Series Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN - Month of May
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2025	70	19
2	1992	66	0
-	1988	66	0
3	1991	64	0
-	1919	64	0
4	2018	63	0
-	2014	63	0
-	1986	63	0
5	2021	62	0
-	2007	62	0
-	1980	62	0
-	1955	62	0
-	1918	62	3

 

First/Last Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN
Each section contains date and year of occurrence, value on that date.
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2025	05-12 (2025)	70	-	-	-
1995	06-17 (1995)	70	06-17 (1995)	70	0
2020	06-17 (2020)	70	06-17 (2020)	70	0
2001	06-25 (2001)	71	08-05 (2001)	77	40
2002	06-29 (2002)	70	09-08 (2002)	73	70

[FPizz]

38 minutes ago, bluewave said:

All those 1934 records were the result of the farmers essentially turning the Great Plains into a giant paved over parking lot by removing the top soil. If we had maintained the same practices and not expanded the irrigation to record levels since then, those figures would get surpassed at least once every decade. The record monthly low of 70° for May at International Falls the other day is more impressive than any of those 1934 records. Simply for the fact that INL is one of the most rural areas in the U.S. and it’s on the Canadian Border. Anytime you see a record like that in what is considered the icebox of the U.S. you have to take notice. While the new all-time May max was only exceeded by 1°, that 70°  minimum is 4° warmer than any other on May minimum on record for INL. It’s also the earliest 70° minimum by over a month. 

 

Top 5 warmest May minimum temperatures at International Falls

 

Time Series Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN - Month of May
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2025	70	19
2	1992	66	0
-	1988	66	0
3	1991	64	0
-	1919	64	0
4	2018	63	0
-	2014	63	0
-	1986	63	0
5	2021	62	0
-	2007	62	0
-	1980	62	0
-	1955	62	0
-	1918	62	3

 

First/Last Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN
Each section contains date and year of occurrence, value on that date.
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2025	05-12 (2025)	70	-	-	-
1995	06-17 (1995)	70	06-17 (1995)	70	0
2020	06-17 (2020)	70	06-17 (2020)	70	0
2001	06-25 (2001)	71	08-05 (2001)	77	40
2002	06-29 (2002)	70	09-08 (2002)	73	70

You can say that about everything can't you?  You people bitch and moan about central park, because of, oh my goodness, trees, but yet everywhere else we have paved and built over, like a parking lot, but somehow that is ok and normal?  I'll use your words, if we maintained the land all around as is, all these temps would also be much lower.  You have a freaking excuse for everything when it doesn't fit your narrative.  

[TheClimateChanger]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

All those 1934 records were the result of the farmers essentially turning the Great Plains into a giant paved over parking lot by removing the top soil. If we had maintained the same practices and not expanded the irrigation to record levels since then, those figures would get surpassed at least once every decade. The record monthly low of 70° for May at International Falls the other day is more impressive than any of those 1934 records. Simply for the fact that INL is one of the most rural areas in the U.S. and it’s on the Canadian Border. Anytime you see a record like that in what is considered the icebox of the U.S. you have to take notice. While the new all-time May max was only exceeded by 1°, that 70°  minimum is 4° warmer than any other on May minimum on record for INL. It’s also the earliest 70° minimum by over a month. 

 

Top 5 warmest May minimum temperatures at International Falls

 

Time Series Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN - Month of May
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2025	70	19
2	1992	66	0
-	1988	66	0
3	1991	64	0
-	1919	64	0
4	2018	63	0
-	2014	63	0
-	1986	63	0
5	2021	62	0
-	2007	62	0
-	1980	62	0
-	1955	62	0
-	1918	62	3

 

First/Last Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN
Each section contains date and year of occurrence, value on that date.
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2025	05-12 (2025)	70	-	-	-
1995	06-17 (1995)	70	06-17 (1995)	70	0
2020	06-17 (2020)	70	06-17 (2020)	70	0
2001	06-25 (2001)	71	08-05 (2001)	77	40
2002	06-29 (2002)	70	09-08 (2002)	73	70

 

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

All those 1934 records were the result of the farmers essentially turning the Great Plains into a giant paved over parking lot by removing the top soil. If we had maintained the same practices and not expanded the irrigation to record levels since then, those figures would get surpassed at least once every decade. The record monthly low of 70° for May at International Falls the other day is more impressive than any of those 1934 records. Simply for the fact that INL is one of the most rural areas in the U.S. and it’s on the Canadian Border. Anytime you see a record like that in what is considered the icebox of the U.S. you have to take notice. While the new all-time May max was only exceeded by 1°, that 70°  minimum is 4° warmer than any other on May minimum on record for INL. It’s also the earliest 70° minimum by over a month. 

