Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
For some years now I’ve been saying that the largest warming is occurring in the northern extratropics, at night, in the winter … and today I realized that I’d always just taken that on faith because I read it somewhere.
Now, folks who know me are aware that I don’t like to trust any claim until I’ve run the numbers myself. So I set out to do that.
I figured I’d look at fairly recent land data since we have much more of that than older data or ocean data. Overall, here are the decadal trends in the maximum temperatures. I’ve used Berkeley Earth data, although I strongly suspect it exaggerates the warming, for a couple of reasons. First, all the records seem to exaggerate the warming, and second, I’m interested in relative trends, not absolute trends.
Figure 1. Maximum monthly average temperature trends, 1950-2020
We can see that the greatest change in maximum temperature is in the northern hemisphere (0.23°C/decade), with the arctic warming the fastest.
Next, here are the trends in the monthly average minimum temperatures. These, of course, are night-time temperatures.
Figure 2. Minimum temperature trends, 1950-2020
Again, the minimum temperatures in the northern hemisphere are indeed warming fastest. They are also warming faster than the maximum temperatures (0.25°C/decade vs. 0.23°C/decade). It’s also worth noting that there are actually a few areas where nighttime temperatures have cooled …
Finally, I took a look at the summer and winter trends by latitude. Figure 3 below shows that result.
Figure 3. Maximum and minimum surface temperature trends by latitude, northern hemisphere (NH) winter and summer.
Turns out that my claim was right. The largest warming is indeed in the northern extratropics, in the winter, at night (dark blue line). Second largest warming is same location, same season, during the day. As you can see, the winter warming is increasing as you go north of about 45°N latitude.
And what are the average daytime and nighttime NH winter temperatures? Figure 4 shows that result.
Figure 4. Northern hemisphere winter daytime (red) and nighttime average temperatures, by latitude
Note that at about 45°N latitude (thin blue vertical line), approximately where the increased warming starts, the daytime temperature averages just below freezing, and the nighttime temperature average is -13°C (9°F) … cold.
This is good news, because I doubt if the people in Vladivostok are going to be unhappy with slightly warmer winter nights … or days, for that matter
And having slept a few times in my youth on a piece of cardboard on the streets of Manhattan in wintertime, with newspapers wrapped around my legs and arms inside my clothing to help keep out the cold, I can personally guarantee that the homeless in New York City won’t object if the winter nights are a bit warmer.
Makes me glad I’m in my nice warm fossil-fuel-heated house tonight …
Best of the late autumn to all,
w.
How does anybody actually measure 0.23 per DECADE???
THEY DON’T!!!!!
It’s a statistical aberration!!!!!
How does anybody actually measure 0.23 per DECADE???
____________________________________________________
They can do better than that, The IPCC tells us that they can measure 0.10°C over a 42 year period in the ocean no less:
IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 Page 387
Executive Summary
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
surface to a depth of 700 m. C
That too is calculated by linear regression. It can be expressed as a trend over a certain period (decade, century, etc) or, as in this case, as a single figure over the whole data. The precision of the actual measured data is irrelevant. In the case of SSTs most historical data would be in single or half degrees.
You want to provide some reference from an established organization that supports your assertion.
I will give you one that absolutely destroys what you just said.
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~coursedev/Online%20tutorials/SigFigs.htm
You are making yourself look ignorant. Averaging or trending or statistical analysis simply can not increase the precision of what you have measured. Any perceived additional decimal digits of precision are simply artifacts of simple arithmetic and are not significant.
If you wish to continue to state this you will only make people less likely to believe what you say.
If you want to partially redeem yourself, then tell the thread exactly what the standard deviation is of each of the variables that make up your trend. Willis has started your education by showing you that separating the variables in an average can reveal that are otherwise hidden thru mathematical tricks.
I suspect that most readers here already are inclined to disbelieve ToeFungalNail because of the whoppers he has already told.
Mess with anything and it becomes an anecdote. Yup yup.
Nailed it !
Jim I have tried repeatedly on these pages to explain the simple concept of significant numbers. Both sides of the Climate Buffoonery still don’t get it. Your wasting your breath.
