TheClimateChanger Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Although that post characterizes is this as one of the worst heat waves, I see no evidence of a worse heat wave in the history of Mexico. Dating back to 1975, May is currently running about 4F warmer than any previous month at Mexico City. March and April were both the warmest on record in that interval, and April had been the 3rd warmest of any month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 5 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said: Although that post characterizes is this as one of the worst heat waves, I see no evidence of a worse heat wave in the history of Mexico. Dating back to 1975, May is currently running about 4F warmer than any previous month at Mexico City. March and April were both the warmest on record in that interval, and April had been the 3rd warmest of any month. Maybe relative to climo ? ...I mean I don't know. Just askin' I can tell you that 113, certainly if repeating, is unusual for May even for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 On 5/25/2024 at 8:40 AM, TheClimateChanger said: Although that post characterizes is this as one of the worst heat waves, I see no evidence of a worse heat wave in the history of Mexico. Dating back to 1975, May is currently running about 4F warmer than any previous month at Mexico City. March and April were both the warmest on record in that interval, and April had been the 3rd warmest of any month. "In the next 10 to 15 days, the country will experience the highest temperatures ever recorded," researchers from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) said in a statement earlier this week. They called the heat wave "unprecedented." https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mexico-heat-wave-1.7214308 edit -good call: Mexico City recorded its highest-ever temperature on Saturday when thermometers hit 34.7 degrees Celsius (94.46 degrees Fahrenheit) as a deadly heatwave scorches the country. https://www.zawya.com/en/world/americas/mexico-city-records-highest-ever-temperature-of-347-c-g5y68e0n 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 Hmmm sounds a lot like little old Chester County PA...."Interest and concern continues to grow about the numerous retrospective adjustments that the U.K. Met Office has made to its global HadCRUT temperature database. Often the adjustments cool earlier periods going back to the 1930s and add warming in more recent times. The adjustments are of course most convenient in promoting the global warming narrative surrounding Net Zero fantasies. There is particular interest in the 0.15°C cooling inserted in the 1940s and the greater warming added in more recent decades. The scientific blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ) has recently returned to the story noting the state-controlled Met Office has “corrected” the data to “align with their narrative”. In suggesting a narrative, NTZ traces the adjustments back to the 2009 leak of ‘Climategate’ emails from academic staff at the University of East Anglia working on the HadCRUT project. In one email speculating on ‘correcting’ sea surface temperatures to partly explain the 1940s ‘warming blip’, it is noted that “if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15°C, then this would be significant for the global mean”. It would be good to “remove at least part of the 1940s blip”, it is suggested. Just as they have said they would do, comments NTZ, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 19 hours ago, ChescoWx said: Hmmm sounds a lot like little old Chester County PA...."Interest and concern continues to grow about the numerous retrospective adjustments that the U.K. Met Office has made to its global HadCRUT temperature database. Often the adjustments cool earlier periods going back to the 1930s and add warming in more recent times. The adjustments are of course most convenient in promoting the global warming narrative surrounding Net Zero fantasies. There is particular interest in the 0.15°C cooling inserted in the 1940s and the greater warming added in more recent decades. The scientific blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ) has recently returned to the story noting the state-controlled Met Office has “corrected” the data to “align with their narrative”. In suggesting a narrative, NTZ traces the adjustments back to the 2009 leak of ‘Climategate’ emails from academic staff at the University of East Anglia working on the HadCRUT project. In one email speculating on ‘correcting’ sea surface temperatures to partly explain the 1940s ‘warming blip’, it is noted that “if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15°C, then this would be significant for the global mean”. It would be good to “remove at least part of the 1940s blip”, it is suggested. Just as they have said they would do, comments NTZ, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years. Does sound like Chester County - deniers spreading misinformation. The changes to Hadcrut that are being criticized are: 1) very minor compared to the observed warming, and 2) completely justified as described in peer review papers (see blog article). You are repeating conspiracy theories we heard here a decade+ ago. They were silly then and even sillier now with no evidence of any conspiracy or technical shortcoming and warming continuing unabated. https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2024/05/26/rtfm/ 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Climate alarmists like to claim man is the cause of global warming. Well, in reality they are technically correct, as man keeps altering the temperature data to achieve their desired results to support warming.....but of course it is only paper warming -- and not reality as the actual raw data shows when you compare it to the altered data below. