Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

LOL!! "quality sites" meaning those that disagree with your NWS Climate sites including both PHL and ILG Heat Island impacted stations and of course add in those after the fact chilling adjustments to the past and warming tweaks to the current data. Quite the different look from the above for Chester County if we don't make warming adjustments to the actual current data. Regarding the sites in more detail yes there was as a % more lower elevation sites in the past....which likely skewed those results too warm...even though they were in fact the warmest decades. The good news is we now have a good balance and mix that as long as we keep breaking it out by elevation will clearly show the non-adjusted factual real world warming or cooling depending on the current climate change cycle.

You are giving us the Tony Heller denial explanation: Urban Heat Island, bias adjustment, blah, blah, blah. 

Why would the heat island effects at Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Wilmington and Allentown all be the same? Seems very unlikely. The airports are all different, with different levels of urbanization and airport growth. And you have zero evidence to support your UHI assertion. Even more unlikely the bias adjustments for Chester County are the same as the UHI impacts at the regional airports. But wait there is more. The raw temperature measured at Coatesville and East Nantmeal (Chescowx) agree with the airports and NOAA. Whats the problem in your own data? Urban heat Island or is it bias adjustment?

No there's a much simpler explanation. Chesco is warming and your latest data concoction is way off. The reason is in your comment Regarding the sites in more detail yes there was as a % more lower elevation sites in the past....which likely skewed those results too warm  Finally there is something we can agree on. But its more than elevation. As outlined above multiple factors have skewed your station mix.

 

[ChescoWx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Wow that's lame. West and east aren't critical? Where's the evidence? That's not what your website says: “The National Weather Service split out this zone (PAZ101) from the lower elevations seen across most of Eastern Chester County (PAZ102) a few years ago to better distinguish the climate differences attributed to relative elevation and more inland location from the Atlantic Ocean.” Temperature is a variable that isn't impacted by elevation? Are you kidding? And you completely overlooked north in your comment. Are you denying that north, west and elevated are colder in Chester County?

Finally as I showed above your elevation split is inadequate to remove bias. The new 550+ stations added after 2000 have many fewer 90+ days than the pre-2000 stations.There are other factors besides elevation which impact the station temperatures and skew the results. Without properly accounting for station differences you are cooking the books. You assertions are to the contrary are worthless without evidence.

We have accounted for both the East Zone 102 with 12 of the 17 historical/current stations at the lower elevations typical of this zone. While we have 8 of the 9 stations in the West Zone 101 at the higher elevations typical of this NWS zone splits.

So let's look at how the annual average temperature (raw and of course not adjusted) has run from 1893 to 2023. (blue lower / orange higher) Does anyone see a climate crisis in these annual average temperatures in Chester County PA? A mighty cyclical and relatively flat trend for sure!

[TimB]

The word “relatively” is doing some heavy lifting there.

[chubbs]

On 5/18/2024 at 10:15 AM, ChescoWx said:

We have accounted for both the East Zone 102 with 12 of the 17 historical/current stations at the lower elevations typical of this zone. While we have 8 of the 9 stations in the West Zone 101 at the higher elevations typical of this NWS zone splits.

So let's look at how the annual average temperature (raw and of course not adjusted) has run from 1893 to 2023. (blue lower / orange higher) Does anyone see a climate crisis in these annual average temperatures in Chester County PA? A mighty cyclical and relatively flat trend for sure!

As usual you aren't addressing the issue. The station network has shifted north and west to higher and colder locations. Whether you acknowledge or not, the facts are clear from your station list. Even if station locations weren't shifting. Your analysis method of simply averaging station data skews the results. Stations can differ for a variety of reasons: sun exposure, degree of urbanization, vegetation, terrain slopes, etc. In any climate analysis of weather station data, differences between stations needs to be accounted for to remove station mix effects. You aren't doing it, so you are getting the wrong answer.

The elevated group is a good example of the bias you are building in. I have data for 5 of the 7 stations. The other 2 only started in 2014 so don't have a big influence. Below is a plot showing linear temperature trends at the 5 individual stations and the linear trend for the 5-station average. Easy to see that simply averaging the raw data for these 5 stations biases the result. The 2 older stations, Glenmoore and Honey Brook, are warmer than the newer stations, Coatesville 2W, East Nantmeal and KMQS. This can be seen by comparing periods when one or more old and new stations are both in operation.

All 5 stations have warming trends, with the most rapid warming in the three newer stations, which are warming as fast or faster than NOAA.  Yet because they are cooler than the older stations, the 3 new stations cool the 5-station average when they start operation and enter the dataset. As a result the trend-line of the average of the 5 stations is completely flat. Despite the fact that temperatures are increasing at every single station.

