Brewbeer Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 I'm suggesting that the scientists posting here who support more aggressive action to respond to AGW are posting facts, while you are posting opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 On 10/16/2026 at 8:40 AM, chubbs said: Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting". The science consensus is clear that climate change is going to lead to increased disaster risk, mainly due to increased event intensity. Here's a report on climate impacts by the US insurance industry. https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Climate-impact-on-insurance-May-2026.pdf The minute we put the words scientific and consensus together we know it is fake news! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 34 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: The minute we put the words scientific and consensus together we know it is fake news! The moment you stamp a 300 word signature below each of your posts we know how desperately difficultly you are trying to plaster your pseudoscientific narratives all across this board. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 the fact that these two threads have comparable viewership and posting rates is laughable and abhorrent. The thread along with its author shouldve been laughed off this board years ago. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfStock1 Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 4 hours ago, Brewbeer said: I'm suggesting that the scientists posting here who support more aggressive action to respond to AGW are posting facts, while you are posting opinions That would be your opinion, and an incorrect one. I could enumerate the many facts that I have posted the past few days, which have *not* been refuted, but it wouldn't matter, since you ignore it all in your blindness and obstinance. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 On 10/20/2026 at 1:58 PM, Cobalt said: the fact that these two threads have comparable viewership and posting rates is laughable and abhorrent. The thread along with its author shouldve been laughed off this board years ago. I’ve ignored him years ago…. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted Thursday at 12:58 AM Share Posted Thursday at 12:58 AM Since this concerns the impact of Climate Change across the entire USA and not just one individual county - I am happy to share the below study of Actual raw temperature data vs. the NCEI adjusted data for the entire Continental USA. Please find the below combined US 48 state findings (PA and NY are already posted an online). For the full reports and individual state and county findings as they are released over the next 46 days please check out https://chescowx.com/raw-vs-ncei-state-by-state/ THE MAIN STUDY FINDINGS FOR THE CONTINENTAL USA The NWS raw trained observer temperature record shows no significant warming at all in the contiguous 48 states since 1895!! (+0.01 °F per decade). In fact the temperature trend lines across the entire USA are basically flat from 1895 through 2026! However by contrast NCEI's adjusted temperatures show significant warming in the contiguous 48 states since 1895 (+0.18 °F per decade). That difference between the two trend lines is statistically significant. Combining the 48 statewide records of actual readings, each weighted by the state's land area, gives +0.01 °F per decade from 1895 to 2025 (95% range -0.04 to +0.05), about +0.1 °F in total. NCEI's published contiguous-U.S. series gives +0.18 °F per decade (range +0.12 to +0.23), about +2.3 °F in total. Of note NCEI's adjusted temperatures are lower than the actual readings in every single decade from the 1890s through the 1990s. To dig deeper into these continental US wide findings including please check out https://chescowx.com/raw-vs-ncei-co ntiguous-us/ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted Thursday at 01:57 PM Share Posted Thursday at 01:57 PM if data need to be corrected and aren't, the data are incorrect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM Share Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM 5 hours ago, Brewbeer said: if data need to be corrected and aren't, the data are incorrect "needs" to be "corrected" with estimated homogenization adjustments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted Thursday at 08:40 PM Share Posted Thursday at 08:40 PM 19 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: "needs" to be "corrected" with estimated homogenization adjustments "data" is the plural form of datum; the grammatically correct scientific usage is "need" the rest of your post is unsubstantiated, same as most of the posts you've made in the subforum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago In case anyone needs to know, the effect of bias adjustment on global average land temperatures is negligible. Why? Different parts of the world have different weather equipment histories with different biases. Net cooling bias in the US is balanced by warming bias elsewhere. Even in the US the effect of bias adjustment is relatively small compared to the warming experienced. Per Berkelely Earth charts below, bias adjustment warms the US by roughly 0.5C since 1850, which is 25-30% of the just under 2C warming since 1850 (US average warming is similar to global land average). The magnitude of the NCEI and Berkeley Earth bias adjustment for the US are similar. Why is the US different from the rest of the world? There are known sources of US bias, the largest being time of day bias. Another factor is the US reliance on volunteer observers. As lives changed, COOP stations moved or changed. Fortunately, the US has thousands of stations and the changes at individual changes occurred at different times. By intercomparing nearby US COOP stations, bias adjustment is very effective in identifying and correcting station changes. Finally note that Chesco is overestimating the effect of bias adjustment by not replicating NCEI's or Berkeley Earths methods. Main sources of error in his simple calculations: not accounting for changes in the station network with time, not removing the temperature difference between stations, and not accounting for the uneven grouping of stations. Depending on the area analyzed, these additional sources of error/bias can be as large or larger than bias adjustment. In contrast, Berkeley Earth and NCEI isolate the effect of bias adjustment by keeping all the other calculations the same when they compare bias adjustment and raw data cases. https://x.com/RARohde/status/1779044943501152416 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago https://papers.jcohler.com/keeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted 56 minutes ago Share Posted 56 minutes ago 1 hour ago, FPizz said: https://papers.jcohler.com/keeling The first sentence of that is broadly true, "The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and EPA state that essentially all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the pre-industrial era originates from fossil-fuel combustion" but is spun and too absolute. In other words, they're indicating the rise in CO₂, fossil-fuel emissions being the largest contributor, not the sole source. Example, NASA describes the long-term increase as primarily driven by burning coal. They are not saying all. That matters... Not sure if that forced interpretation is just a standard method in formulating arguments among the "paper vs paper" ambit - it could cultural. They lie about what the other says, very cleverly... What I also find immediately critical about this abstract is that it does not appear to include - if even aware of - the synergy in the whole system; where natural elements and events, happening in tandem with anthropomorphic contribution/adding of volatile chemistries are where the story becomes critical. There' mathematical model comes off as a sand-box in the middle of much bigger beach of wave actions. The Keeling may not be 1:1 ... Strikes as irrelevant. Which, they may be 100% correct in that confined consideration, but reality is a holistic result and problem. The mounting evidence suggest 1:1 is not required. We know that in the case of CC that is true. Because when mathematically calculating anthropomorphic contribution, and then mathematically calculating the natural order, the differential happens to equal the the last 120 years of climate change to a very close confidence interval. SO, quibble over the math scaling while the world ends ...okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted 8 minutes ago Share Posted 8 minutes ago The latest ChescoWx study is live on the website. The question we posed is below. Plus how much has (if at all) NCEI adjusted for any UHI impacts? The study design and supporting charts are available in greater detail on the site below. https://chescowx.com/phl-airport-vs-neighbors/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now