Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    18,292
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    happyclam13
    Newest Member
    happyclam13
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, GaWx said:

 This won’t be a popular take here, but I think articles like this do more harm than good as regards believability regarding the affects of CC in general. It has a sensationalist, “Day After Tomorrow” tone to it imho. This isn’t the way to convince nonbelievers.

 Some of the words/phrases used in the article were these:

catastrophic, catastrophic ripples, devastating consequences, alarming, catastrophic global consequences, catastrophic outcome for all humanity

  I think that articles like this do more harm than good. And I’m saying this as one who’s extra concerned about sea level rise and stronger hurricanes being that I’m not far from the coast.

Not sure I agree here...  We ARE in a catastrophe, a slow moving one.  Too slow to be seen in what we call "real time", or human perception, but that slowness only beguiles us into a false sense of lessening urgency.

Don and I ( and any others et al) have been discussing about the limitations in the biology of all Terran life ( for that matter -): for all species, urgency is aroused by what their senses are telling them.  Human beings, as far as can be empirically tested, are the only life forms on this planet capable of prognosticating doom or boon based upon projection.  But we still procrastinate, if not outright disregard those forecasts when the evidences are not directly appealing as such. You know ... what can be seen, heard, smell, tasted., or touched.   The tree does fall in the woods whether anyone is around to see it happen or not, and in this case... it's particularly bad because the proverbial tree is falling right in front of us, yet is unseen.

But it's still falling 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2025 at 1:40 PM, Cobalt said:

Since the start of this supposed cyclical cooling cycle the CONUS has seen its 3rd warmest March-August period in 131 years. September data isn't in yet but I'd assume that it will bump that ranking even higher.

07e4c48bcb4357b9b3bf2dd09243cb92.thumb.png.ec7a59a7c9f4dab64b3705ab2440e6b2.png

LOL! wonder why he chose to include only March to August?? plus it is of course altered adjusted data which we dismiss!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not sure I agree here...  We ARE in a catastrophe, a slow moving one.  Too slow to be seen in what we call "real time", or human perception, but that slowness only beguiles us into a false sense of lessening urgency.

Don and I ( and any others et al) have been discussing about the limitations in the biology of all Terran life ( for that matter -): for all species, urgency is aroused by what their senses are telling them.  Human beings, as far as can be empirically tested, are the only life forms on this planet capable of prognosticating doom or boon based upon projection.  But we still procrastinate, if not outright disregard those forecasts when the evidences are not directly appealing as such. You know ... what can be seen, heard, smell, tasted., or touched.   The tree does fall in the woods whether anyone is around to see it happen or not, and in this case... it's particularly bad because the proverbial tree is falling right in front of us, yet is unseen.

But it's still falling 

 

Sky is falling sky is falling.....no one believes our cyclical climate change is an issue anymore. But a lot of folks on here sure do!! Fortunately the younger generation has caught on to the grift and is finally starting to see the "science" for what it has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

LOL! wonder why he chose to include only March to August??

Because you claimed the "cooling period" started in January and February, so I wanted to roll forward that "cooling period" to the months afterwards, but I couldn't find it. 

 

To answer your question from February (where you chose to only include a map from January through February 21st)

On 2/22/2025 at 10:43 AM, ChescoWx said:

Is this the start of our next cyclical climate change cycle of a turn to colder?

image.thumb.jpeg.9cd7af64f57262a8cb1dc8522260fdfe.jpeg

 

No, it is not.

07e4c48bcb4357b9b3bf2dd09243cb92.thumb.png.61afc64d8e68f4b14edc20a9de6fbbcf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

Because you claimed the "cooling period" started in January and February, so I wanted to roll forward that "cooling period" to the months afterwards, but I couldn't find it. 

 

To answer your question from February (where you chose to only include a map from January through February 21st)

 

No, it is not.

 

Check the above slow moving catastrophic warming here in Chester County PA during our current warming cycle.....so scary!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Below is the slow moving catastrophe here in Chester County....can you smell the fear in the air.....temperature? At this rate we might be burning up with an average temperature of 56.3 degrees in another 100 years!!

image.thumb.png.4946aad19ab4d75e2de4cf3babd29046.png

By the way - for more of this kind of actual real non-adjusted climate data for Chester County come visit the #1 website for all things Chester County climate with updated content still in progress over at https://chescowx.com/

Hopefully it will help allay the climate fear running rampant on this site.   Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Check the above slow moving catastrophic warming here in Chester County PA during our current warming cycle.....so scary!!

