Newsbytes from The Global Warming Policy Foundation and Dr. Benny Peiser
The idea that China is to blame for the global temperature standstill does not stand up. It is a fact that in a world where CO2 is increasing year by year, the world’s temperature has not increased. The cause remains a mystery and nobody knows how long it will continue. It might seem an obvious thing to say but the credibility of global warming science rests on the fact that global warming has to resume. If it doesn’t happen fairly soon, then some of our assumptions about the science will need rethinking. –- GWPF, David Whitehouse, 14 July 2011
The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change. —The Local, 13 July 2011
The worst drought to hit the Horn of Africa in more than 60 years is likely the result of strong seasonal weather phenomenon in the region, scientists say. The United Nations’ humanitarian news agency IRIN notes that global climate change isn’t the likely culprit. —UPI, 13 July 2011
The GWPF apologises to all members and others trying to access our website late Tuesday 12 and all day Wednesday 13 July. The website was experiencing problems and was therefore offline. These have now been resolved.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mark and two Cats says:
July 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm
“It might seem an obvious thing to say but the credibility of global warming science rests on the fact that global warming has to resume. If it doesn’t happen fairly soon, then some of our assumptions about the science will need rethinking. –- GWPF, David Whitehouse, 14 July 2011″
____
Hmmm…let’s see, 2010 was one of the top 2 or 3 warmest years on instrument record, and the decade just completed was the warmest decade on record. How is it that warming has to resume quickly? I would say, if 2010-2019 as a decade is not warmer than 2000-2009, then we might begin to question where the warming has gone.
Bart says: “like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge had a structural resonance at about 0.25 Hz which led to its collapse.”
This persistent myth has been bashed into the heads of students for so long, you probably have no idea how bad your textbooks mislead you. Resonance had nothing to do with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse:
http://www.ketchum.org/billah/Billah-Scanlan.pdf
The problem with this notion is that the frequency of the destructive mode does NOT match the actual situation involved with the vortex shedding from the 42 mph wind on the structure NOR was it a natural mode of the structure itself. So the resonance theory just doesn’t hold up.
I’ve done this calculation on another thread. The rough equivalent is that one hour’s average solar irradience is equal to the total global annual energy useage by human beings.
It seems to be a standstill but there has been slight cooling.
R. Gates says:
July 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“….The green house effect has not much to do with the energy IN CO2, but rather, how much energy CO2 can absorb and re-emit virtually instantly, redirecting some of the LW radiation that otherwise would be escaping out to space, back toward earth or toward other green house gas molecules. So it isn’t a matter of how much energy CO2 stores or has in each molecule of gas, but how much is up there to re-direct some LW back toward earth. So the more CO2, NO2, CH4, and water vapor there is in the atmosphere, the less LW escapes into space, and the bigger the change in the net energy balance…i.e. the planet warms.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mr Gates, I understand the general backradiation point, namely that every object at a temperature above absolute zero emits an IR radiation signal and that CHGs, absorb IR emitted from the surface and then re-radiate some of this absorbed IR radiation and it is inevitable that approximately 50% of this re-radiate IR radiation is radiated downwards towards the surface.
The problem I have and one which I hope that you may be able to help me with is the precise practical effect of this. If one evenning when the ambient air temperature is about 8 degC I have a BBQ. I stand over the BBQ cooking the food and it is so very hot that I have to take off my shirt. Whilst cooking, I get out my IR thermometer and point it at the BBQ. It reads 400 degC. I step back a foot from the BBQ and the IR thermometer still reads 400 degC. I step back a further few feet so that I now about 4 feet from the BBQ. My IR thermoter still reads 400 degC but I am now beginning to feel very cold, after all the air temp is only 8 degC. I could step back 500 feet from the BBQ and provided my IR thermometer was sensitive enough, it would still read 400 deg C. The point I make is that the effect of the IR radiation wears off very quickly over distance. The BBQ may be radiating IR photons at 400 deg C but within a foot or so, they have little effect. Indeed, this is why I have to cook my food 9 inches above the coals in the the BBQ so the heat gets to the food by convection. I cannot cook my food 9 inches from the side of the BBQ not withstanding that my IR thermoter tells me it is 400 deg C there. Quite simply, it is not very hot there at the side.
