Guest essay by Mark Fife
In today’s post on the Global Historical Climatology Data I am going to concentrate on daily minimum temperatures for long term stations in North America and Europe. As I mentioned last time the coverage is heavily weighted to the US.
In my last post I talked about the high amount of variance between stations. I conjectured most of those variances were due to localized site changes such as development. I believe that is a safe conjecture.
However, looking at daily minimums yields a different picture. The by site variation is there but it is not as pronounced. The standard deviation of the average of annual station average is only .46. That is a very reasonable value in comparison to my previous data set. The annual range between highest and lowest deviation from station average is consistent on average.
The following chart is the difference by year between the highest and lowest temperatures records for all stations in the study. While there is some variation over time the key point is the lack of any clear trend on average. There is a fluctuation in the magnitude of in year variation but that appears to be due to weather events with in the US in the form of hot and cold waves. Because the data is heavily weighted to the US it is sensitive to such events in the US.
This is the average daily minimum temperature record for all stations as mentioned above. It is a reasonable approximation of individual station records.
The following graph may grab your interest if you are familiar with statistics, especially that brand of statistics used in Quality Engineering. If you are interested in the technique you can Google search for Statistical Process Control. This is a well-established methodology which has been in use since the 1950’s.
What you see here is my twist on the method. I have transposed the data shown in the preceding chart by converting it to standard deviations with the overall average normalized to zero. This is nothing more than a graphical test for equality of the means. Confidence intervals are thus easily defined, such as ± 1.96 standard deviations form a 95% confidence interval. The second key indicator of a shift in the mean is the number of consecutive points above or below the zero line.
There is no question about the clear signal of a pattern here. There are also clear evidence of extreme events occurring in 1904, 1917, 1921, 1931, and 1998.
Thus far I see no reason to doubt the veracity or accuracy of these extreme events. They appear to be accurate. They are, however, out of the ordinary. The other interesting observation is how the year to year variability decreased going into the 1940’s and then again in the 1960’s. That variability increases coming into the 1970’s. That is reflected in the chart of annual ranges above.
The conclusions I draw are as follows:
- There is evidence of a regular pattern about 60 or so years in length.
- There is no statistically significant difference between the 1900’s and the 1960’s. Using my normalized data, the 1960’s is warmer by 0.07 standard deviations. This is insignificant.
- There is no significant difference between the 1930’s and either the 1990’s or the 2000’s. The 1930’s are warmer than either by .08 standard deviations. This is insignificant.
- If this pattern holds true I would expect to see a low point going into the 2020’s. This does appear to be happening, but I would be very careful drawing conclusions from short term data. However, similarities do exist between 1931 to 1942 and 1998 to 2007.
Finally, the last question is why would the daily low temperatures show such a different result? I will hazard a few guesses:
- Daily lows must be unaffected for the most part by site changes which cause higher day time temperatures.
- Structures and surfaces added to a site cause increased temperature due to differences in absorbed energy and in heat capacity or specific heat. Lower heat capacity or specific heat means surfaces and objects achieve a higher temperature for the same energy absorbed than surfaces and objects with higher heat capacities or specific heats. That generally means they cool off more quickly as well. Therefore, the extra heat is not retained.
- The effect just described above is the opposite effect where specific heat is relatively higher. The best example of that effect is water. Water in either liquid or gas form has a much higher specific heat than a normal atmospheric gas mixture, concrete, brick, shingles, and so forth. A body of water not only stays cooler during the day than what is on the land, it also cools off much slower.
The lowest temperature of a typical day in most locations normally occurs within an hour of sunrise. To systematically affect the daily minimum temperature objects, structures, and surfaces that would retain or produce heat must be added to the site. That is possible, certainly adding a pond or lake next to a climate station could have such an affect.
Conclusion:
This result and the obviously different outcome from my prior study supports the supposition most instances of higher than typical temperature increases are due to site changes as described above.
I would further conclude the daily minimum temperatures provide a far more accurate picture of what is happening with respect to the anthropogenic global warming theory.
The lack of any evidence of a change in heat retained overnight, if correct, would debunk the concept added CO2 is causing the surface of the Earth to warm up due to downward IR. The logic behind this assertion is simple. If CO2 truly did act as a greenhouse or a blanket to retard cooling that effect would be demonstrable in progressively higher overnight temperatures. There is no evidence that has occurred.
You could conjecture as to whether temperatures have increase during those overnight hours which precede the daily low point. This data does not address that conjecture.
The main bogus claim made by the alarmists is that record high temperatures are caused by CO2. This article debunks that claim.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit J
Exhibit J: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW Once again, when discussing AGW you always have to tie the observation back to CO2, and its lone mechanism to affect climate change through absorbing long-wave IR between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 traps outgoing radiation from an already warmed earth, CO2 and … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-j/
This article gives results that are surprising to me, since they seem (to me) to be at odds with the concept of Urban Heat Island.
Also, I seem to remember seeing items here at WUWT showing that it is the overnight temps that are rising faster (compared to daytime temps rises), which makes the ‘average’ temps higher. Is my (old) memory deteriorating that quickly?
The GHG effect would cause a parallel shift in the temperature curve. CO2 would cause a narrowing of temperatures between daytime peaks and nighttime lows. If more CO2 is being trapped energy in the, the cooling of the atmosphere would be slowed. what that would do over time is to raise the floor relative to the ceiling. Either way, H2O and the the Urban Heat Island Effect dominate the lower atmosphere, and CO2 doesn’t have an impact. MODTRAN shows that the CO2 signature can’t be measured until an altitude of 3km. Tying CO2 to ground measurements is simply wrong.
It’s generally accept that urban heat islands cause warmer night temperatures. See the wikipedia article. U.S. low temperatures are warming faster than day temperatures. Since 1895, the average low is warming at 1.52 °F per century, the average high at 1.23 °F per century (data up to 2015).
This could be due to CO2 (more active when it’s cold because less H2O) or urban heat island, or an increase in stations in the warmer west and south west as people moved west; or a combination of all three.
UHI isn’t an *atmospheric* effect, it is an energy-to-waste-heat effect caused by cars, air conditioning, daytime industry, fast food, etc. When nobody’s running office computers, driving cars everywhere and running in and out of open doors of temperature controlled buildings there’s a LOT less waste heat generated. Since most heat now in larger cities from heat storing structures is on vertical surfaces the Mpemba effect takes place, the city’s structure and density actually causes it to cool *faster* than the surrounding area. One can literally track fuel and power consumption of a metropolitan area, convert it to its value in heat energy and subtract that from the map in ratio to it’s UHI plume. The resulting convection becomes very powerful.
Something you can watch is the weather radar around Atlanta, GA. You can see the heat-shadow of I285 on the northeast side in the radar rainfall from time to time.
But thermometers don’t do that on their own.
I think it has at least as much to do with the passive storage of thermal energy in concrete and other solid building and paving materials, as it does with waste heat from human sources.