This is entirely unrelated to the discussion we were having above.

 

I’ll ask the question again. Why did you call me out for “only including” a timespan from March to August when it was in response to you posting a map that only included January and February data?
 

Why are you redirecting the conversation from national data to just specifically Chester County in the first place? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Below is the slow moving catastrophe here in Chester County....can you smell the fear in the air.....temperature? At this rate we might be burning up with an average temperature of 56.3 degrees in another 100 years!!

image.thumb.png.4946aad19ab4d75e2de4cf3babd29046.png

Not even close to being right. You are cherry-picking the data you like, the temperature values,  and ignoring the rest of the information associated with the raw data: the station locations, the station moves, and the relative temperature between stations. Easy to spot the station moves and other major changes by tracking changes in the relative warmth of the Chesco stations. Its well proven science.

That's why NOAA's results are different than yours. I get very similar results to NOAA by using the raw data at West Chester (before move) and Coatesville (after move) and avoiding the station moves. We saw in the other thread that  the individual station data agrees with NOAA. Why wouldn't it? NOAA uses all the information and well proven science.

Coat_WC_NOAA.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

This is entirely unrelated to the discussion we were having above.

 

I’ll ask the question again. Why did you call me out for “only including” a timespan from March to August when it was in response to you posting a map that only included January and February data?
 

Why are you redirecting the conversation from national data to just specifically Chester County in the first place? 

That climate fence around Chester County PA must be really strong......LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Not even close to being right. You are cherry-picking the data you like, the temperature values,  and ignoring the rest of the information associated with the raw data: the station locations, the station moves, and the relative temperature between stations. Easy to spot the station moves and other major changes by tracking changes in the relative warmth of the Chesco stations. Its well proven science.

That's why NOAA's results are different than yours. I get very similar results to NOAA by using the raw data at West Chester (before move) and Coatesville (after move) and avoiding the station moves. We saw in the other thread that  the individual station data agrees with NOAA. Why wouldn't it? NOAA uses all the information and well proven science.

Coat_WC_NOAA.png

As always zero support for the post hoc cooling adjustments for 89 straight years....and now overall warming adjustment to recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

That climate fence around Chester County PA must be really strong......LOL!

It’s not a difficult question to answer

58 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

Why did you call me out for “only including” a timespan from March to August when it was in response to you posting a map that only included January and February data?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

As always zero support for the post hoc cooling adjustments for 89 straight years....and now overall warming adjustment to recent years.

The only adjustment to the West Chester and Coatesville raw data is to take out the temperature difference between the two stations by setting 1950 to zero. The year-to-year change in temperature is exactly what the raw data shows at Coatesville and West Chester. A little over 4F warming between 1894 and present, the same as NOAA. Like I said above you are not even close to what the raw data is showing. 

Below is a comparison of individual stations to NOAA, excluding station moves of course. The agreement is very good both recently and before the major station moves.. If anything NOAA is underestimating the recent warming in Chester County. Why don't you provide the equivalent trend values for your Chesco average so we can see how you stack up.

 

 

ChescoNOAA_table.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I see we have reached the old "well i ain't doing shit because/until all these other places start doing shit' excuse. I don't know about you all but i don't let my property go to crap because my neighbor lets his get unsightly. Usually you double down and keep your place extra tidy to hopefully shame/embarrass the neighbor into doing the same. That's what needs to happen on global scale. Probably won't matter at this point anyway but at least we say we went down swinging.

For those who dismiss CC or are not convinced of it, I might have good news. Depending on how oceanic currents break down and where one resides on the planet, your climate might actually get better....for a while.  Maybe you dislike winter cold or you live in a rainy area that might dry out or a dry area might become more moist. A rare case where you get the lemonade and then you get the lemons.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chubbs said:

The only adjustment to the West Chester and Coatesville raw data is to take out the temperature difference between the two stations by setting 1950 to zero. The year-to-year change in temperature is exactly what the raw data shows. A little over 4F warming exactly the same as NOAA. Like I said above you are not even close to what the raw data is showing. 

Below is a comparison of individual stations to NOAA, excluding station moves of course. The agreement is very good. If anything NOAA is underestimating the recent warming in Chester County. Why don't you provide the equivalent trend values for your Chesco average so we can see how you stack up.