It appears to me, leaving aside the controversial points as to whether hot can go to cold etc,, the fact is that radiation is a weak source and is completely dwarfed by convection. In the real world (ie., not what the IR thermoter may say when pointing up at the sky), how much back radiated IR having real energy truly reaches the ground.
Is it not the case that as the backradiation lets say from 5,000 feet when making its way back towards the ground, thermalises with other atoms/photons at say 4,999 ft which causes these to heat and convection carries them/this heat upwards (eventually right through to the top of the atmosphere where they are radiated to space). Of course, I accept that not all the back radiated photons from 5,000 ft will thermalise nor those that do will thermalize within the first 1 foot of their downward journey. Some may make it to 4,998 ft when again there will be warming and convection which will take over and carry this heat upwards. Of course I accept that some of the backradiation will make it down to 4,997 ft before thermalisation causing heating which heat will be carried upwards by convection.. This process will carry on with ever dwindling amounts of backradiation finding its way down to the surface and convection will have carried away the heat generated by each successive thermalisation event.
I cannot see that over the distances we are talking about, this backradiation has any warming effect or even slows down the cooling from the earth. In my BBQ example, my rate of cooling is not significantly reduced once I am more that a 2 or 3 feet from the BBQ because radiation is such a weak force and conduction and convection much stronger.
Away from the laboratory model and in the real world in which we live there are far more powerful forces at work such that DWLWIR from relatively high up in the atmoshere has no or little practical effect.
May be I am not understanding something and I would therefore appreciate your views.
Can someone provide a link to Jim Hansen’s views on those who say “Global Warming can be mitigated by building more coal fired power stations”?
It most definately is not Chinas fault that global temperature have not risen, and neither is it CO2’s fault that they rose in the first place. There isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to get the job done, either way. Mans burning of fossil fuels has not significantly increased the density or volume of Earths atmosphere. What we did do is replace a trace amount of O2 with CO2 plus H20 and heat energy (which was stored Solar Energy) that then radiated out to space.
To richard verney:
Regarding the LW radiation from greenhouse gases:
Richard, one of the model predictions from global climate models is that night time temperatures will be showing steady increases across the globe as a result of increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Though AGW skeptics will not like to mention this little fact, as some are expecting some pending ice age, in 2010, some 37 states set night time high temperature records. In fact, there were more night time high temperature records than day time. See this article for more:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/37-states-set-nighttime-high-temperature-records-this-summer.php
Now, why would this be the case? The reason that global climate models are so clear about night time temps increasing is of course that the re-emission of LW radiation by greenhouse gases continues even after the suns insolation is no longer active and any convective cooling has also died down. The atmosphere is less convective, but green house gases continue to operate. The more of them in the atmosphere, the more LW will be redirected back toward the ground, so average night time temperatures should be rising faster than the average day time temperatures (though both with rise over time) with rising greenhouse gases. That’s what the global climate models predict and that’s whats been observed. This is another “inconvenient truth” for those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and one which is hard to explain without the physics of greenhouse gases increasing.
In your BBQ example, it seems you are confusing the measurement of temperature at the source based on the wavelength of emitted light (which your IR thermometer is measuring) versus temperature of the air which is being heated through radiation, conduction, and convection. Most cooking on a grill outside is cooked through radiation, or the direct transfer of heat from the source i.e. hot coals or flame, to the food. Some however is being cooked through conduction. Here’s a nice paragraph on this:
“Radiation is the transfer of heat by direct exposure to a source or energy. Grilling a hot dog directly over hot coals is cooking mostly with radiant heat with the exception of the parts touching the hot grates w. They cook by conduction. That’s where the grill marks come from.”