The solar energy stored in concrete is enough to make a microclimate in a rural area from even one slab a few inches thick, totally preventing frost from forming for example, and enough to keep plants alive that would be dead a few feet away.
Dr. Soon does a great job highlighting the cherry-picking of temperature data.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming
One of the greatest scientific battles today is between which temperature measurements are most accurate. There are ground measurements maintained by NOAA, NASA GISS and the Hadley CRU, and then there are satellite measurements maintained by NASA UHA. Dr. Roy Spencer maintains a nice blog reporting on the satellite measurements. In reality, there are really … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/a-tale-of-two-cities-cherry-picking-locations-to-manufacture-warming/
co2islife. Just an FYI, we are not your personal traffic generator. Every comment you make is to promote an article of yours.
I found the links useful.
Sorry about that, I always try to make the post relevant to the original post. They are always intended to expand upon the original post. Generating traffic is never my intent. My site doesn’t generate any income, it is like yours, it is to inform the public. That is it. I’ll be more careful about the links and just post the parts from the post. I also include many links to WUWT in the posts, so hopefully I drive traffic to your site as well. Once again, I think we both share the goal of educating the public. My concern its about traffic, it is about exposing the truth.
So, ideological spam then?
Mr. Watts,
Your site – your rules.
I just wanted to comment as a daily lurker. co2 frequently does have links in his comments. They are typically at the bottom of his comments. My eyes don’t even scan them while reading, they just skip right over them to the next comment. (Unless there is something in his comment that I want to research further, then I click on his link.)
In my opinion, comment links do not detract from my WUWT reading enjoyment.
I frequently do not agree with comments from Mr. Stokes, yet I will occasionally click on his links for more background.
Just wanted to give you some reader feedback. P.S. Thanks for the work you do maintaining and moderating the site.
co2islife April 5, 2018 at 5:28 am
Why not just post your entire essay here at WUWT, even if you mirror it at your own site? You seem to make interesting points but it does look like you are thread misdirecting off of this site to keep people at your site. Your name here is already hyper-linked to your own site. It is aggravating sometimes to just click on a link and leave this site, or open yet another tab especially on a phone etc, unless it is to collaborate facts or learn something brand new from another site, i.e. a news source, fact source or video etc.
Since you starting doing this the last month or so, I also don’t even start reading your comment anymore because I know it will break my continuity reading comments here if I get waylaid to your site, so why read your teaser intro just to have to get sidelined to your site? Just post your entire comment here, and you will maybe get most everyone here reading your opinions again. It does look bad…and not courteous to this site that provides all of us the forum to post our opinions collectively.
Earthling…
His full articles are quite lengthy. Would ok rather he comment bombed with small essays each comment? That is likely to be more upsetting, no?
Once again, I take the time to post a lengthy response and WordPress again sucks that effort out into the ether. How frustrating.. Pardon if my original post does appear and this isn’t exactly aligned with my original sentiments.
So, I understand Anthony’s sentiments because this is his site and he has every right to operate it as he sees fit, and I must say it’s quite a feat. Many thanks. You have been instrumental in assisting my growth into logical thinking.
However, everyone who is already commenting or reading comments is already here. Most of us are regulars and we clearly come here to comment. I don’t see the issue, because if people have taken care to recognize the pattern, co2islife remarks about the topic and provides a short description of his interpretation, with a link to inquiring minds who may have interest in reading his expanded efforts on the subject.
Using the phrase ideological spam is a bit much, don’t you think? He’s attempting to use his data to argue his point, at least as far as I can gather. Maybe you disagree with his interpretation, well then take those assertions to his site and make an argument, or don’t. Do it here, or don’t. None of us are forced to do anything. I could have sworn that was what separates us from the watermelons.
It’s also why there is a fantastic comment section, albeit often an echo chamber but I’m ok with that.
I think my original post captured my thoughts better but regardless… You DON’T have to click the link. It’s likely easier to ignore a short comment with a link than read 17 paragraphs that takes up pages of scrolling.
[Your original comments were found. I went ahead and deleted them, though, since this comment made it through. Thank you for your patience and persistence. -mod]
*for inquiring minds
* You, not “ok”, in first post.
Pardon the excessive comments. Additionally, I find co2islife to be a worthy resource. He clearly cares about the truth and works towards discovering it. I’m not scientifically literate, so I’m attempting to learn myself through all possible avenues. It’s a journey and it makes no sense to write people off because one thinks they are mostly wrong. No one on this planet is infallible, not even the guy in the silly fish hat. It’s about learning how to work through all the data and arguments to arrive at knowledge, then, if found erroneous, revisit as necessary. I appreciate his comments and additionally the work he puts into his website.
Lot’s of people are long winded here…there are plenty of people here with long essays which good ones I really appreciate. I can easily keep scrolling if it is something I do not want to read. Perhaps co2islife could ask WUWT to include his website in the list on the sidebar of Skeptical Views where dozens of other websites are listed. I do see that co2islife has not hyperlinked his own name/handle to his own website, so maybe that is also something he/she can do. I agree with Anthony that he didn’t go to all the work to set up this site and then allow someone to continually re-direct traffic to their own website. It seems we are all mainly on the same page regarding the science of CO2 in this small thread, so I would hope we could all respect WUWT and Anthony in respecting his rules for WUWT. It is his living room after all and most of us are thankful for the hard work he has put into this the last 12 years so we can easily self publish our own opinions/essays that is widely read around the planet.
honestliberty — one word. Proofread.
Beng. Have you ever used an Android phone with swipe feature to write paragraphs? It is simple to miss a random one syllable word here or there when attempting to swipe quickly enough to keep up with a thought stream. It’s also easy to miss said random words on first glance. All this, especially considering the format of the phone that minimizes the window box once you click out of it. It happens here often enough with a litany of commenters, yet you chose to chastise me?
So what was it about my comments that ruffled your feathers or are you actually that puerile?
CO2,
You obviously know your stuff. I have one suggestion to stop annoying readers of this site – make your points and conclusuons quickly, perhaps in a couple of paragraphs, only then offering a link for those that wish to understand your logic and research better. That way you don’t leave us hanging.
Also, if possible, how about revealing your real name? I say, “if possible” because we all appreciate that some might risk losing their livelihoods if revealed as deniers.
Yeah, if your own website is where more information exists, then a link seems like a reasonable addition to a comment. If the commentator is prolific, then I suppose that this could give the appearance of self promotion, when, it might just be reference, … because THAT’s where the further information might exist.
Anthony, I must add my own defense of co2islife.
One of the major benefits of hyperlinking is that you can write a concise summary of the information you wish to convey – and then provide a link for those who wish to read in further detail.
This is precisely what co2islife does here – his posts have always been, in my experience, relevant to the topic at hand, and a summary of what he writes in more detail on his own blog. Repeating his entire post from his blog (as someone suggested) would be extremely annoying – the detail may not be of interest to everyone, and doing a large amount of scrolling down is tiresome to say the least.