If people don’t keep challenging then the folks making propaganda will win. I don’t intend to allow that.
Might as well just invent data if the precision is irrelevant, and you can have a valid regression for anything you want.
… and that is exactly what they do !
They confuse precision with accuracy
A clock is precise when it marks the seconds exactly and unvaryingly but may still be inaccurate if it shows the wrong time.
All the metrics in climate studies are constructs (averages, means, anomalies, trends etc etc).
And terms like “hot” are so meaningless in any description of prevailing environments – what’s “hot” or “cold” to one person is quite comfortable for another.
And yes I totally agree that arguing about temperature constructs in hundredths of a degree over decades is abject nonsense.
I am more practically informed about prevailing conditions by Willis’ description of measures applied to avoid freezing to death while sleeping on the streets of Manhattan in winter.
My experience of that place was the complete opposite – in August buying a bottle of cold water to pour over myself to cool down.
Re your second paragraph, you are exactly right. I sit here in our boat above the 49th parallel, comfortable at 22C in a Tshirt while my wife sits across from me next to the heater in a coat and sweater complaining about the cold. It’s all relative.
“How does anybody actually measure 0.23 per DECADE???”
____________
They don’t ‘measure’ it, it’s a trend. The trend is an intrinsic property of the data. It’s calculated by linear regression. The precision of the original data has no bearing on the precision of the trend. That’s true no matter what it is you’re measuring.
That’s true of every aspect of climate “science”
Tell us something we don’t already know.
The *precision* of the data may not matter much but the uncertainty does. And the uncertainty of the data *doesn* affect the uncertainty of the trend line.
Computers are always precisely wrong.
That must be why they don’t mention uncertainty in either the original data or the trend line. /sarc
Too bad you don’t know what you are talking about.
and what is the trend of this function:
y=Sin(x)
Easy.. up, down, up, down, up, down ……….
No! It is up, none, down, none, up, none, down ……
The trend is 0.
That is, for the range of 0 <= X <= 2*pi
Another lie, ToeFungalNail. Read up on the Deming algorithm (yes, the very same Deming that dramatically improved the quality of Japanese products). It weights each data point by the precision of that data point so imprecisely known data do not overly influence the calculated trend. If the precision of the data did not influence the precision of the trend, as you so falsely claim, a single data point that is wildly wrong but imprecisely known could pull the trend up or down dramatically. Real statisticians know about these things, even if climatologists don’t. You’ve been schooled on this before, LIAR.
But then again, if the data is wrong, you have a precise trend for invalid data.
The trend would have no bearing on reality.
In the end it would be a meaningless exercise in futility.
Another person who is utterly ignorant of GIGO
If you measure the temperature now, then measure the temperature again 100 years later and find that the temperature increased by 1C, then you have a 0.01C increase per year, even if you can’t measure 0.01C.
When that data trend has an R^2 of about 0.3 extrapolation and averages out of that noise are meaningless.
Besides:
The Earth is cooler w atmosphere not warmer.
To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a BB surface which is not possible.
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven global warming or climate change.
What the GMST was/is/will be is moot.
Which temperature Mark?
In any one location you are going to have 60 X 60 X 24 = 86,400 possible temperature readings every single day over a year across > 4 seasons.
And if you decide to pick just one reading from one particular day to use as your base, you’re bound to be accused of “cherry picking”.
So if you then decide to “average” a number of readings over multiple times, days, seasons over the base year, you’re just then using numeric constructs that have no actual existence in the real world.
It’s pea and thimble stuff mate.
And the temperature reading could be different a few feet away. I think computing an average for the entire earth for, say, a hundred years would require several lifetimes with super computers. Why not just walk out the door an call it a nice day or not.
There should still be a cited uncertainty associated with the trend line.
No you don’t. You have a data point 1 degree warmer than another data point 100 years previous. They have no relationship to actual temperatures at any point in between or to a data point 100 years in the future.
