Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,541
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Gonzalez Brittany
    Newest Member
    Gonzalez Brittany
    Joined

E PA/NJ/DE Fall 2023 OBS/Discussion Thread


Rtd208
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Birds~69 said:

Thing is, if you don't take it down it will rain/wind and fly in the neighbors yard then you'll have to take a humiliating walk to retrieve it. Other neighbors will look out the window and giggle. I had to fetch many trashcans half way down the block/neighbors yard...

72F/DP 65F

 

LOL  I have had my shopping cart full of groceries do that in the parking lot of a supermarket. :lol:  Had to run like a crazy woman to grab it before it slammed into someone's car.

And yeah - I remember when my Wyndmoor sis had neglected to put her umbrella down and with it being on a south-facing backyard deck with a relatively unobstructed west side of the property, it managed to not only get lofted, but blown along the side of the house to the front, and then out into the street where it tumbled further down the street propelled by the west to east gusts. My niece had to race to chase it down. :P

My lightning detector picked up convection between midnight and 2 am, although it wasn't as nuts as I have seen it in the past but was still frequent indicating nearby cells (it has a range of about a 20 mile radius).  Still.. there was ZILCH in the rain department.

Anyway, so far my low this morning has been 71 and it's currently a cloudy 73 with dp 67.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We picked up 0.26" between both rounds of rain last night...much more fell to the west of Chesco. Showers and t-storm chances will continue through the weekend...not a washout but keep those umbrellas handy. We do need the rain. Yesterday should be the last time this year most spots in the county see a 90 degree reading. Here in East Nantmeal we failed to exceed 90 degrees for the 2nd straight summer. This is the 4th time in my 20 years of local observations in EN that we did not reach 90 even rounded in a summer.
Records for today: High 95 (1939) / Low 40 (1984) / Rain 5.36" (1987)
image.png.d3d9517e46de231c09c7dea81d240421.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:
We picked up 0.26" between both rounds of rain last night...much more fell to the west of Chesco. Showers and t-storm chances will continue through the weekend...not a washout but keep those umbrellas handy. We do need the rain. Yesterday should be the last time this year most spots in the county see a 90 degree reading. Here in East Nantmeal we failed to exceed 90 degrees for the 2nd straight summer. This is the 4th time in my 20 years of local observations in EN that we did not reach 90 even rounded in a summer.
Records for today: High 95 (1939) / Low 40 (1984) / Rain 5.36" (1987)
image.png.d3d9517e46de231c09c7dea81d240421.png

your station is nestled in a bunch of trees. of course you're not hitting 90. lol

Image

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

your station is nestled in a bunch of trees. of course you're not hitting 90. lol

Image

Not only that, but you have to question the "statistical tests" he did to confirm the compatibility of his numbers with those of Coatesville and earlier sites in the county.

image.png.31a979ed102c262184c6ed0f9edf8ed5.png

Difference between these numbers for JJA and those for PHL in recent decades:

1982: PHL was 73.0, or 3.2 warmer

1985: PHL was 72.8, or 3.0 warmer

1986: PHL was 75.3, or 3.8 warmer

1992: PHL was 73.9, or 4.9 warmer

1997: PHL was 74.1, or 3.6 warmer

2000: PHL was 73.5, or 3.1 warmer

2004: PHL was 74.4, or 4.0 warmer

2009: PHL was 75.1, or 5.1 warmer

2014: PHL was 75.7, or 6.0 warmer

2023: PHL was 75.8, or 5.5 warmer

In the years shown from 1982 to 2004, PHL averaged 3.7F warmer than the co-op site. In the three years since (2009, 2014, 2023), PHL has averaged 5.5F warmer than his figures for East Nantmeal. The only year somewhat comparable difference is 1992, when PHL averaged 4.9F warmer than the co-op site. I suspect that is related to the warm-biased HO-83 hygrothermometer that was in use at first order sites at the time.

Since he's started adding his observations to create an "official" time series, the difference between the sites has jumped nearly 2.0F. Obviously, there was no massive increase in UHI in a single year. This would not pass any legitimate statistical scrutiny. If you use the real numbers, the trend is largely the same in recent decades.

 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

your station is nestled in a bunch of trees. of course you're not hitting 90. lol

Image

Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.

There's no way that's set back anywhere near four times the height of those trees.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"yawn"

I started arguing with Paul over on Phillywx and the thread got locked. I'm a middle-of-the-roader who scoffs at the ridiculousness of both sides these days. The world isn't going to end from human-induced climate change, but adding CO2 does cause warming. Chester County might not be warming, but Paul's methods are, to put it bluntly, grossly inappropriate, so his so called "non-warming" trends are completely untrustworthy. The fact his signature file is novel-length and totally related his anti-climate change stance is proof enough that his opinions are biased.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

There's no way that's set back anywhere near four times the height of those trees.

Guidelines indicate when possible....but when typical of the surrounding area it is appropriate it is good to go.

I have multiple thermometers across my property including a poorly sited rooftop station and they are all statistically the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, famartin said:

"yawn"

I started arguing with Paul over on Phillywx and the thread got locked. I'm a middle-of-the-roader who scoffs at the ridiculousness of both sides these days. The world isn't going to end from human-induced climate change, but adding CO2 does cause warming. Chester County might not be warming, but Paul's methods are, to put it bluntly, grossly inappropriate, so his so called "non-warming" trends are completely untrustworthy. The fact his signature file is novel-length and totally related his anti-climate change stance is proof enough that his opinions are biased.