In any case, I follow the practice of right clicking on a link to more detail and then opening it in a new tab, which just about every browser for the last ten years has been capable of.
“MODTRAN shows that the CO2 signature can’t be measured until an altitude of 3km. Tying CO2 to ground measurements is simply wrong.”
Not wishing to stoke the fire here, but I would like to see a link to the science behind that statement (since it virtually single-handedly destroys the AGW conjecture). Wouldn’t water vapor concentration be a variable here?
Yes, it going to get cooler!
{note that acc. to AGW theory, minimum T should be affected by increasing GHG}
Wow Henry ….. no offense …. but you really had to stretch that data to make that graph! I mean really, …. 0.002 K ….. even on a scale of 0.1K, that line would be a flat line.
0.002 is so far below the error bars that it is meaningless.
Yes. It is not much and not scary. It is what it is. Note that this is K per annum. We are currently running at -0.01K per annum
But in total we are already -0.2K since 2000. For T min.
It is not warming
By looking at your graph it does not look like that R2 is equal to 1. That would be perfect fit. I would be more comfortable with an R2 = 0.9
urederra
I had also imagined a worse than 1 result. As it stands, as I measured it, it means there is no man made warming whatsoever or it is simply too little to measure.
note that anyone can repeat this experiment, just remember the design of the sampling procedure, each for specific reasons
1) all stations: 70% @sea / 30% inland
2) number of stations NH = number of station SH
3) all stations balanced to zero latitude
4) 40 years is about the limit, so you do your regressions from 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago and 10 years ago.
The derivative of the equation for the least square regressions is the speed of warming / cooling in K/annum.
Here below is a summary which shows how I came to the conclusion that there is no Man made Global Warming. Perhaps it gives you some extra insight.
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
.
Sorry.
there are a few more rules.
I would say that you need to look at a minimum of 50 stations from all over the world.
In the case of missing data I applied the following rule: if there are less than 15 daily data for the month, I would rather look at same month of the preceding year and same month of the following year [at that station] and take the average of these two measurements for the month that had less than 15 daily data. That made sense to me since we are looking at K/annum.
Obviously, at each station you need to do at least 4 regressions, as you need at least 4 points to define a function.
L:et me know if anything is not clear to you.
This seems to clearly be a rigorous result. Better than Lord Moncktons attack on their faulty math. The intuition from this result should be plain to everyman who is trying to make a living and being assaulted by a mendacious press.
I believe their math is faulty. I wouldn’t presume to know more than Lord Monckton. He is clearly a very smart man and I find him to be highly entertaining. I do think he is missing the main point. It isn’t the equations they have wrong. It is the conceptual model which is wrong. They are taking the fact CO2 does react to IR and does gain heat from the lab where a jar of CO2 will warm up and thus emit more light and applying it to a highly interactive and variable system where CO2 is a miniscule player. But such wrangles over the gritty details fly over peoples heads. It is technical. It isn’t a picture of a polar bear hanging onto a splinter of ice for dear life.
True. The conceptial model – which originally came from ICCP 2007 – is wrong. They looked at it from the end and computed it backwards trying to eliminate everything that they thought is not man made. It is the worst kind of mistake anyone can make in science.
And the reason that you did not include data since 2011 and the extremes in 2012 and 2015/16 was?
Mike Maguire: I don’t know why he didn’t include the data since 2011 and the extremes in 2015/16, but would the inference to your question be that the warming effect of CO2 just suddenly burst onto the scene in 2011 or 2015/16?
“the warming effect of CO2 just suddenly burst onto the scene in 2011 or 2015/16?”
No
1. The most recent data is usually the most important. Not including the last 6 years is along time. One can point to the El Nino of 2015/16 as being responsible for the spike higher of course, just like the one in 1998 but it needs to be on the graph. The 2012 warmth was not from an El Nino.
2. There are natural cycles that can be seen. Warming into the 1930’s, cooling after that into the 70’s, then warming again, especially in the 80’s/90’s.
3. However, recent warming has exceeded the warming of the previous cycle. This is most clear when using data from the most recent 6 years that was left out.
How much of this is natural and how much from an increase of CO2 is not the point. Having a graph that shows it is the point.
My interpretation is that the ups and downs on the graph are from natural warming/cooling cycles and the higher highs recently(and higher lows-which would be more obvious if the graph went back a few decades) are from greenhouse gas warming “super imposed on top of the natural cycles).
You must be aware that temperatures are 1 deg. C warmer than they were a century ago. Low temperatures have increased much more than high temperatures, with record high minimums setting the most records for all temperature records.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/record-warm-nighttime-temperatures-a-closer-look
This is consistent with an atmosphere that has more H2O and also greenhouse gas warming.
This has been mostly beneficial warming and global climate models are too hot in projecting the amount of warming. However, I disagree with the points in this article and the way that its presented, whether intentional or not.
Here is the thing I think you are missing. The most important thing is measuring a trend is to have accurate data. You cannot measure a trend by moving your measuring points around. You also cannot measure a trend if your measuring points degrade. The unfortunate point here is no one sat down in 1900 and said we are going to establish a stable, accurate network to measure world temperature trends and no one implemented basic quality controls. You can’t state with any accuracy temperatures have risen or fallen because you don’t have sufficient data.
Instead you are left to trying to backwards engineer accuracy and homogeneity into the measurements already taken. One way to not do that is to mix together a bunch of stations with no commonality of location and time frames.
You say temperatures have risen 1°. I say that is insignificant in terms of the total variability in the system. Meaning year to year natural locational variability, induced local variation, relocation of measuring locations, plus a any number of other factors not controlled. That is literally wagging the dog by the tail.
All I am doing, literally, is removing the crap data. What happened in Rio in 2000 to 2018 has no bearing what so ever on what happened in Moscow from 1915 to 1930. And unfortunately we have no data from Rio from back then. So stating the world temperature has risen 1° in 100 years as a sure fact is intellectually dishonest. At most all they can say is we think it may have risen by 1°.
Mike Maguire – April 5, 2018 at 8:30 am
Mike Maguire, NOT temperatures, …… but AVERAGE calculated temperatures are 1 deg. C warmer.
Mike Maguire also saidith:
Mike, your claim about “low temperatures increasing” is only good as a “face value” argument, simply because, in actuality those per se “low temperatures” have not been increasing.
“face value – the superficial appearance or implication of something.”
Mike, the literal fact is, the per se “low temperatures” you speak of have NOT been decreasing as much as they were previously decreasing during the cool/cold periods of each fiscal year. The aforesaid “non-cooling” is a direct result of what is commonly called “interglacial warming” that has been in progress for the past 22,000 years. If surface or near-surface temperatures have actually been increasing, then solar irradiance would have to have been increasing also.
Mike Maguire also saidith this:
Mike, me thinks you got “the cart before the horse”.