Actually, in 100 years you could have had one or more oscillations up/down/sideways and you might be measuring the cooling portion of an oscillation. That’s what we have now. People taking advantage of what may very well be a short trend and they simply ignore the past because they have some “new” possibility that will let them make money.
Or…the temperature fell by a few degrees over approximately 30 years, then rose a few degrees over approximately 30 years, then fell by a few degrees over approximately 30 years. Finally, the temperature rose 1 degree over the next 10 years, following a pattern of going nowhere overall.
Well, I see what happens when one puts a post on in haste, because dinner was calling. Obviously, I should have started off with a fifteen year fall, followed by a 30 year rise, to illustrate my point.
Can you tell me which period you mean with this trend?
For 1979-now, we have
The latter one is indeed near to your 0.23, OK.
And what is the actual baseline average?
IPCC AR5 15 C or 288 K
K-T diagram 396 W/m^2 + S-B = 289 K or 16 C
UCLA Diviner Mission 294 K or 21 C
Hadcrut 4 – GMST = 13.97
NOAA/GISS ?
RSS?
UAH?
JAXA?
Hello Nick Schroeder,
you idea with comparing these time series with their anomalies’ baseline average unfortunately makes few sense, because many of the baselines are calculated out of the absolute data of different reference periods:
Where the absolute data is available, there is no problem to create a baseline according to any reference period located within the time series; but many keep it hidden.
For UAH you can create it out of their monthly climatology, but where would the value of about 264 K help you? To what could you compare it?
All records of a perfectly natural trend. Prove me wrong. We’ll wait….
1979 to 2020 just happens to include almost all of the 1975 to 2020 warming period.
The only period known to have a strong positive correlation of CO2 and temperature.
Some people would call that data mining.
With a Willisomometer, Nick.
Try and keep up.
You have random error and you have systematic error, If you use the same well calibrated instrument to take data by many different observers you will see a random error. The error is due to observer technique. The more data you average the better the precision. If the instrument is out of calibration, then no matter how many observers and how much data the error will persist. But with many observers, some better than others, and many instruments, some well calibrated and some not, the error will be random, and the more data the better the precision. Until the data adjusters arrive with political motives. Then all precision is lost.
Averaging across multiple inputs doesn’t increase precision. It compounds error
The problem with temperature is that you don’t have multiple instruments measuring the same thing at the same time. Every temperature is read by a single instrument a single time. Once that measurement is done what you measured is gone into aether, never to be seen again.
It is only measurements of the same thing that generate a set of random error clustering around an expected value – the true value. As you point out, systemic error is a bias that causes that clustering to be around a value that is not the true value. It is an in-built bias that can’t be eliminated by statistical analysis. What you are measuring will provide some precision, i.e. repeatability, but it may not be accurate. Thus even multiple measurements of the same thing will have some level of uncertainty.
Multiple measurements of different things (like temperature) do not have measurements clustering around an expected value (true value). There is *no* true value in such a case. The uncertainty associated with each measurement contributes to an increased variance of values when you cram them into a data set. You may still calculate a mean but such a mean carries little information about the data set. The data set could actually even be multi-modal with the mean providing even less information about the data set (think combining a January temp in the northern hemisphere with a January temp in the southern hemisphere).
“Every temperature is read by a single instrument a single time.”
Not true.
A significant portion of our planet’s surface is not measured at all.
The temperatures are guessed and the guesses can never be verified.
The use of weather satellites has significantly reduced the percentage of the planet that requires guessing, to about 5%. I believe the guessing for land surfaces is at least quadruple that percentage, but would welcome anyone here
to specify exactly what percentage
of surface measurements are estimates
WITH NO THERMOMETER DATA.
Weather satellites may provide a useful metric but there is no way it can actually be considered an average temperature of the globe. The satellite passes over the same point once every 24 hours. You get one data point per day for every location. That’s not enough to determine an average temperature for any one location let enough to establish a global average.
Unmeasured land locations that are guessed at are a mess. Once you get about 50 miles east/west or north/south apart or have a 1000 foot difference in elevation the correlation coefficient drops to less than 0.8. In other words, weak to no correlation. Using stations farther apart than 100 miles or 1000 ft in elevation to determine an infull value is only fooling yourself.