The relatively flat lines or lack of warming that you are getting is merely an artifact of the analysis method and doesn't reflect the underlying data. You aren't producing any evidence about Chester County's climate, NOAA, or the Philadelphia Airport. Instead you showing how to introduce bias in the analysis of weather station data, i.e., how not to analyze data.

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

As usual you aren't addressing the issue. The station network has shifted north and west to higher and colder locations. Whether you acknowledge or not, the facts are clear from your station list. Even if station locations weren't shifting. Your analysis method of simply averaging station data skews the results. Stations can differ for a variety of reasons: sun exposure, degree of urbanization, vegetation, terrain slopes, etc. In any climate analysis of weather station data, differences between stations needs to be accounted for to remove station mix effects. You aren't doing it, so you are getting the wrong answer.

The elevated group is a good example of the bias you are building in. I have data for 5 of the 7 stations. The other 2 only started in 2014 so don't have a big influence. Below is a plot showing linear temperature trends at the 5 individual stations and the linear trend for the 5-station average. Easy to see that simply averaging the raw data for these 5 stations biases the result. The 2 older stations, Glenmoore and Honey Brook, are warmer than the newer stations, Coatesville 2W, East Nantmeal and KMQS. This can be seen by comparing periods when one or more old and new stations are both in operation.

All 5 stations have warming trends, with the most rapid warming in the three newer stations, which are warming as fast or faster than NOAA.  Yet because they are cooler than the older stations, the 3 new stations cool the 5-station average when they start operation and enter the dataset. As a result the trend-line of the average of the 5 stations is completely flat. Despite the fact that temperatures are increasing at every single station.

The relatively flat lines or lack of warming that you are getting is merely an artifact of the analysis method and doesn't reflect the underlying data. You aren't producing any evidence about Chester County's climate, NOAA, or the Philadelphia Airport. Instead you showing how to introduce bias in the analysis of weather station data, i.e., how not to analyze data.

Sure which is why we would never simply use those or any 5 individual stations in doing this kind of county wide analysis. For the complete view and analysis see the all station review below laid over those 3 newer stations with the most warming. We start with 1983 when the newest station Coatesville 2W came on line. As we would expect since much of the last 40 years are part of the current warming cycle the all station data shows some warming albeit very slight and nothing alarming.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Sure which is why we would never simply use those or any 5 individual stations in doing this kind of county wide analysis. For the complete view and analysis see the all station review below laid over those 3 newer stations with the most warming. We start with 1983 when the newest station Coatesville 2W came on line. As we would expect since much of the last 40 years are part of the current warming cycle the all station data shows some warming albeit very slight and nothing alarming.

You are completely missing the point. That's just another example of how the county average you are producing doesn't match the individual station data.

 

[rcostell]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

You are completely missing the point. That's just another example of how the county average you are producing doesn't match the individual station data.

 

Chubbs-  I don't think he's missing the point... I think he's ignoring it, as he seems too entrenched and can't seem to figuratively "get his head out of the ostrich hole of denialism."  (The euphemism  "current warming cycle"  is inserted often to further line the walls of the ostrich hole).  You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink- the trick is to make it thirsty...  your attempts at "making the horse thirsty" seem to be falling on deaf ears. Unfortunately, climate change will be making us ALL thirstier in months/years to come.  Some will only drink when that happens.   Perhaps time to move on and ignore the outliers?    

[TheClimateChanger]

On 5/18/2024 at 5:12 AM, chubbs said:

You are giving us the Tony Heller denial explanation: Urban Heat Island, bias adjustment, blah, blah, blah. 

Why would the heat island effects at Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Wilmington and Allentown all be the same? Seems very unlikely. The airports are all different, with different levels of urbanization and airport growth. And you have zero evidence to support your UHI assertion. Even more unlikely the bias adjustments for Chester County are the same as the UHI impacts at the regional airports. But wait there is more. The raw temperature measured at Coatesville and East Nantmeal (Chescowx) agree with the airports and NOAA. Whats the problem in your own data? Urban heat Island or is it bias adjustment?

No there's a much simpler explanation. Chesco is warming and your latest data concoction is way off. The reason is in your comment Regarding the sites in more detail yes there was as a % more lower elevation sites in the past....which likely skewed those results too warm  Finally there is something we can agree on. But its more than elevation. As outlined above multiple factors have skewed your station mix.

 

We really need to cut all the urban heat island nonsense out. When Elkins, West Virginia, a remote, very rural town at 2,000 feet elevation and a location that historically averages 80" of snow each year, has average winter temperatures that easily exceed those of 19th Century and early 20th century Washington, D.C. [basically sea level], urban heat island effect is not a significant factor.