“DUH”, increases in atmospheric H2O vapor ppm and CO2 ppm is consistent with increases in ocean surface temperature and near-surface air temperatures. “CO2 always lags temperature”.
GHCN has relatively little data in recent years, the H in the title is very apt, it is primarily historical data. One could even do a dead parrot sketch about it.
It’s not dead!
“You say temperatures have risen 1°. I say that is insignificant in terms of the total variability in the system.”
I agree with that to some extent because the volatility of extreme weather will always dominate. Climate is just the average weather in one place over a long period of time.
in fact, since the warming has been greatest in the coldest places and coldest times of year(and at night) there have been several measures of extreme weather, like violent tornadoes that have decreased significantly. But less violent tornadoes over the past 4 decades, using the average does not mean that any one year, like 2011 can have a massive outbreak.
Even though weather still dominates any one place at any time, the issue is still, how much will that weather change on average if we warm the entire atmosphere by 1 degree C? I am certain that we have more water vapor in the atmosphere and are having more high end rain events/flooding. This potentially increases rain amounts in some weather systems. The Arctic is having much milder Winters.
I am somebody that thinks the benefits to a planet that is 1 deg. C warmer(global average) far outweigh the negatives to humans and most of life on the planet.
The question is whether we will have another 1 deg. C or “global” warming or will it be much more than that if CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere.
OK, some folks think that increasing CO2 is not the culprit but for those that do, ponder that last question.
I think that another +1 deg. C of warming is probably still beneficial for most life and not dangerous and the most likely outcome over the next century.
The temperature and CO2 level of the planet 150 years ago was SUB optimal for most life. Changes since then have been presented as bad when authentic science is compelling that they have been good.
At what point do we reach the LEGITIMATE, optimal level for global temperature and CO2 levels?
You will get a dozen different answers, depending on the agenda or source. If you have property along a sea coast that has slightly increasing water levels but its causing YOU property damage, or you are a climate scientist with their reputation or funding at stake, you will get a different answer than a farmer who understands that the best weather and climate and CO2 levels in the last 1,000 years for growing crops is directly responsible for a double digit increase in his crop production.
Humans are just 1 life form on the planet. What about the rest of life?
If you believe most of the studies, all the bad forms of life love global warming and will thrive. The good forms of life will suffer adverse conditions.
Bullsheet. Most life would prefer MORE CO2 and for it to be a bit warmer.
Sorry to go off the subject a bit. Just want to be clear that even though we disagree some on the specific topic, our views on the effects for life are the same.
It may well be that optimal conditions on the planet as a whole are when it is far warmer, with clement conditions from pole to pole and year ’round.
And CO2 levels are several times higher.
My personal belief is that when the ice sheets first began to form at the poles, the amount of life that was wiped out and all trace of it ever being there virtually erased, was the greatest ecological catastrophe in the past 65 million years.
I have only done spot checks of CERES data on atmospheric water vapour. The December data for 2002 shows higher than Dec 2010 which is higher than Dec 2017. If you want to do a full analysis you can get the data here:
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
I expect it would challenge the certainty you have over water vapour increasing.
This is another inconsistency between measured data (albeit indirect) and output from inept climate models.
That’s as far as the data set goes. I wish it went farther. Other data sets I have looked at go up to 2014, but they are simply put horrible. In fact, I would hazard a guess the data included is cherry picked to create a warming trend. Older, colder stations are continuously culled out and warmer stations inserted as time goes by. If you then compile all that data into a homogenized approximation to create a plotting out of unrelated data you create the illusion of exponential temperature rise. That is exactly how Berkeley Earth creates their graph. I reproduced an exact replica by just averaging all the data.
Mind you, doing so includes some 35% of stations with data consisting of one year or less as well as a significant number of stations with as many as 99 monthly readings per year. If you just eliminate all the partial years and all the years with more than 12 monthly readings the post 1990’s warming becomes a post 1990s cooling trend.
I honestly don’t think people realize the true level of fraud here.
Mark,
I believe your explanation but disagree with the points.
“I agree with that to some extent because the volatility of extreme weather will always dominate. Climate is just the average weather in one place over a long period of time.”
That was poorly written in a rush(with lots of grammar mistakes too). “volatility” and “extreme” should be stricken from that statement and replaced with “diurnal, day to day and seasonal variations are MUCH greater than the tiny amount of average global warming over the past century”
However, even with that being the case, an increase in the annual temperature of, let’s say 3+ deg. C in a place that has an increase in the average temperature from Winter to Summer of 50 degrees is still significant………….if it’s occurring around the planet on average.
It would cause more melting land ice and an increase in evaporation, along with more precipitable water in the atmosphere, spread out over much of the atmosphere. This would cause something like a potential 12% increase of rains in some high impact weather systems. Most people and life would not notice the difference in their day to day weather, that still would feature similar temperature gyrations, from high to low along with similar weather systems.
I use the value of 3 deg. C intentionally because that’s the level in my mind that pushes the climate changes far enough to be more significant.
The increase of 1 deg. C thus far has been mostly beneficial. The last 4 decades have featured the best weather and climate for life in 1,000 years…………the last time that it was this warm.
Another increase of 1 deg. C should also be mostly beneficial and slow enough, if it continues at the current rate for adaptation.
Going up more than that and I just don’t know. Those that claim catastrophe’s at anything more than 2 deg. C are probably wrong. Those that project temperatures increasing MUCH more than that are also probably wrong. The only place that dangerous warming exists is on global climate model projections that have been too warm.
Those that assign high confidence and settled science to global climate model projections are in denial………of the limitations of climate model skill. Using them to predict regional weather is even more absurd. If these same scientists/model builders started without the preconceived notions(which effects the equations that they use in the models) I’ll bet they would be quicker to make adjustments instead of defending their position.
“I honestly don’t think people realize the true level of fraud here.”
Plenty of us do realize exactly how bad it is.
And it goes far beyond distortions and lies regarding the historical temperature records.
Mike Maguire – April 5, 2018 at 8:30 am
Mike Maguire, NOT temperatures, …… but AVERAGE calculated temperatures are 1 deg. C warmer.
Mike Maguire also saidith:
Mike, your claim about “low temperatures increasing” is only good as a “face value” argument, simply because, in actuality those per se “low temperatures” have not been increasing.
“face value – the superficial appearance or implication of something.”
Mike, the literal fact is, the per se “low temperatures” you speak of have NOT been decreasing as much as they were previously decreasing during the cool/cold periods of each fiscal year. The aforesaid “non-cooling” is a direct result of what is commonly called “interglacial warming” that has been in progress for the past 22,000 years. If surface or near-surface temperatures have actually been increasing, then solar irradiance would have to have been increasing also.
Mike Maguire also saidith this:
Mike, me thinks you got “the cart before the horse”.
“DUH”, increases in atmospheric H2O vapor ppm and CO2 ppm is consistent with increases in ocean surface temperature and near-surface air temperatures. “CO2 always lags temperature”.