Here’s the source of this:
http://www.amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/thermodynamics_of_cooking.html
So, based on the wavelength emitted electromagnetic energy, we can of course tell the temperature of an object, not just a few hundred, or thousand feet away, but even light years away in the case of the temperature of stars. However, this measurement of the temperature of an object AT THE SOURCE, is far different than measuring the temperature of the air molecules or other medium through which that energy is being transferred. If you take an actual thermometer and measure the temperature right above the coals of your grill, you are measuring not the wavelength of the source of the heat, but the average kinetic energy (or motion) of the molecules which have been exciting by the radiant, conductive, and convective heat from the flame or coals.
timetochooseagain says:
July 14, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“The problem with this notion is that the frequency of the destructive mode does NOT match the actual situation involved with the vortex shedding from the 42 mph wind on the structure NOR was it a natural mode of the structure itself.”</i?
Au contraire. It did not match the vortex shedding frequency specifically, but as for the natural structural mode…
The usual objection to the resonance theory is, from the same link:
This is a misapprehension that there is a requirement for “the driving force frequency to be at, or near, one of the system’s natural frequencies.” All that is necessary is that the driving force, or input, have energy in the appropriate band. If I have a resonant 2nd order system, with a small damping ratio “zeta” and unity dc gain, and I drive it at its resonant frequency “omega_r” with an amplitude “A”, I will eventually get a steady state sinusoid RMS output of about A/(2.8*zeta). If I drive it with white noise with spectral density A*sqrt(tau/2), where tau is the time constant approximately equal to 1/(zeta*omega_r), then I will get the essentially same RMS output. However, the instantaneous amplitude at times will be easily twice the steady state amplitude as for the deterministic input.
R. Gates says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“… some 37 states set night time high temperature records. In fact, there were more night time high temperature records than day time.”
That’s useless. The question would be, were records set for the delta between daytime and night time temperatures? Over what interval of time were the measurements taken? Was it the coldest part of the night? The hottest part of the day is about 2 PM, 2 hours after the Sun is directly overhead. UHI would also tend to make nights hotter. There are a score of other possible interpretations or causes and data quality questions which would have to be answered. This is a very thin reed.
henry@DJ Hawkins
thanks. can you still show me some more details of that calculation”?
Bart says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:45 pm
“If I drive it with white noise with spectral density A*sqrt(tau/2)…”
Actually, this is the square root of the spectral density. And, sorry Moderator about fumbling the italics tag close…
I finished doing Christchurch in NZ. Some here might be interested in looking at the difference between the temp. change in NZ – pretty much nothing going on there – versus the one I obtained for Tandil, where it is really actually cooling, fast, at a rate of almost 0,7 degrees C per decade, even though max. temps. are still rising.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Tandil lies -37.23 latitude in Argentina and here they have -or had – large scale deforestation:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/for_cou_032.pdf
I think I must conclude now that de-forestation must be a big factor that causes this difference.
However, if this is true, then do we realize what the implication is of that finding?
It means that the opposite of deforestation, forestation, causes global warming.
And whereever I look and listen people are planting trees and reports are showing that earth is getting greener….
now, is that an interesting finding, or not?
anyone want to leave me a comment on that?
R gates says:
“In fact, there were more night time high temperature records than day time. See this article for more”:
R. Gates, so far, after evaluating 14 weather stations, randomly chosen, the score on my pool table is as follows:
MAXIMA: rising at a speed of 0.036 degrees C per annum
MEANS : increasing at a speed of 0.012 degrees C per annum
MINIMA: creeping up at only 0.005 degrees C per annum
HUMIDITY: decreasing at a rate of -0.01% RH per annum
PRECIPITATION: slight change at + 0.1 mm /month /year
The latest tables show that, over the past 4 decades, the rates of increase of temperatures on earth i.e. maxima, means (=average temperatures) and minima have risen at a ratio of 6:2:1. Remember: these are the summaries of actual measured results from a number of weather stations all around the world….No junk science. No hypothesis. Every black figure on the tables is coming from a separate file of figures. Obviously I am able to provide these files of every black figure on the table.