 

Top 5 warmest May minimum temperatures at International Falls

 

Time Series Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN - Month of May
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

1	2025	70	19
2	1992	66	0
-	1988	66	0
3	1991	64	0
-	1919	64	0
4	2018	63	0
-	2014	63	0
-	1986	63	0
5	2021	62	0
-	2007	62	0
-	1980	62	0
-	1955	62	0
-	1918	62	3

 

First/Last Summary for INTERNATIONAL FALLS INTL AP, MN
Each section contains date and year of occurrence, value on that date.
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2025	05-12 (2025)	70	-	-	-
1995	06-17 (1995)	70	06-17 (1995)	70	0
2020	06-17 (2020)	70	06-17 (2020)	70	0
2001	06-25 (2001)	71	08-05 (2001)	77	40
2002	06-29 (2002)	70	09-08 (2002)	73	70

Those maps are always just a bunch of nonsense anyways. Martz only lists the first occurrence of a record high so it biases it toward earlier years. With that said, even using his data, 10 of 50 states have set monthly record highs since 2000. That's 20 percent of all states. Keep in mind, the data this is drawn from actually extends beyond 1895, with scattered data all the way back to 1870 [and limited data before then]. Limiting to 1895, that's 20 percent in 19.3 percent of the total years. Extending back to 1870, that becomes a fairly hefty overweighting of recent record highs. Again, especially considering that Martz only shows the first occurrence, so there are probably more recent ties not reflected on the map.

Data quality on some of these records are also highly questionable. He includes even highly questioned observations. I saw one record shown in March for the State of Missouri that was 10+ degrees warmer than any other observation from the same month. When I went back to the original document, the Weather Bureau had actually drawn a question mark by a few of the observed highs. And even some of the recognized highs are questionable by today's standards. For instance, the 112F at Martinsburg, West Virginia in July 1936. It was 105F in Kearneysville, and 103F in Hagerstown on the same day. Is that level of discrepancy plausible for a daytime high temperature? @FPizzand @ChescoWxwould be having a conniption fit. People are constantly complaining about ASOS readings a couple of degrees too high on here.

[TheClimateChanger]

16 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Those maps are always just a bunch of nonsense anyways. Martz only lists the first occurrence of a record high so it biases it toward earlier years. With that said, even using his data, 10 of 50 states have set monthly record highs since 2000. That's 20 percent of all states. Keep in mind, the data this is drawn from actually extends beyond 1895, with scattered data all the way back to 1870 [and limited data before then]. Limiting to 1895, that's 20 percent in 19.3 percent of the total years. Extending back to 1870, that becomes a fairly hefty overweighting of recent record highs. Again, especially considering that Martz only shows the first occurrence, so there are probably more recent ties not reflected on the map.

Data quality on some of these records are also highly questionable. He includes even highly questioned observations. I saw one record shown in March for the State of Missouri that was 10+ degrees warmer than any other observation from the same month. When I went back to the original document, the Weather Bureau had actually drawn a question mark by a few of the observed highs. And even some of the recognized highs are questionable by today's standards. For instance, the 112F at Martinsburg, West Virginia in July 1936. It was 105F in Kearneysville, and 103F in Hagerstown on the same day. Is that level of discrepancy plausible for a daytime high temperature? @FPizzand @ChescoWxwould be having a conniption fit. People are constantly complaining about ASOS readings a couple of degrees too high on here.

He also never posts the record lows which would invariably show a much greater bias towards early year than record highs, especially using his convention of ignoring subsequent ties.

[chubbs]

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Is there any evidence these are actually stations used by NCEI? That seems like a lot for one county. Why would they add 16 stations in the past two decades?

Only Phoenixville and Spring City are NWS COOP stations and used by NCEI. The others are not used by NCEI.

 

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, FPizz said:

You can say that about everything can't you?  You people bitch and moan about central park, because of, oh my goodness, trees, but yet everywhere else we have paved and built over, like a parking lot, but somehow that is ok and normal?  I'll use your words, if we maintained the land all around as is, all these temps would also be much lower.  You have a freaking excuse for everything when it doesn't fit your narrative.  

Truth! it is really a climate cult....actual factual data is rejected or of course "altered" to fit the narrative!!

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Only Phoenixville and Spring City are NWS COOP stations and used by NCEI. The others are not used by NCEI.

 

I think you would agree those 2 stations are the lowest and relatively warmest spots in the County. Plus only a few miles away from each other in the Northeast part of the County. For sure not representative of the county. Below are the actuals vs NCEI for the last 5 years.