 

 

Now how about we show the real pattern of the NOAA adjustments....wonder why we chill the past and warm the present???image.thumb.png.7a87211edf44d566cfb9f85107f25998.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hazey said:

 I see we have reached the old "well i ain't doing shit because/until all these other places start doing shit' excuse. I don't know about you all but i don't let my property go to crap because my neighbor lets his get unsightly. Usually you double down and keep your place extra tidy to hopefully shame/embarrass the neighbor into doing the same. That's what needs to happen on global scale. Probably won't matter at this point anyway but at least we say we went down swinging.

For those who dismiss CC or are not convinced of it, I might have good news. Depending on how oceanic currents break down and where one resides on the planet, your climate might actually get better....for a while.  Maybe you dislike winter cold or you live in a rainy area that might dry out or a dry area might become more moist. A rare case where you get the lemonade and then you get the lemons.  

We should do all we can to protect our planet....but we should not encourage delusions and altered realities that somehow man is going to change the future cyclical climate we have always experienced since the dawn of time. We should not encourage or feed such fantasies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChescoWx said:

What's your question? Is the next cooling cycle beginning??? We don't have complete data for this year or decade yet so let's see!!

this is the question

1 hour ago, Cobalt said:

Why did you call me out for “only including” a timespan from March to August when it was in response to you posting a map that only included January and February data?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Now how about we show the real pattern of the NOAA adjustments....wonder why we chill the past and warm the present???image.thumb.png.7a87211edf44d566cfb9f85107f25998.png

Those aren't NOAA's adjustments. Looks like the difference between your results and NOAA's. The table below, which you are ignoring, shows that NOAA agrees very well with the raw data when station moves are excluded.  So they are your adjustments not NOAA's.

Adjustments are needed in Chester County because of all the station moves and other station changes. Every time we've looked at a station move, NOAA has been spot on in adjusting the station data. You haven't identified a single station adjustment that isn't warranted. 

ChescoNOAA_table.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Those aren't NOAA's adjustments. Looks like the difference between your results and NOAA's. The table below, which you are ignoring, shows that NOAA agrees very well with the raw data when station moves are excluded.  So they are your adjustments not NOAA's.

Adjustments are needed in Chester County because of all the station moves and other station changes. Every time we've looked at a station move, NOAA has been spot on in adjusting the station data. You haven't identified a single station adjustment that isn't warranted. 

 

LOL! and you have never shown a single station that is warranted!! Sorry Charlie as you well know those are NOAA's adjustments of course not mine as I only show the actual real raw data prior to those post hoc adjustments they chose to make decades later. There is zero proof or supporting data you ever show that any station moves made any difference at all let alone adjustments of up to 3 or more degrees....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

LOL! and you have never shown a single station that is warranted!! Sorry Charlie as you well know those are NOAA's adjustments of course not mine as I only show the actual real raw data prior to those post hoc adjustments they chose to make decades later. There is zero proof or supporting data you ever show that any station moves made any difference at all let alone adjustments of up to 3 or more degrees....

 

All I know is that you are good at ignoring data that doesn't agree with your worldview.  The station move data is unambiguous.

Coatesville in 1945 and 1948. Surprised a heat island expert like yourself can't see the difference in these two sites, built up town vs very rural. I certainly wouldn't expect them to have the same temperature.

Coat_WW2.png.b12ebeed3869c10467df8fd1267a76b6.pngDoeRun.png.db752b1cb2b1ca3fdef6fcd333db9988.png

The raw data from surrounding stations allows the effect of the Coatesville move to be determined accurately. This isn't a small change; easy to see the overall effect by comparing the relative position of Coatesville before and after the moves. Before the move, Coatesville was warmer than West Chester and almost as warm as Philadelphia. After the move Coatesville was as cool as Allentown. Roughly 2F cooling overall. Furthermore there many stations other than these 3 that confirm the magnitude of the Coatesville move. 

It's an open and shut case. We know the when and where of the Coatesville move and we know how Coatesville changed relative to other stations in the region. The evidence for the West Chester move in 1970 is just as strong. Very easy to separate weather from station moves when you know how to do it.  

 

 

Coat_WC_ABE_PHL41_50.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is looking for a reliable climate record, adjustments are necessary whenever a station moves. Here's an illustration.

Envision a case where one is measuring the temperature in Queens, NY. Assume that the climate record starts in 1990 for purposes of illustration. Temperatures are taken at LaGuardia Airport through 2014. After that, the Queens station moves to JFK Airport. Temperatures are then recorded at JFK Airport through 2024 for purposes of this illustration.