“Mike, me thinks you got “the cart before the horse”.”
While outgassing of CO2 from a warmer ocean may be relevant, the fundamental physics of CO2 are compelling as a greenhouse gas which is able to “trap” infrared radiation………..warming the atmosphere.
I assume from your statement that you don’t think that humans burning fossil fuels caused much of the (beneficial) CO2 increase since the Industrial Revolution.
“Mike, the literal fact is, the per se “low temperatures” you speak of have NOT been decreasing as much as they were previously decreasing during the cool/cold periods of each fiscal year. The aforesaid “non-cooling” is a direct result of what is commonly called “interglacial warming” that has been in progress for the past 22,000 years. If surface or near-surface temperatures have actually been increasing, then solar irradiance would have to have been increasing also.”
OK, I guess then you don’t believe that increasing CO2 can cause warming by itself near the surface, all things remaining the same. We will just have to disagree on that one since there is nothing that you haven’t seen already that I can convince you with…………of a fundamental law of physics. But I will show this link anyway:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
“Mike Maguire, NOT temperatures, …… but AVERAGE calculated temperatures are 1 deg. C warmer.”\
OK, I agree with that.
“Mike, the literal fact is, the per se “low temperatures” you speak of have NOT been decreasing as much as they were previously decreasing during the cool/cold periods of each fiscal year. The aforesaid “non-cooling” is a direct result of what is commonly called “interglacial warming””
OK, then instead of global warming, we are experiencing “non cooling”????
Problems due to flooding from large rain events are almost completely a human caused problem that could be eliminated if we stop building and living in and on flood plains and coastal areas.
Every time we have a huge terrible flood, we hear all sorts of wailing and lamentations from all quarters, followed by insistent calls for emergency funding to rebuild quickly and completely.
Even though any fool can predict that every place that has flooded once not only can but definitely WILL flood again, repeatedly.
It is as predictable as anything can be.
Let’s face it…people do not mind rebuilding all that much, or we would take great pains to make sure we do it as seldom as humanly possible, instead of throwing caution to the wind and choosing to live in all manner of danger zones…including not just flood plains and coastal regions, but the flanks of active but temporarily dormant volcanoes, fault zones where tremendous earthquakes are known to suddenly occur at regular but completely unpredictable intervals, and that the results will be not just tragic and devastating but genuinely horrific, and all sorts of other hazards that are known and ignored, lamented and then quickly forgotten, and then the stage set for a repeat down the road.
Long before the sea level slowly rising threatens anyone, those same people will rebuild from terrible coastal storms, and do so perhaps several times.
I am surprised people here are not more cognizant of the true capacity for adaptation and the incredible resilience fortitude and opportunism inherent in virtually all life on the planet.
The extent of variability from season to season, region to region, year to year, and so forth and so on, is so huge… that worrying about a few degrees here or there is truly, IMO, unfortunately just too ridiculous to be laughable.
BTW, interglacial warming is not thought to have occurred for the past 22,000 years.
In fact it is well known that the warmest period of the interglacial occurred soon after it began, some 8,000 years ago, and since then we have had a continuing series of warming and cooling periods, each warming period peaking at a lower value than the previous one, and each cooling period slightly to greatly cooler than the one before…such that the cool period we refer to as The Little Ice Age was the coldest period since the interglacial period began.
Let’s stick to what we know to be true, at least within the bounds of what was regarded as textbook knowledge until a few short decades ago. You know…back when scientists studying the history of the Earth told the truth.
As soon as I see any description of radiation going from a cold source to a hot receiver I know the writer is in search of a clue because they have none.
This is a statement on the CSI link:
“These gases then emit the infrared radiation in all directions, both outward toward space and downward toward Earth.”
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE
“Basic Assumption of Global Warming”
Exactly what basic assumption of global warming are you talking about?
I mean, seriously, I just read that three or four times, and I still have no idea what the point is, or what evidence supports that point.
See Philip, here’s the thing. Your history demonstrates that you aren’t here to learn anything, only detract. So, we don’t care that you have no idea.
To be fair, I do not understand the title either.
The article seems to be indicating that global warming is not happening, at least in the areas the data was collected in. The scare being derived from the up part of a 60 year oscillation plus the urban heat island effect.
Further the man made CO2 induced warming theory predicts that minimum temperatures should rise most, which the data shows is not happening.
I do not see any specific assumption being debunked; should it read “prediction?”
The basic assumption of AGW is the effect of back radiation causes the ground to warm up and increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases that effect both directly and through positive feedbacks. That actually can’t happen, but let’s just say it actually did just for the sake of argument. The idea is that energy is trapped in the bottom layer or layers of the atmosphere. It is prevented from radiating out into space. Because of this, the ground will become warmer by radiation from heat trapped in the atmosphere due to down welling. That increase would happen 24 hours a day. because the energy is trapped you see and can’t escape as it should have. But that is not happening. Which implies one or more things.
The change in the amount of down welling radiation is imperceptible because CO2 isn’t a huge contributor.
The supposed feed back loop causing more H2O to evaporate doesn’t exist.
The amount of energy going into the atmosphere by radiation is made insignificant by the far more vast amount due to direct molecular collision between the air and the surface of the earth and / or by evaporative effects over water. Which I believe is true.
CO2 doesn’t actually trap energy in the atmosphere. I believe that is also true.
My own personal theory is our atmosphere acts as an express elevator for energy. Up drafts and down drafts represent huge amounts of matter and energy moving vertically.
Warm air rises until it meets a pressure equilibrium point. A parcel of air rising loses temperature as a function of the atmospheric pressure gradient, but any temperature loss for that reason does not represent a loss of energy. Two equal masses of air, one at sea level and one several miles up, could theoretically have the exact same total energy yet the temperatures would differ.
Thus the number of thermal units of energy for a given mass of air per degree at a higher altitude is higher than that for the same mass of air at sea level.
Finally, all matter which is not at absolute zero radiates energy in the form of light. All matter, there are no exceptions. The only difference is how efficient the matter is at doing that. Therefore, even though the upper atmosphere is cold, it is still radiating a tremendous amount of energy over the entire atmosphere around the planet. Even though the polar regions are cold they also are radiating energy out into space. The idea that we are dependent upon the surface of the Earth radiating energy out to space is a false premise. The actual vanes of the radiator are and always have been the upper to perhaps mid atmosphere and the poles where the upper edge of the troposphere drops down in direct relation to the polar high pressure zones.
Again, that is my personal opinion.
Mr. Fife – your explanation of the basic assumption helps a lot. It should have been in the first paragraph (Just the first sentence.) I mention this only because I frequently refer back to articles like these, and in the future, would probably not re-read all the comments.
This small series has been extremely interesting to me – especially since they are easy to understand. I frequently capture Willis’ stuff – until he started his own blog, allowing me to just find it there. I haven’t been able to detect serious flaws in your arguments, and am intrigued by your findings. So, I’ll be capturing them (or the links to them, rather) for future use. Thank you for the time you spent on these.