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, rcostell said:

Chubbs-  I don't think he's missing the point... I think he's ignoring it, as he seems too entrenched and can't seem to figuratively "get his head out of the ostrich hole of denialism."  (The euphemism  "current warming cycle"  is inserted often to further line the walls of the ostrich hole).  You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink- the trick is to make it thirsty...  your attempts at "making the horse thirsty" seem to be falling on deaf ears. Unfortunately, climate change will be making us ALL thirstier in months/years to come.  Some will only drink when that happens.   Perhaps time to move on and ignore the outliers?    

Only climate alarmists like our friend rcostell and others with that shared view will look at any of these numbers with fear. What they of course represent in reality are simple minor cyclical changes. Well that is unless you apply post hoc adjustments to cool the past but that of course does not cut it. I love the fear mongering of rcostell  " climate change will make us all thirstier" blah blah blah. When will any true climate impact or event ever come to pass? When all else fails as he says just ignore the outliers....because he like many of the misled believe somehow this science is settled! of course it is far far from it! I will continue to post only the factual actual climate data for the county I live in. We have more NWS/MADIS sites than ever and if this our current warming cycle some how continues without end and ever shows some sort of scary warming or cooling....these stations will no doubt show that over the coming decades. Be patient my friends!!

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

We really need to cut all the urban heat island nonsense out. When Elkins, West Virginia, a remote, very rural town at 2,000 feet elevation and a location that historically averages 80" of snow each year, has average winter temperatures that easily exceed those of 19th Century and early 20th century Washington, D.C. [basically sea level], urban heat island effect is not a significant factor.

So ClimateChanger please show us what the Elkins, West Virginia average winter temperature was from 1250 through 1750 and how much different it is? We will wait since you highlight that site with how many years of data for the climate period of 100 to 1880 AD???

[ChescoWx]

On 5/18/2024 at 2:59 PM, TimB said:

The word “relatively” is doing some heavy lifting there.

The relative rate of warming and cooling is clearly very un-alarming no doubt to your great dismay!!

[rcostell]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404766121

46 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Only climate alarmists like our friend rcostell and others with that shared view will look at any of these numbers with fear. What they of course represent in reality are simple minor cyclical changes. Well that is unless you apply post hoc adjustments to cool the past but that of course does not cut it. I love the fear mongering of rcostell  " climate change will make us all thirstier" blah blah blah. When will any true climate impact or event ever come to pass? When all else fails as he says just ignore the outliers....because he like many of the misled believe somehow this science is settled! of course it is far far from it! I will continue to post only the factual actual climate data for the county I live in. We have more NWS/MADIS sites than ever and if this our current warming cycle some how continues without end and ever shows some sort of scary warming or cooling....these stations will no doubt show that over the coming decades. Be patient my friends!!

I just read and draw logical data driven conclusions on a larger scale than your micro plot. One example of evidence attached below.  Facts.  Take care out there. 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404766121

[TimB]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

So ClimateChanger please show us what the Elkins, West Virginia average winter temperature was from 1250 through 1750 and how much different it is? We will wait since you highlight that site with how many years of data for the climate period of 100 to 1880 AD???

This sounds smart, but isn’t.

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, TimB said:

This sounds smart, but isn’t.

How could it be smart when he knows there is no available data from that period?  But comparing it to DC from a more recent period is smart, because a mountainous location should never be warmer than DC and the fact that it is, indicates a global, not local, effect.

[ChescoWx]

14 hours ago, TimB said:

This sounds smart, but isn’t.

Because we do not have any of that actual temperature data....

[ChescoWx]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

How could it be smart when he knows there is no available data from that period?  But comparing it to DC from a more recent period is smart, because a mountainous location should never be warmer than DC and the fact that it is, indicates a global, not local, effect.

So how about we compare another 100 year analysis between those 2 sites say 400 years ago to see if there is a pattern in there.....or just a cyclical time period we are looking at here that has actually happened before?

[TheClimateChanger]

Can somebody help me find the 3-12C urban heat island effect? I'm having a lot of trouble finding it in the actual data.

 

[TimB]

45 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Because we do not have any of that actual temperature data....

We have to work with the data we have, but if we had data back through 1250 and it still showed a warming trend, you’d ask “bUt WhAt AbOuT bEfOrE 1250?????” 

[TheClimateChanger]

19 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Can somebody help me find the 3-12C urban heat island effect? I'm having a lot of trouble finding it in the actual data.

 

I'm just not seeing it. Here is some data for the year to date from the Mid Atlantic. It's almost like temperatures vary pretty consistently with latitude and elevation, and any impact from population is pretty small (maybe a degree or so). Population figures given are for the county or district in which the airport is located [I used Loudon County for IAD, which spans two counties]. Where is this 3 to 12C figure coming from?