If one relied only on raw, unadjusted data, here's what the Queens climate record would look like:

image.png.4a2fd53cbf5531613efed4ab0406f606.png

There would essentially be no trend in temperatures. Those arguing for the use of unadjusted data would argue that warming is an artifact of statistical adjustments.

But here's what things would actually look like:

JFK:

image.png.652cc4fea6714e57588115c1522070b0.png

LaGuardia:

image.png.d3cebc76690633f1e7a95e5c088cb1aa.png

The graphs reveal a clear discontinuity in the temperature record when switching from LaGuardia Airport (1990–2014) to JFK Airport (2015–2024), even though they are only 10.9 miles apart. The resulting trend is artificially altered by the change in station location, not by climate. In fact, both stations were warming at similar rates.

This simple illustration demonstrates that without adjusting for such moves, the integrity of the climate record ceases to exist. The synthetic station trend is lower than either station individually. In other words, threading the raw data to maintain a continuous climate record creates a badly biased outcome.

In sum, station moves introduce biases. To maintain an accurate climate record, data must be homogenized. The data must be corrected for site changes, if one wants an accurate climate signal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chubbs said:

Those aren't NOAA's adjustments. Looks like the difference between your results and NOAA's. The table below, which you are ignoring, shows that NOAA agrees very well with the raw data when station moves are excluded.  So they are your adjustments not NOAA's.

Adjustments are needed in Chester County because of all the station moves and other station changes. Every time we've looked at a station move, NOAA has been spot on in adjusting the station data. You haven't identified a single station adjustment that isn't warranted. 

ChescoNOAA_table.png

Are there not any long term, reliable stations in the area that haven't moved or seen major changes around them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

Are there not any long term, reliable stations in the area that haven't moved or seen major changes around them?

We don't have any Chesco stations that haven't had major changes. But one station, Phoenixville, provides consistent data for 1890-1926 vs present. Phoenixville has had moves and station changes, but has remained on the local water property site since 1893. This site, with a small reservoir, has not seen any significant development during the period of station operation. There have been major station changes at Phoenixville however, which we have documented previously on this site. The station ran spuriously warm between 1927 and 1949, particularly on summer afternoons; and, ran cool in the 1990s. There is also a fair bit of missing data

Charts below: 1) Phoenixville and NOAA Chesco showing good agreement on the roughly 4F Chesco temperature rise between the 1890s and present. 2) Adjusted and unadjusted temperatures for Phoenixville showing the roughly 4F warming in both the adjusted and unadjusted data, but with large adjustments for 1927-49 and the 1990s as discussed above, and 3) Annual 90F days for Phoenixville and other stations showing a large spurious spike at Phoenixville in the 1927-48 period, illustrating the station warmth during this period. 

We've been going over the Chester County data in detail for over a year. Well documented in the Chester County thread. I would be glad to answer any questions if you are interested. The raw data in Chester County paints a very consistent picture of warming that is captured accurately by NOAA. The fact that Paul (Chescowx) can't find warming tells us more about himself than Chester County's weather.

 

Phoe_NOAA.png

Phoenix_adj.png

90FdaysphlphoWC.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

If one is looking for a reliable climate record, adjustments are necessary whenever a station moves. Here's an illustration.

Envision a case where one is measuring the temperature in Queens, NY. Assume that the climate record starts in 1990 for purposes of illustration. Temperatures are taken at LaGuardia Airport through 2014. After that, the Queens station moves to JFK Airport. Temperatures are then recorded at JFK Airport through 2024 for purposes of this illustration.

If one relied only on raw, unadjusted data, here's what the Queens climate record would look like:

image.png.4a2fd53cbf5531613efed4ab0406f606.png

There would essentially be no trend in temperatures. Those arguing for the use of unadjusted data would argue that warming is an artifact of statistical adjustments.

But here's what things would actually look like:

JFK:

image.png.652cc4fea6714e57588115c1522070b0.png

LaGuardia:

image.png.d3cebc76690633f1e7a95e5c088cb1aa.png

The graphs reveal a clear discontinuity in the temperature record when switching from LaGuardia Airport (1990–2014) to JFK Airport (2015–2024), even though they are only 10.9 miles apart. The resulting trend is artificially altered by the change in station location, not by climate. In fact, both stations were warming at similar rates.

This simple illustration demonstrates that without adjusting for such moves, the integrity of the climate record ceases to exist. The synthetic station trend is lower than either station individually. In other words, threading the raw data to maintain a continuous climate record creates a badly biased outcome.