When this winter is finished, it will be interesting to see where it falls in your graph. Both Europe and Canada/US have had a long, brutal winter over most of the area (and it is continuing into April).
When septic tanks in central Minnesota are freezing you know you have been cold for quite a long period.
It’s cold! This is one of the chiller Springs I can remember. It’s planting time and we still have another freeze coming in the near future. Chilly, chilly.
Strange – I thought I just read that this winter was warmer than the norm. I didn’t know how, after reading about all the storms on the East Coast, and knowing it wasn’t warmer in So Cal than it was two years ago.
But we all know what the news is worth.
Dear Mark,
As someone well versed in SPC I congratulate you on applying the methodology to the temperature time series you have and the rescaling the data to the normal distribution.
By eye you are getting two points outside 3 SD in over 100 datapoints. The chance of a 3 sigma event is about 0.3% if the data is normally distributed and in a state of SPC. 2 in over 100 outside the 3 sigma rate is about what you might expect to see, but to confirm it would be helpful to try putting the data into a normal probability plot and test (say Anderson Darling) to see if this underlying assumption holds. A Grubbs test is a further test for whether an outlier exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grubbs%27_test_for_outliers
Perhaps we could ascribe special cause to 1998 to an El Nino event?
I would also recommend using cusum and paired moving averages methods to detect drift in the data, which by eye appears to swing from around -1 to +1 sigma.
An example of these methods applied to the Central England Temperature can be found here.
https://mynaturaldiary.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/whither-the-weather-2/
That is awesome. Back in the early 1990’s I wrote a stat program in Basic. I used a cumulative sum as a test for normality with the error factor based upon the standard error in estimating the mean to shift the curve left and right. It was quick and dirty and it actually worked quite well most of the time. Meaning if the actual population cumulative sum followed that defined gap it would pass other more rigorous tests such as a Chi Squared test. It had that advantage of being more or less a graphical test. That is a good idea when you are conversing with people who are not statistically literate. That is of course one of the purposes of what you do in quality. I also wrote a routine using identity matrix formulas from my old Analytical Algebra classes to do regressive analysis. Back then stat programs were few and far between. People were still using Lotus.
My certainty as to the accuracy of the events comes from an examination of the underlying data. I was able to identify real world events to match outliers in several cases. That is actually pretty cool. I even remember the 1998 heat wave. It was a really unusual because it just didn’t cool off at night. It did appear to be a Pacific based event based upon the locations where unusually high night time temperatures occurred. Southern California through Texas and into Georgia where I live as well as across the great plains up into Canada.
Much of the unusually cold events had to do with the Great Lakes. I am imagining a cold artic pattern much like what we are seeing now. Records on the internet are scarce, but I did find references to news paper articles for such events.
Hello, Mike,
How do I get to your blog? I wrote (and sold) stats software in the 90s and 00s. It has loads of facilities! I also use cusums for initial analysis of climate data. It gives an immediate insight into the general form of the distribution and identifies possible/probable step changes, of which there are many in this sort of data. I can send stuff, with diagrams, via email. Ccan’tput diagrams (GIFs) here, I fear.
That’s good!
For reference this is what a normality test looks like
It’s for the June CET data since 1850. As you can see, it is normally distributed, and is effectively in a ‘state of SPC’, in as much as it hasn’t changed since 1850.
January’s CET data since 1850 isn’t normally distributed.
It is leptokurtic, i.e. more ‘tailed’ than due to the normal distribution. Linking this back to teleconnections suggests the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations are largely responsible.
Mark, I wrote a BASIC program to check the Data and then create the SPC plots along with control limits etc for Production Processes back in the 90s as well. You could add the data and extend the Graph to get the monthly/annual results as well as the daily//weekly ones
I was working at Ford Motor Co UK at the time.
I am still programming in Visual Basic for Applications which uses a lot of the old BASIC language.
First someone must prove that the instruments providing the temperature is fit for purpose. C sub k if I remember correctly. But Anthony’s dive into temperature boxes shows that many or most were not. From placement, growth around site, site deteriorating, moving site etc. makes what you are doing SPC on suspect.
I have covered that subject quite a bit on my blog. The effects of site degradation are readily apparent in the data. Obviously some leg work is required to verify the inference, but the effects are clear. That is what makes this study so interesting. Those effects are to a large degree are not apparent in the daily minimums. Yes, there are a few sites which experienced some abnormal warming and cooling, but no where near as many and not to the same order of magnitude. That is the basis of my suppositions.
“The lack of any evidence of a change in heat retained overnight, if correct, would debunk the concept added CO2 is causing the surface of the Earth to warm up due to downward IR”……………exactly
Mark, just wanted to make a comment before I get totally absorbed reading your material.
You’ve done some fantastic work!
(PS. I’ve left a message on your blog asking you to contact me).
Thank you! I take that as a big compliment. I will of course reply.
I read your post concerning the growing isolation of the media with great interest. I follow some decent commentators on Youtube. The grass roots tech info revolution has basically passed these folks by. All rulers think their time is forever. Late to the party as they are, they have attempted to crash the party while at the same time trying to convince everyone it is a pretty crappy party where you are likely to hear a bunch of nonsense and lies. That works with a core audience, but that core is shrinking with each passing year.
Once again, why is the greenhouse effect upside down? How can the surface warm faster than the lower troposphere? This, and a cooling stratosphere (which is not occurring) are the main tenets of AGW. It goes over True Believer heads like a lead balloon.
Maybe the models did not get it right!? I do think the profile of warming just is unexpected.
Current temperature in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/dv1azanfexo6.png
Looks to be the high temperature for the day.
That image certainly does not accurately reflect the daily temperature here in Virginia.
How does a high temperature image fit in a thread discussing minimum temperature?
Mark
The underlying assumption in SPC is the deviations are random variability. The computation of standard deviation must not include the non-random signal you’re trying to detect. If the signal is AGW, then the data set for standard deviation should exclude AGW influence. For example, if significant man-made GHG emission started in 1950, then compute mean and SD from 1900-1950.
SPC always proceeds from a over all average. What sets it apart from a blind capability study is how the standard deviation is estimated. The classic method is to average the range of subgroup samples and divide by two. This is why in SPC you do not perform a capability study until process control is verified for 100 subgroups. After reaching a hundred points the average range becomes a good estimator of the ± one standard deviation. And if you understand SPC, then you understand that is how you separate normal variability from abnormal variability. A plot showing a steady, linear growth due to cutter wear in machining work as an example would show that wear as part of the variability, wear as the true normal variability of the process would be better represented as the average difference between consecutive samples.
The only reason to normalize the data is to make the change graphically evident and to simplify the math. Where you normalize it doesn’t matter. You could normalize it to the last ten years. Or the middle ten years. The shape of the curve doesn’t change. Calling that a graph of temperature anomalies doesn’t change that either.