[FPizz]

3 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I'm just not seeing it. Here is some data for the year to date from the Mid Atlantic. It's almost like temperatures vary pretty consistently with latitude and elevation, and any impact from population is pretty small (maybe a degree or so). Population figures given are for the county or district in which the airport is located [I used Loudon County for IAD, which spans two counties]. Where is this 3 to 12C figure coming from?

One search that took 2 seconds. Tons of results.  This is just one.  Maybe you don't know how to Google correctly?

https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-built-environment-temperature-increase-12-degrees/

[TheClimateChanger]

5 minutes ago, FPizz said:

One search that took 2 seconds. Tons of results.  This is just one.  Maybe you don't know how to Google correctly?

https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-built-environment-temperature-increase-12-degrees/

Lol. 12 degrees of urban heat island effect in Philly. Yet it's only 7 degrees warmer than the coldest spot in the entire state, at over 2,000 feet elevation near the New York border. Maybe if you are measuring the temperature of asphalt and rooftop, but I'm still having trouble verifying this from actual data. I can believe your article or I can look at actual data that shows it is BS.

Bradford

Philadelphia

 

[TheClimateChanger]

The mean temperature at Philadelphia would have to be like 60F already if there was a 12F UHI. That's a bunch of nonsense.

[bdgwx]

Wow...

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Can somebody help me find the 3-12C urban heat island effect? I'm having a lot of trouble finding it in the actual data.

 

 

Let's assume it's 12 C with urban areas covering 3% of the service area of Earth. That's a 12 C * 0.03 = 0.35 C influence on the global average temperature. It would be significant for sure, but still not even close to the remaining 1.0+ C of additional warming. So no, it is NOT an order of magnitude larger than greenhouse gas warming that's assuming it really is 12 C everywhere (it obviously isn't). Furthermore, the urban heat island effect (not to be confused with the bias) is a real phenomenon so it should be included in the global average temperature. Finally, it's an anthropogenic influence so the distinction between it and GHG warming seems moot in the context of the point Ryan was trying to make.

BTW...Dr. Spencer UHI analysis suggests an influence on the global average temperature at around 0.03 C.

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Lol. 12 degrees of urban heat island effect in Philly. Yet it's only 7 degrees warmer than the coldest spot in the entire state, at over 2,000 feet elevation near the New York border. Maybe if you are measuring the temperature of asphalt and rooftop, but I'm still having trouble verifying this from actual data. I can believe your article or I can look at actual data that shows it is BS.

Bradford

Philadelphia

 

There are several issues that get mixed together. First, the global temperatures didn’t really begin to rise at a faster pace until emissions started accelerating around 1980. Large US urban centers like Philly haven’t seen that much expansion of the heat island in the downtown areas since then. This is why the NWS office in Mount Holly outside the Philly city heat island has seen the same amount of temperature rise since they moved out there in 1994 as the Philadelphia International airport. So all the rise over this period is due to the big global temperature increase. There are areas in China with new cities that have been built since 1980 so they get have a compound issue of global warming and heat island expansion. There are some US cities in the SW like Phoenix and Las Vegas that have seen major population booms and also have heat island expansion and global warming. Our part of the country has had major urbanization for over 100 years and city center populations have leveled off.

Second, there are UHI studies that solely focus on satellite pavement temperatures and not the 2m temperatures the meteorological community looks at. So those very big 12° to 20° differences cited are the actual ground temp and not the cooler 2m temps. Sometimes the city and countryside can be more than 10° apart on nights with radiational cooling. But this effect has been consistent for nearly 100 years or more around our big cities so it’s nothing new. What’s new is the acceleration of global temperatures since 1980. 

[Typhoon Tip]

We don't have an Antarctic ice -related thread going, but I thought this was interesting re the Thwaites status

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-satellite-radar-uncover-vigorous-antarctica.html

[rcostell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

We don't have an Antarctic ice -related thread going, but I thought this was interesting re the Thwaites status

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-satellite-radar-uncover-vigorous-antarctica.html

Tip- See link in my last post, above. 

[Typhoon Tip]

6 hours ago, rcostell said:

Tip- See link in my last post, above. 

Yeah, thanks. Phys.org is a great site to get the quick and dirty. They do paraphrasing and they always cite the source - they are clean.  
 

great minds 

[rcostell]

Yeah, thanks. Phys.org is a great site to get the quick and dirty. They do paraphrasing and they always cite the source - they are clean.  
 
great minds 

The work wrt Thwaites is disconcerting… Florida insurance rates just further lifted off…that’s the least of it.


.

[ChescoWx]

Spring Average Temps Actual vs Adjusted NCEI since 1893 - Who sees the climate crisis in Chester County PA? Thankfully the NCEI adjusted figures do show a warming trend.....without those adjustments....not so much!!

[TheClimateChanger]