As all the balls now lie on my table, surely, anyone must be able to understand that it was the rise of maximum temperatures (that occur during the day) that caused the average temperature and minima on earth to rise? This implies clearly that the observed warming over past 4 decades was largely due to natural causes. Either the sun shone a bit brighter or there were less clouds. There are different theories on that.
However, as postulated in my previous post, it may be that greening in itsself may be a cause for some warming by absorbing some heat during the day and giving out less during the night.
R.Gates, surely, every one must be able to see that your theory of an increase in CO2 and GHG’s does not do anything much?>
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Hi Bart
Your equation is very similar to one here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
Notice meaning of the values for T1&T2.
There seems to be an implied assumption with AGW side that any increase in average temperatures will result in raised maximum temperatures with increases in CO2.
That this is highly unlikely , given the regulating effect of moisture on temperature, but even without that, physicist Harry Dale Huffman neatly demonstrates that given equal solar radiation and atmospheric pressure, despite the 95.5% CO2 atmosphere on Venus the difference between temperatures of Earth and Venus are negligible. Any increase of GHG’s on Earth would be reflected in night-time temperatures only, given that Venus has a very nearly uniform temp.
You will have to go to the URL below to view the remarkable similarity of the temp/altitude curves
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
“There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.
There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.
Harry Dale Huffman “
@HenryP:
I agree with you. I have looked at various UK sites recently and came to the same conclusion – night-time temperatures have not increased much, only daytime temperatures. As you say, CO2 should impact nightime temperatures more than daytime – but the reverse seems to be true in the temperature record.
In any case, I came to the conclusion some time ago that extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can only be a good thing. They should increase the nighttime temperatures thus reducing the areas where frost is a problem for agriculture and reducing the need for evening heating of homes. Although higher nighttime temps could in theory cause ice caps to melt, night-time temps cannot exceed day time temps and therefore the impact must be limited – this means that polar ice caps over land cannot melt extensively because average temperatures will always be far below freezing.
It is interesting that I have not seen anyone deal with these basic physical principles. I have seen the energy balance models but these ignore they daytime/nightime heating/cooling process and treat the energy balance as if it can be averaged out over 24hrs. This is clearly wrong – what is happening during the day is very different than what is happening during the night.
HenryP says:
July 14, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Interesting post Henry. CO2 theory would appear to demand that at night, when only LWIR is in action, then increased GHG should produce a greater affect then in the day. How extensively have you examined this? Another point to consider is the time of minimum. If the GHG warming “resedince time” of energy is very short, then perhaps the only affect is to move the time of minimum back?
Henry@Ryan Spear
try telling this at a site like Skeptical Science from John Cook
they wipe all my comments
the science is so basic, but they just don’t want to believe it….
Henry@David
Sorry you might have missed the actual tables,
you must see this in here.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I have split up SH and NH and there is a difference between the two. But I think I am beginning to see why…..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/14/the-china-syndrome-don%e2%80%99t-blame-china-for-temperature-standstill/#comment-700309
…
I was under the impression that the cause for the downturn in global temperatures was understood. A quiet sun.
Since the human proportion of the annual CO2 budget is a mere 3-4% even if you did believe the GHG theory our part in it is too small to cause a problem.
Mr Gates
Thanks for responding to me. I do not consider the quoted passage to be correct.
Essentially, the re are 3 forms of heat transfer:conduction, convection and radiation. Their dominant effect is in that order. In otherwords, conduction is the most efficient form, followed by convectiion with radiation bringing up the rear.
I have central heating in my house which uses radiators. The radiator in my lounge is a flat panel of say 2m x 1m, ie., it has a surface area of 2sqm on the front side and a similar area on the backside. It is about 1cm wide. the top area is therefore about 0.02sqm. It is mounted on the wall adjacent to it about 10cm away from the wall.
At the moment my room is about 25deg C. The central heating is off. If I walk up to the radiator with my outstretched hand, I can feel no heat hot or cold. This is so even when my hand is say 3mm from the side. If I touch the radiator it is noticeably cold to touch and my hand soon begins to cool, although I can only feel this cool by conduction not by radiation.