Here’s a thought experiment. I have a data set with no trend
Sample size = 100, mean = 50, variability +/- 10
The data set is a repeating series:
40, 50, 60, 40, 50, 60, and so on until it reaches 100 data numbers
The standard deviation of this set is 8.18
Normalized at 2 sigma, the range is 34 to 66. Therefore, all data fall within 2 sigma and we conclude there’s no non-random anomaly in the data
Now I put a non-random trend in the data set but the same sample size = 100 and the same mean = 50
The data set is an arithmetic series with common difference r = 0.6
20, 20.6, 21.2, 21.8, and so on until it reaches 100 data numbers. The last number is 79.4
The standard deviation of this set is 17.3
Normalized at 2 sigma, the range is 15 to 84. Therefore, all data fall within 2 sigma and we conclude there’s no non-random anomaly in the data. The whole set is just random variability!
How’s that? SPC isn’t looking for a trend. It’s looking for non-random anomalies. And if the anomalies are included in the standard deviation, it cannot detect it
The other thing in SPCis looking for consecutive plottings which do not cross the x axis. It isn’t just exceeding a certain sigma level. Also looking for repeated patterns is part of SPC.
Regression analysis is a better tool than SPC in detecting trends. Temperature data can have anomalies exceeding threshold sigma level that are just natural variability. It’s hard to distinguish natural vs. man-made anomalies using SPC especially if the man-made anomalies are included in standard deviation.
“If CO2 truly did act as a greenhouse or a blanket to retard cooling that effect would be demonstrable in progressively higher overnight temperatures. There is no evidence that has occurred.”
I’m confused. Didn’t we have a post here last year that showed Las Vegas temperatures, and how the daily highs there have not been increasing but the daily minimums have been steadily rising over the decades as the heat sinks of concrete and asphalt that have paved the city radiate back stored heat at night — accounting for all of the rise in average temperature in Las Vegas?
TDBraun: I am confused, too. I thought I also read here that it is higher minimums, not maximums, which are driving the GAT higher and that one cause of this is persistent contrails which act as an blanket at night.
I have noticed that since the end of 2016 night time temps around the globe started to return to the average trend line at varied locations around the globe. This winter the return to average or below average minimum temps was even more noticeable, imo.
About all I see in the last 100 years of climate data is the AMO cycle. It looks to me from the ocean temperature data that the North Atlantic is cooling from below. The negative phase of the AMO is starting right on time. Throw in low solar activity and the earth’s weakening magnetic field and the next 30 years or so could get interesting – if you like cold and snow.
Standard variance is the second central moment of a normal distribution.
The derivative of sin x is cos x, which is a 90 degree phase shift in the original signal x.
So now compare your min temps normalized to a sigma plot to this:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
“Daily lows must be unaffected for the most part by site changes which cause higher day time temperatures.”
This additionally calls into question the homogenization practice of warming the present and cooling the past. It should actually be the opposite if they are going use homogenization adjustments.
There is evidence of a regular pattern about 60 or so years in length.
Could it be that this wavelength represents an underlying resonant frequency of the oceans?
Quoting the article’s author Mark Fife, to wit:
OH WOW, …… thank you Mark Fife, …… thank you for posting the above.
For the past 15+ years I have been posting, on different forums, the same or similar factual scientific claim concerning Specific Heat Capacities (SHCs) of the per se “greenhouse” gases and not a single time do I recall a learned/educated person posting their agreement to said claim(s), ……. but on the contrary, ……. there have been several persons that responded by criticizing and/or badmouthing what they believed was the unscientific and silliness of my SHC claims.
The literal fact is, at a temperature of 175K the SHC of water (H2O) vapor is 1.850 kJ/kgK, ….. whereas the SHC of CO2 is 0.709 kJ/kgK, ….. which means that if the temperature of a portion of the atmosphere is measured to be 175K, ….. then each atmospheric water (H2O) vapor molecule in said portion contains 2.6 times greater quantity of absorbed thermal “heat” energy than does each atmospheric CO2 molecule.
In other words, if the temperature of any given portion of the atmosphere increases, …….. then the temperature of all the different gases in said portion of the atmosphere must increase in temperature, ……. and any water (H2O) vapor in said portion of atmosphere must absorb 2.6 times more thermal “heat” energy than the CO2 in said portion of atmosphere.
Because of the extremely low water (H2O) vapor content of the near-surface air in/of desert locales, the air temperature closely “tracts” the amount of solar irradiance, …… thus the morning air temperatures increase quickly and late afternoon and nighttime temperatures decrease quickly.
Specific Heat
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html
H2O vapor – Specific Heat Capacity
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-d_979.html
CO2 – Specific Heat Capacity
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
Absolutely and me too. What is interesting to me is that water has a heat capacity of 4.187 at whatever temperature that is. Water vapor is as you described. I was reading on line where a large thundercloud can hold as much as 2 billion pounds of water and even a small cloud can hold as much mass as a 747. I would rather see that related to number of swimming pools or something so I can visualize it, but okay. That’s a lot of water. And it holds a lot of energy. A lot more than the surrounding air. So rain must represent a large transfer of energy from the sky. But instead of that energy adding to the temperature of the ground it typically cools things off because it is usually cooler. That is food for thought.
“And it (large thundercloud) holds a lot of energy.”
Right you are, …… and at least you and I both will PUBLICALLY ADMIT to knowing the reason that meteorologists (weather reporters) refer to the “leading” edge of most all approaching (incoming) H2O laden thunderstorms as being a “warm front”.
HA, ya never read or hear of any AGW believers/proponents make mention of said “warm fronts”.
And that “warm front” will actually “warm up” any near-surface air underneath it that is “cooler” than it is.
Samuel C Cougar, I have on several occasions posted about the specific heat of CO2. Just a few days ago I commented that I think Anthony’s CO2 experiment demonstrates why the AGW claims are wrong. Simply using Q = Cp * m * dT shows that given the same Q CO2 can’t attain the same temperature of air because of its mass.
According to AGW theory forcing formula, the CO2 jar should have had a extra 75W of energy in it. But to no avail. And it cooled down fast.
If Anthony’s experiment is reproducible then I think it clearly shows that adding more CO2, read mass, then it is not possible for the atmosphere to increase in temperature.
There are other reasons I am a very deep skeptic but this works as well as others.
“Right you are, …… and at least you and I both will PUBLICALLY ADMIT to knowing the reason that meteorologists (weather reporters) refer to the “leading” edge of most all approaching (incoming) H2O laden thunderstorms as being a “warm front”.”
I have never done so or recall one time that a fellow meteorologist has done this as its meteorologically wrong…….in fact, just the opposite.
The leading edge of a line of thunderstorms will almost always feature COOLER air.
On some occasions(minority) an approaching warm front(receding cooler air) can trigger thunderstorms as the warmer air is lifted over the cooler air at the surface…….then, AFTER the thunderstorms move thru and surface winds shift to transport in the warmer/more humid air on the warm side of the boundary.