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

I think you would agree those 2 stations are the lowest and relatively warmest spots in the County. Plus only a few miles away from each other in the Northeast part of the County. For sure not representative of the county. Below are the actuals vs NCEI for the last 5 years.

No I don't agree. below are the current county stations that I have data for, the non-DEOS stations. Spring City is cooler than any of these corrent stations, consistent with its location in the far northern part of the county. Unlike your results, NOAA is cooler than the average of the current stations that I have. Shows how changing the station population changes the simple average. The non-NOAA DEOS stations cool the present on balance without adding any climate information due to their short period of operation.

Results from your simple averaging method merely reflect the changing station population: relatively warm in the past and relatively cool now.  You've obtained the "climate change isn't happening" result you are looking for. As I have said in the past you will be the last person to realize that Chester County is warming.

[bluewave]

18 hours ago, FPizz said:

You can say that about everything can't you?  You people bitch and moan about central park, because of, oh my goodness, trees, but yet everywhere else we have paved and built over, like a parking lot, but somehow that is ok and normal?  I'll use your words, if we maintained the land all around as is, all these temps would also be much lower.  You have a freaking excuse for everything when it doesn't fit your narrative.  

The actual climate and weather speaks in patterns and not narratives. The Dust Bowl was a manmade event caused by removing the topsoil in the Plains leading to desertification of the Great Plains. So what would have been a run of the mill drought turned into a disaster which forced migration to other parts of the country. So of course the summer highs over a few years would set records just in the drought areas which became deserts back in those days. Other states and parts of the country which didn’t experience those conditions have already surpassed the temperatures they recorded in the Plains. So narrowly focusing more on the Great Plains than the rest of the world which has greatly surpassed the warmth of the 1930s completely loses perspective. 
 

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

The actual climate and weather speaks in patterns and not narratives. The Dust Bowl was a manmade event caused by removing the topsoil in the Plains leading to desertification of the Great Plains. So what would have been a run of the mill drought turned into a disaster which forced migration to other parts of the country. So of course the summer highs over a few years would set records just in the drought areas which became deserts back in those days. Other states and parts of the country which didn’t experience those conditions have already surpassed the temperatures they recorded in the Plains. So narrowly focusing more on the Great Plains than the rest of the world which has greatly surpassed the warmth of the 1930s completely loses perspective. 
 

 

It was partially manmade and partially natural Chris.

I am 100% against conventional farming because of pesticides and fertilizers that destroy the environment and our health but in the case of what happened during the Dust Bowl, a combination of factors was involved.

We had a long duration La Nina pattern back then which made it hotter and drier.  It started in 1931 (leading to the extremely warm 1931-32 summer and It peaked in Summer 1936.)  Summer 1936 was historic on every level.  I wonder what the airports would have hit for highs with NYC hitting 106 lol.  NYC has never even hit 105 before or since.

Was Newark around in 1936 at least?

By the way, a long duration La Nina pattern is also blamed as being responsible for wiping out the Mayans because of the record drought it caused.

 

[bluewave]

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

It was partially manmade and partially natural Chris.

I am 100% against conventional farming because of pesticides and fertilizers that destroy the environment and our health but in the case of what happened during the Dust Bowl, a combination of factors was involved.

We had a long duration La Nina pattern back then which made it hotter and drier.  It started in 1931 (leading to the extremely warm 1931-32 summer and It peaked in Summer 1936.)  Summer 1936 was historic on every level.  I wonder what the airports would have hit for highs with NYC hitting 106 lol.  NYC has never even hit 105 before or since.

Was Newark around in 1936 at least?

By the way, a long duration La Nina pattern is also blamed as being responsible for wiping out the Mayans because of the record drought it caused.

 

Recent studies have found that if the natural Grasslands weren’t removed, then there wouldn’t have been a Dust Bowl. But a typical drier pattern that has occurred over intervals of time in the past. None of the previous drought patterns produced that type of heat.The record heat was a function of the desertification brought on by the the land use practices during that era. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, bluewave said:

Recent studies have found that if the natural Grasslands weren’t removed, then there wouldn’t have been a Dust Bowl. But a typical drier pattern that has occurred over intervals of time in the past. None of the previous drought patterns produced that type of heat.The record heat was a function of the desertification brought on by the the land use practices during that era. 

You'd think with the dust causing darker skies the temperature should have been less (like our darker skies during the Canadian wildfires a few years ago).  In 1936 the skies got darkened over NYC like they were a few years ago when we had an AQI of 500 in June, do you think the AQI would have been even worse during the Dust Bowl era and if so why wouldn't the dust blocking the sun actually cause lower temperatures like it did a few years ago?