In the winter, hot water is pumped through the radiator at about 70degC. If I walk up to the radiator with my outstretched hand, it is only when I am about 2.5 cm from the side of the radiator that I can begin to feel radiated heat from it. When I get to within 1cm, the heat being radiated is quite strong but I could keep my hand parallel to the side for hours. it would be warm but not unbearably so. If I move closer and touch the radiator I can only keep my hand on it for seconds before it being burnt. Conduction being such an efficient form of transfer.
Now the interesting part. Although the clue to the heating is in the name (ie., radiators), the effective heating is by convection because convection is the dominant force. Even though the top surface area is so small, I cannot place my hand 2 or 3 cm above the radiator for any length of time. In fact when my hand is about 1m above the radiator it feels the same heat as when my hand is 1cm adjacent to the side of the radiator. Why is that, if radiation was resulting in effective heating? The answer is that although the panel radiatiates heat predominantly only sideways into the room and back against the wall, convection takes over. Within mm of the sideways radiated heat, convection starts carrying the heat upwards and away. The reason why so little heat can be felt 2cm away from the side of the radiator is that nearly all this heat is carried upwards and away by convection. That is why some 1m above the radiator I can feel as much heat as I can when my hand is placed just 1 cm from the side of the radiator panel. Convection is so much more of a dominant feature and it is convection and heat currents that it then creates which carries the heat around the room.
The same is so with the BBQ. If I was to wrap the food in aluminium foil and place this on the coals, it would cook veryquickly by conduction. If I do not do this, I instead place the food on the open criss cross grill 9 inches above the coals, the food is cooked by convection. The radiated heat from the coals being convected upward. Where the food touches the metal criss cross metal it gets seared and one can see a criss cross burning pattern on the food. This is due to conduction. If instead I fook the food and hold it 9 inches to the side of the BBQ so that it is cooked by sideways eminating radiatin, it takes nearly forever to cook. THere is very little heat being generated sideways because most of that heat is being swept away by convection.
Thus whilst all the heat being generated by the coals is initially radiated heat, the effectiveness of the heat as an energy source for cooking is convection. That is why on a camp fire one place the pot a food or so above the camp fire and not a foot or so from the side of the camp fire.
The hot dogs in the quoted passage are cooked by convection but from a heat source which produces its heat by radiation as the initiating source.
The same practical effects are almost certainly happening in the atmosphere. The DWLWIR eminating from high up is causing each molecular layer of co2/other CHGs/other atmospheric gases to heat (by thermalisation/collision) as these heat convection carries the heat upwards and away where eventually it is radiated out into space. As I say, surely this happens layer by layer with gradually less and less radiated energy finding its way towards the surface of the Earth.
As I say, I am not certain but it appears to me that convection is the dominant process and the effectiveness of this DWLWIR energy must be rather small mostly resulting in a slightly delayed heat loss to space. Given that radiation and thermalisation is happening at or close to light speed, notwithstanding the fact that convective procees is ocurring rather slower, the delay is unlikely to be that substantial.
. .
Three things that nag me are:
1. Why are scientists reporting temperature in celsius? when I worked with rats in a Psychology lab years ago we were required to report all temperatures in kelvin, which is the real measure of the heat in something being measured. So you add 270 plus degrees to a celsius reading and then do a percentage change (as you should, kelvin has an absolute zero so ratios are allowed, celsius does not so ratios are not allowed) the percentage change will be much lower.
2. When I reported my temperature readings I was using a thermocouple in the animal’s anus, and allowing it to stabilize, I still had to report the body temperature with a range that was + or – three percent of the full scale of the analogue instrument I was using to measure the temperature. I rarely see any ranges attached to the accuracy of temperatures reported, are they reported in the peer-reviewed journals, if so could someone tell me what ranges they are reporting?