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdgwx Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 I'll repeat again...the net effect of all adjustments reduces the warming relative to the raw data. @ChescoWx since you refuse to accept to corrections for known biases in the temperature record does this mean you're going to start posting here about how the warming is even worse than scientists are reporting since they are adjusting a lot of it away? https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, bdgwx said: I'll repeat again...the net effect of all adjustments reduces the warming relative to the raw data. @ChescoWx since you refuse to accept to corrections for known biases in the temperature record does this mean you're going to start posting here about how the warming is even worse than scientists are reporting since they are adjusting a lot of away? https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/ ChescoWx doesn't even know where to find that "so-called" raw data he is posting. I'd like to see the actual raw data. Not a collection of numbers purporting to be raw data or a graphic somebody else created purporting to be based off of raw data. While you are correct that the net effect of the corrections is to reduce the global trend, I have serious doubts that the charts ChescoWx posted accurately depict any real data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: ChescoWx doesn't even know where to find that "so-called" raw data he is posting. I'd like to see the actual raw data. Not a collection of numbers purporting to be raw data or a graphic somebody else created purporting to be based off of raw data. While you are correct that the net effect of the corrections is to reduce the global trend, I have serious doubts that the charts ChescoWx posted accurately depict any real data. I keep posting the actual raw data vs the NCEI altered temperatures....can't make it much clear than that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, ChescoWx said: I keep posting the actual raw data vs the NCEI altered temperatures....can't make it much clear than that.... You didn't post any raw data above. You posted charts purporting to depict raw data generated from third parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdgwx Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 @ChescoWx The graph I posted above includes ALL adjustments. It is not limited to those required for the US stations. I'll ask my question again...does this mean you're going to start posting here about how the warming is even worse than scientists are reporting since they are adjusting a lot of it away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: You didn't post any raw data above. You posted charts purporting to depict raw data generated from third parties. Why aren't we allowed to see the actual raw observations which make up this "raw" data? Where are the Tokyo observations? That should be the easiest to manually reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 12 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: Why aren't we allowed to see the actual raw observations which make up this "raw" data? Where are the Tokyo observations? That should be the easiest to manually reproduce. Just what I suspected! There was a change in site location in 2015, where the inflection point occurs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Regardless, we can make a big hullabaloo over some adjustments to the recent record due to a site change. Or we can look at the bigger picture, and see an alarming warming trend of 2.4 degrees Celsius per century dating back to the 19th century. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: Regardless, we can make a big hullabaloo over some adjustments to the recent record due to a site change. Or we can look at the bigger picture, and see an alarming warming trend of 2.4 degrees Celsius per century dating back to the 19th century. Just for the record, this is the actual raw, unadjusted data. Nice of Tony to stop his analysis in 2021, but 2023 was warmest of record even with no adjustment for the recent site change. 2024 is shaping up to be the same. The reality is the adjustment looks substantial with two cherrypicked dates over a short timeframe but would almost certainly be negligible over the whole period of record. That's why he doesn't show the whole period of record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 20 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: I keep posting the actual raw data vs the NCEI altered temperatures....can't make it much clear than that.... No, you aren't posting any actual data. Your county "average" skews the actual data by not accounting for changes in station mix. Here's some actual data - your own house is warming faster than NOAA. Are you altering temperatures? or perhaps you have a heat island in your backyard. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 12 minutes ago, chubbs said: No, you aren't posting any actual data. Your county "average" skews the actual data by not accounting for changes in station mix. Here's some actual data - your own house is warming faster than NOAA. Are you altering temperatures? or perhaps you have a heat island in your backyard. To be honest, I don't really trust Chesco's weather data. With all the outlandish things he posts, it would be very easy for someone of his predilections to manipulate the data to show less warming. Holding a block of ice under the sensor on a couple of mornings each month to produce spuriously cool data, and gradually increasing the frequency of such manipulations, could largely erase the warming trend. I know, in the past, he has admitted these temperatures were measured from different devices over time. Now he claims the same equipment has been in place for two decades. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: To be honest, I don't really trust Chesco's weather data. With all the outlandish things he posts, it would be very easy for someone of his predilections to manipulate the data to show less warming. Holding a block of ice under the sensor on a couple of mornings each month to produce spuriously cool data, and gradually increasing the frequency of such manipulations, could largely erase the warming trend. I know, in the past, he has admitted these temperatures were measured from different devices over time. Now he claims the same equipment has been in place for two decades. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, based on the chart you shared, his data seems legit. But if it starts to deviate substantially from NOAA, I'm not going to believe him that there is a conspiracy to produce warming, I'm going to assume he is manipulating his readings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 10 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, based on the chart you shared, his data seems legit. But if it starts to deviate substantially from NOAA, I'm not going to believe him that there is a conspiracy to produce warming, I'm going to assume he is manipulating his readings. Yeah his data checks out vs NOAA. Its when he puts his data together with other stations that problems arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 6 hours ago, chubbs said: No, you aren't posting any actual data. Your county "average" skews the actual data by not accounting for changes in station mix. Here's some actual data - your own house is warming faster than NOAA. Are you altering temperatures? or perhaps you have a heat island in your backyard. LOL! Fortunately the actual data is as always available to show no greater warming at EN during our current warming cycle than with the post hoc Altered NOAA data below. With of course the expected warming adjustments clearly applied and shown with the Altered data below. Our well documented problems occur of course with the past cooling of the older data and the more recent warming of the later data to make it seem somehow like our current warmer cycle never happened in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 6 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said: To be honest, I don't really trust Chesco's weather data. With all the outlandish things he posts, it would be very easy for someone of his predilections to manipulate the data to show less warming. Holding a block of ice under the sensor on a couple of mornings each month to produce spuriously cool data, and gradually increasing the frequency of such manipulations, could largely erase the warming trend. I know, in the past, he has admitted these temperatures were measured from different devices over time. Now he claims the same equipment has been in place for two decades. Sorry ClimateChanger the same equipment has been used for almost 21 years,,,,,,no change in equipment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 19 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said: Regardless, we can make a big hullabaloo over some adjustments to the recent record due to a site change. Or we can look at the bigger picture, and see an alarming warming trend of 2.4 degrees Celsius per century dating back to the 19th century. I love the language of climate alarmists.....we "see an alarming warming trend" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 20 hours ago, ChescoWx said: Sorry ClimateChanger the same equipment has been used for almost 21 years,,,,,,no change in equipment No sane person on this earth trusts your data. It’s literally for your own entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 3 hours ago, TimB said: No sane person on this earth trusts your data. It’s literally for your own entertainment. LOL!!! Welp except for the folks at The NWS who have recommended me and my observations as a trusted observer to local news outlets including the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chester County News outlets..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 3 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said: Looks like you were right @ChescoWx, they are lying about the temperature increase. Just in the opposite direction that you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 55 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said: Looks like you were right @ChescoWx, they are lying about the temperature increase. Just in the opposite direction that you claim. LOL!! you must have misread that article as it further supports the fact that man keeps chilling the past in this case with "tree ring data" to amplify the current warmer cycle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 With the first month of summer almost here I thought I would rank the hottest summers (June thru August) on record since 1895. The actual averages below actually show that 80% of the hottest summers all occurred prior to the year 2000 (yellow highlights). With 50% of the hottest summer prior to 1960. However, take a look at how different this analysis looks if we allow the altering of the data by NOAA/NCEI. With those after the fact adjustments we now suddenly have 60% of the hottest summers just since 2000 and 9 of the top 10 warmest summers just since Y2K!! Keep in mind these adjusted/altered numbers will be what you see on your local and national TV outlets when they tell you how much hotter our summers are getting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 Nice article below on the rationale and then highlight the "problem" with these post obs adjustments. https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-climate-data 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 https://x.com/RyanMaue/status/1796205985486295239?t=Km8tWolznOV-q8zxpluf6g&s=19 1 1 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