In sum, station moves introduce biases. To maintain an accurate climate record, data must be homogenized. The data must be corrected for site changes, if one wants an accurate climate signal.

Yes, data adjustment is needed and successful. Here is a map of Coatesville 1SW COOP station locations from NCDC, illustrating the large range in station local site conditions for this one COOP station. The COOP data was collected by volunteers whose lives changed with time, resulting in station changes. Also attached a satellite views showing the complexity of local land use.

Coatesville is a steel town. The link below provides information on the steel mill. When the Coatesville Coop first collected data in 1894 the steel mill was the largest in the US. The mill reached its largest size during WWII with over 6000 employees. 

The Coatesville 1SW COOP station was active from 1894 to 1982. The stations are numbered starting with site #1, the most recent which was active from 1948 to 1982. Site #6 is the oldest. Pictures of sites 1 and 2 are shown a couple of posts above. You aren't going to get an accurate picture of Chester County's climate if you assume that all of these stations are exactly the same. Fortunately we have thousands of weather stations in the US. Which makes it easy to separate weather and station moves using well established procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukens_Steel_Company

Coatesville1SWstationlocations.png

Coatesville.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chubbs- A reminder, once again....As you may recall- a seperate thread was created for your ongoing quest to debate Chester County Pa with the resident troll here.  If you could take that "debate" there, along with the troll- I think many of us who don't care about Chester County Pa weather site trivia would be better off for it.  Thanks 

  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Yes, data adjustment is needed and successful. Here is a map of Coatesville 1SW COOP station locations from NCDC, illustrating the large range in station local site conditions for this one COOP station. The COOP data was collected by volunteers whose lives changed with time, resulting in station changes. Also attached a satellite views showing the complexity of local land use.

Coatesville is a steel town. The link below provides information on the steel mill. When the Coatesville Coop first collected data in 1894 the steel mill was the largest in the US. The mill reached its largest size during WWII with over 6000 employees. 

The Coatesville 1SW COOP station was active from 1894 to 1982. The stations are numbered starting with site #1, the most recent which was active from 1948 to 1982. Site #6 is the oldest. Pictures of sites 1 and 2 are shown a couple of posts above. You aren't going to get an accurate picture of Chester County's climate if you assume that all of these stations are exactly the same. Fortunately we have thousands of weather stations in the US. Which makes it easy to separate weather and station moves using well established procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukens_Steel_Company

Coatesville1SWstationlocations.png

Coatesville.png

I strongly agree. Data adjustment is essential, because without accounting for station moves, observer/observation changes, and changing local environments e.g., urbanization, the record would reflect human and site variability rather than true climate trends. The Coatesville 1SW example clearly demonstrates why homogenization techniques are both necessary and effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

All I know is that you are good at ignoring data that doesn't agree with your worldview.  The station move data is unambiguous.

Coatesville in 1945 and 1948. Surprised a heat island expert like yourself can't see the difference in these two sites, built up town vs very rural. I certainly wouldn't expect them to have the same temperature.

Coat_WW2.png.b12ebeed3869c10467df8fd1267a76b6.pngDoeRun.png.db752b1cb2b1ca3fdef6fcd333db9988.png

 

LOL! showing photos that are not from 1945 or 1948 certainly support these altered temperature adjustments. And you are good at ignoring the factual actual data that does not support your world view of climate. You never answer where is the control data for the county? Answer not in Chester County PA at all! The fact is NOAA chose to adjust the temperature to levels below any other reporting site in the county on a consistent basis almost every year before and after the move for decades in a row. That is the epitome of fake data. We only traffic in actual data not fantasy!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rcostell said:

Chubbs- A reminder, once again....As you may recall- a seperate thread was created for your ongoing quest to debate Chester County Pa with the resident troll here.  If you could take that "debate" there, along with the troll- I think many of us who don't care about Chester County Pa weather site trivia would be better off for it.  Thanks 

Hi rcostell just an FYI a troll is someone who posts offensive, provocative or disruptive content that upset others under the cover of anonymity. I am not anonymous I appropriately reference all data. I have a weather website with clear links to all data. It is real and it is not fake. A poster cannot be a troll for simply posting actual real NWS data. Why would you or anyone be "offended" by the audacity of posting the raw climate data that you disagree with??  It is science being debated with facts - that is of course not trolling at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...