3. If they are averaging readings together from various places shouldn’t the the error of measurement (the + or – range) increase as you combine readings from different locations and different places into one number? Shouldn’t the error of measurement increase the greater the number of measurements from various locations that are averaged together?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 15, 2011 at 1:42 am
“Your equation is very similar to one here:”
Yes, your equation has been pointed out to me before. I think you are on the right track. But, to get the appropriate variability, you need to let go of the deterministic sinusoids, and model it as two resonant modes being excited by broadband noise, as here. I showed some simulated outputs of this system with different initial states and using different seeds for the random number generators here and here. As you can see, qualitatively, the outputs are very similar to what we see.
Determining the actual state of the system would be a simple matter of formulating a Kalman filter (actually, an extended Kalman Filter, since the measurement is nonlinear – probably best to use the square of the SSN as the measurement, as it is then a continuous function in its derivatives), and run it backwards and then forwards over the data as many times as needed to settle everything. At that point, the activity could be extrapolated into the future, along with error bounds derived from the Kalman Filter covariance estimate.
I would do it myself if I had the time…
@richard Verney:
I think your analysis is correct as far as it goes but remember you are only talking about heat as it applies to such things as the gas laws. What Team AGW is talking about is the quantum mechanical impact of infra red radiation on CO2.
Heat from the sun is purely EM radiation since there is no possibility of conduction or convection in space. The heat radiated reaches first the gas layer of the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is gas, the molecules of the gas don’t actually do a good job of getting in the way of the incoming radiation (except water vapour) so if it is sunny you are going to get a lot of direct radiation straight from the sun. Of course this heats the land and sea directly in the upper layers. The gases in the atmosphere then are heated by direct conduction. You don’t really need to know what kind of gas is there to know what is happening to the gas, because we already know that the gas laws only work because gases all behave the same way. The entropy of molecules within the gas goes up and they start pinging of each other like crazy. They ping into our skin making us feel warmer. Ok this is pretty straightforward stuff. But the CO2 thing is totally different. The CO2 thing works on the idea that CO2 has an absorption spectra at two narrow frequencies in the infra-red. What happens is that the bonds within the CO2 molecule itself start to waggle due to these particular frequencies – i.e the entropy of the molecule itself increases. OK, so the fact that the CO2 is waggling is no big deal. Waggling CO2 didn’t hurt anybody. It didn’t melt polar ice-caps. But the thing is that the CO2 must eventually stop waggling, but this means that the energy from the waggling must be converted to something else. Laws of entropy suggest “heat” in the general sense that the waggling of the CO2 molecule probably results in some extra heat energy pinging off other gas molecules that come close to a waggling CO2 molecule.
Most of the energy in the gas of the atmosphere must come from direct conduction or radiation. It is caused by molecules of the gas physically pinging around due to hot objects or other hot gas molecules. It doesn’t rely on being a greenhouse gas for this to happen. Take any gas and you can make it hotter by heating it by conduction or radiation. Personally I don’t see how a trace quantity of CO2 waggling due to quantum mechanical EM wave absorption can make more than the tiniest difference. The bands at which any given CO2 molecule can absorb are extremely narrow. Any extra heating of the lower atmosphere will in any case cause expansion of the gases in the lower atmosphere leading to greater convection, so the impact at ground level will be minimal.
@Al Saletta:
I’m with you on this one. It bothered me for a long time. How can they quote a simple average for a measurement system, when normally a distribution is quoted with an average and a standard deviation?
I realised recently they game they are playing. They aren’t defining what it is they are trying to measure. So they are taking “readings” and a “reading” is always precise as long as you don’t define what it is you are trying to measure. What they then do is then derive an assumed temperature increase from the precise “readings” which is then connected to AGW. This is outright fraud in my opinion.
What they should be doing is defining the purpose of the measurement FIRST, i.e. they should state “we are using these readings to measure the scale of AGW”. Then they would have to consider that the “readings” are actually impacted by NOISE caused by wind direction and cloud cover and therefore are not precise readings of air temperature due to AGW. Then they would take readings on say the 1st July and not average them but plot them showing the noise due to cloud cover and wind direction. From this they could determine any underlying long term trend due to AGW. But they wouldn’t do it this way because we know the AGW signal would be totally obscured by the scale of the noise due to wind direction and cloud cover.