As we have stated often - the statistical data analytics on my data has proven the data to be statistically valid based on the p-values....it cannot be that close based on chance -hence why we do statistical analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Not only that, but you have to question the "statistical tests" he did to confirm the compatibility of his numbers with those of Coatesville and earlier sites in the county.

image.png.31a979ed102c262184c6ed0f9edf8ed5.png

Difference between these numbers for JJA and those for PHL in recent decades:

1982: PHL was 73.0, or 3.2 warmer

1985: PHL was 72.8, or 3.0 warmer

1986: PHL was 75.3, or 3.8 warmer

1992: PHL was 73.9, or 4.9 warmer

1997: PHL was 74.1, or 3.6 warmer

2000: PHL was 73.5, or 3.1 warmer

2004: PHL was 74.4, or 4.0 warmer

2009: PHL was 75.1, or 5.1 warmer

2014: PHL was 75.7, or 6.0 warmer

2023: PHL was 75.8, or 5.5 warmer

In the years shown from 1982 to 2004, PHL averaged 3.7F warmer than the co-op site. In the three years since (2009, 2014, 2023), PHL has averaged 5.5F warmer than his figures for East Nantmeal. The only year somewhat comparable difference is 1992, when PHL averaged 4.9F warmer than the co-op site. I suspect that is related to the warm-biased HO-83 hygrothermometer that was in use at first order sites at the time.

Since he's started adding his observations to create an "official" time series, the difference between the sites has jumped nearly 2.0F. Obviously, there was no massive increase in UHI in a single year. This would not pass any legitimate statistical scrutiny. If you use the real numbers, the trend is largely the same.

 

But we actually did statistically prove and validate the data....can't say much more than that....it is what it is and certainly the best we have for this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChescoWx said:

As we have stated often - the statistical data analytics on my data has proven the data to be statistically valid based on the p-values....it cannot be that close based on chance -hence why we do statistical analysis.

Paul, its just not. Sorry. You are just dead wrong. Honestly if I had my way I'd ban you from discussing this subject here and at Phillywx.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, famartin said:

"yawn"

I started arguing with Paul over on Phillywx and the thread got locked. I'm a middle-of-the-roader who scoffs at the ridiculousness of both sides these days. The world isn't going to end from human-induced climate change, but adding CO2 does cause warming. Chester County might not be warming, but Paul's methods are, to put it bluntly, grossly inappropriate, so his so called "non-warming" trends are completely untrustworthy. The fact his signature file is novel-length and totally related his anti-climate change stance is proof enough that his opinions are biased.

Ray - anti-climate change huh? I am the biggest believer in cyclical climate change as you know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, famartin said:

Paul, its just not. Sorry. You are just dead wrong. Honestly if I had my way I'd ban you from discussing this subject here and at Phillywx.

I do NOT want to discuss this as we have proven the data and beaten this topic to death! I never discuss it unless someone decides to question the statistical validity of the data presented. If you don't mention it - either will I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChescoWx said:

I do NOT want to discuss this as we have proven the data and beaten this topic to death! I never discuss it unless someone decides to question the statistical validity of the data presented. If you don't mention it - either will I

Paul your method is clearly wrong. Besides the poor measurement quality of your own data (way too shaded, does that station EVER get in the sun?), being over 300 feet above West Chester means all comparisons between West Chester and your house are garbage, unless you make a SIGNIFICANT downward adjustment with the West Chester data or a significant UPWARD adjustment of your house. Honestly, the fact you refuse to believe that shows just how either uneducated or biased you are. Like I said, the lack of sense in your posts would have me ban you from the subject, if I had my way. You're either grossly uneducated or grossly trying to support a biased view. Either way, it has no place here.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TimB said:

People with too much time on their hands probably should use it for good instead of silly little side quests like disproving climate change by setting up a weather station in such a way that the data is clearly manipulated.

Tim climate change is a fact and cannot be disproven! The Chester County data clearly supports cyclical climate change!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Ray - anti-climate change huh? I am the biggest believer in cyclical climate change as you know....

That's not what I mean, and you know it. You are staunchly against human-induced change. In any case, I wish you would just be-gone. Seeing your drivel here is infuriating.

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Guidelines indicate when possible....but when typical of the surrounding area it is appropriate it is good to go.

I have multiple thermometers across my property including a poorly sited rooftop station and they are all statistically the same.

Not busting but that rooftop station must be hotter than the lawn station. I remember going on rooftops in the summer and it was blazing up there on a sunny day...

80F/DP 72F 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Birds~69 said:

Not busting but that rooftop station must be hotter than the lawn station. I remember going on rooftops in the summer and it was blazing up there on a sunny day...

80F/DP 72F 

It is hotter on hot sunny days but also runs a bit cooler at night and generally evens out statistically with the other stations on my property

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, famartin said:

That's not what I mean, and you know it. You are staunchly against human-induced change. In any case, I wish you would just be-gone. Seeing your drivel here is infuriating.

They don't bring it up again and I won't either - I simply will report the data without commentary or "drivel"

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...