However, most warm fronts don’t feature thunderstorms because the lift is not nearly as powerful as cold fronts. You can bet your meteorological life that a thunderstorm will cool the surface and if it was generated from a cold front, even cooler, drier air will follow.
There are stationary and occluded fronts as well as air mass thunderstorms from hot humid air rising without the lift from a front…………and upper level waves that can trigger organized thunderstorms but they all cool the surface temperature with rain cooled air.
The temperature aloft will always be colder than the surface in a thunderstorm. If that was not the case, the air could not be buoyant enough to lift with enough gusto to generate a thunderstorm. This happens from much warmer, less dense air near the surface rising rapidly into the relatively colder air aloft.
An inversion, with warmer air aloft vs cooler air near the surface will stifle thunderstorm development.
After the thunderstorms develop, rain falls from a level that is MUCH cooler than the warmer surface air that initially generated the lift. It immediately cools the surface. We call that rain cooled air. It happens with all thunderstorms.
The dew point and moisture can go up but rain falling from colder clouds/Thunderstorms will always cool the surface.
So chimed in did: Mike Maguire – April 6, 2018 at 8:58 am
Almost always, HUH?
Maybe so, Mike M, ….. but are you factually asserting that it is impossible, or improbable, for the leading edge of an incoming “warm front” to morph into a line of thunderstorms? To wit:
Mike M, a thunderstorm or thundercloud is nothing more than a “noisy” weather event wherein a static electric “charge” increases to a point that it “discharges” cloud-to-cloud, ….. cloud-to-ground or ….. cloud-to-space, …..via a “flash” of lightening that causes said “thunder”.
Mike M, I have personally witnessed a “pouring down” rainstorm when the near-surface air temperature was like -8 F. (That’s 8 degrees below 0 [zero] degrees F) “DUH”, as you should very well know, fast moving “inversion” air masses can cause strange weather events.
“YUP”, strange weather events, …… like one time the outside temp was like 20 below (-20 F) when my wood burning cookstove started “blowing” smoke out of every crack n’ crevasse and filling up the room with smoke so thick I hardly could see. I didn’t want to open the exterior door because of the -20 degrees F temp, but I had to, ….. to exhaust the smoke. And when I did, …… “WOW”, the outside temp was like 50 degrees F.
And Mike, I have also personally witnessed, ….. several different times, ….. “lightening & thunder” storms during “white-out” condition snow storms. So technically, “lightening & thunder” is NOT directly connected or associated with “warm fronts”, “cold fronts” ….. or even “false fronts”.
Cheers
Let’s blame CO2 for the global warming. It increased from approximately 275 ppm (volume) in 1900 to 400 ppm (volume) in 2000 which in grade school math gives an increase of 125 ten thousandths of one percent by volume. I’m certain that anyone who believes this small increase in the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has anything to do with global warming, also believes in the tooth fairy.
In 1979 global average temperature was -0.2C from the running 30 yr. average, today its +0.2C.
Is there really any reason to assume a necessity for so much time and concern spent?
Anyone who is concerned would be better off tracking levels of actual toxic pollutants and directing their energy towards solving those issues.
or fight for Mexico and China to assume responsibility of pollutants.
I would advise against the later or suggest you retain some big boy scout supplies before attempting.
Quoting the next-to-last paragraph of above commentary, to wit:
If a 110+ year old Historical Temperature Record existed for a specific location in Death Valley, California, then I am positive that if one had access to said Record they could easily prove that the past 110+ years of increasing atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities (295.7 ppm in 1900) have had no effect whatsoever at causing “progressively higher overnight temperatures” at said Death Valley location. And for that matter, no effect whatsoever at causing “progressively higher daytime temperatures”, either.
“The other interesting observation is how the year to year variability decreased going into the 1940’s and then again in the 1960’s. ”
Maybe whatever was happening during the 1940s warm period and 1960s cooling was limiting the extreme temperatures. Perhaps some process or processes were near some limits.
“There is no significant difference between the 1930’s and either the 1990’s or the 2000’s. The 1930’s are warmer than either by .08 standard deviations. This is insignificant.”
If daily minimum temperatures are no higher for the 2000’s than they were for the 1930’s, what evidence is there for global warming? Granted, North America and Europe are not the entire world, but that’s where most of the reliable long-term temperature readings come from. We were told that Global warming would raise minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures. Since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, the entire planet should be showing signs of warming by now. So, if there is no evidence of such warming occurring in North America or Europe, how can anyone claim the science is settled?
As it stands, all evidence for global warming can currently be explained by natural variation and/or adjustments to the temperature data. I’m still waiting for clear evidence of irreversible warming and the ill effects it is supposed to cause. When is all the polar ice supposed to melt? When are polar bears supposed to go extinct? When are Islands supposed to become submerged by increasing sea levels? How much longer do I have to wait to see clear evidence that global warming is actually happening? Until I do see such clear evidence, I plan to keep an open mind. And no amount of consensus by people whose paychecks or political futures depend on alarming the masses is going to sway me.
“I’m still waiting for clear evidence of irreversible warming and the ill effects it is supposed to cause. ”
And you will wait a long time for such evidence.
Because there is none.
No one has explained how content sized areas could possibly be having a different long term trend than the globe as a whole.
It is far more logical to assume that the places we have very good records over a long period of time and over a wide geographic area, are representative of the globe as a whole, when speaking of the long term of decades to centuries.
Typo:
Content sized area should read “continent sized area”.
Y does it seem like many of most of the graphs on this site end around 2011? I thought it wuz 2018? Inconvenient data…? More likely time warps?
In my case that is the end of the data set. It stops right there. Isn’t it interesting the tail end trend of a lot if these archive data sets shows a cooling?
Perhaps that explains things.
The majority of surface temperature numbers (grids) are wild guessed.
That’s not real data.
Probably all real data from surface thermometers have been adjusted,
probably more than once.
The real data no longer exist after “adjustments”.
The surface data are not real data at all
— they are garbage data —
and should not be used for conclusions
about climate science.
‘That’s the best we have”
is not a good excuse for
basing conclusions on faulty data,
compiled buy smarmy bureaucrats
who WANT more warming;
I believe Tony Heller has found a way to access the original station by station data, in unadjusted form.
And also wrote a free program that he gives away for free to read, analyze, and interpret this data.
You just need to go to his site and look, or ask. Someone will point you right to it.
It is for sure that different trends are apparent when examining the original unaltered stations records one by one.
I had thought that Mr. Fife had used the unaltered original data for his study here.
I agree 100% that any conclusions reached by examining altered data is pretty much completely unreliable, and likely a waste of time.
The alarmistas have done a very good job at what they set out to accomplish: Make it seem as though their preconceived and utterly contrived notion of CO2 being the thermostat of the atmosphere is undeniably true.
After all. let’s not forget this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
I believe the data from the GHCN daily records is unadjusted and uncorrected.