No, the satellites do not measure surface temperature, instead they measure air temperature over the 0-10km altitude where it is decreasing exponentially.
“The more data you average the better the precision. ”
This is incorrect. Precision can be defined by repeatability and significant digits. A single measurement simply can not have it’s precision increased by averaging with another measurement. Resolution determines the precision of a measurement and the resulting Significant Digits contained in the measurement. Averaging can not not increase the resolution of or the Significant Digits contained in the average. If averaging could increase precision we would have no need for micrometers or atomic clocks.
Here is the best definition I have ever found. It is from Washington University at St. Louis. Take note of “we compromise the integrity of what this number is representing.”
“Defining the Terms Used to Discuss Significant Figures”
“Significant Figures: The number of digits used to express a measured or calculated quantity.”
“By using significant figures, we can show how precise a number is. If we express a number beyond the place to which we have actually measured (and are therefore certain of), we compromise the integrity of what this number is representing. It is important after learning and understanding significant figures to use them properly throughout your scientific career.”
“Precision: A measure of how closely individual measurements agree with one another.”
“Accuracy: Refers to how closely individual measurements agree with the correct or true value.”
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~coursedev/Online%20tutorials/SigFigs.htm
BEST does a fine job. You’re wasting time and not looking your best. When you have more than 500 pretty regular data points, you are measuring. If you want to plead incurable ignorance, that’s not winning.
It’s late spring where I live in the cooling by day Southern Cone.
Unlike much of the rest of the world, BEST gets this region right.
For some years now I’ve been saying that the largest warming is occurring in the northern extratropics, at night, in the winter … and today I realized that I’d always just taken that on faith because I read it somewhere.
__________________________________________
IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 Page 750
Temperature Extremes
…
Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to
increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a
decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases in frost days
are projected to occur almost everywhere in the middle and high
latitudes, with a comparable increase in growing season length.
That is a good thing … more food for more people for more global warming … what is not to like 🙂
Are they projecting the use of more coal?
Arrhenius, in 1897 (excerpt):
Svante, while overestimating the ECS of CO2, nevertheless rightly considered AGW a great blessing and boon to the frigid world.
Frigid and dangerously starved of plant food, I might add.
Except there isn’t a monotonic decrease in the difference! See Fig. 1 at this link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/
This graphic is interesting:
When you make the period long enough, all climate graphics show cyclic movements, (be it in a chaotic pattern). 100% opposite to ‘runaway thinking’.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting!
It is Fig. 1 from the link I posted. Apparently you didn’t click on it.
So, the IPCC AR4 statement about min temp increasing faster than max temp seems to be correct for NH extratopics in the NH winter and for SH temperate at the same time (SH summer), but not true for NH extratropics or SH temperate in the NH summer.
Willis,
Thanks for another breath of sanity, and say hello to the Pacific for me!
If every place is warming twice as fast as expected, and most are warming twice as fast as every place else; will we soon be able to throw another logarithm on the fire!
Great analysis, WE. Completely shreds any warming alarm.
And, shreds the climate models that generally do not show this reality. Models show the greatest warming in the tropics (the modeled mid troposphere tropical hot spot that does not exist in reality).
And much of the Arctic warming is simply made up, plus some in the northern temperate zone. A lot of the rest is from the UHI effect and rural land use changes. Throw in natural variation, and there’s little left for the portion of man-made warming from the GHE.
John, it sure looks like your comments about N Hemisphere UHI, etc, is correct, especially since the heat stored in the oceans, with a lot more ocean in the S Hemisphere, should show more heating in the S, but instead it’s in the winter in the N. This whole issue of actual heating of the earth due to anthropogenic causes is really complicated in that we cannot even get the natural variation correct. Canada and Siberia complaining about less freezing winter temperatures is crazy writ large.
My apologies for my crazy fellow Canadians. Can’t say that Siberians can match us in craziness. Perhaps vodka has a more mellowing effect than beer and Canadian whiskey.
Of course, perhaps even they would elect a trust fund kid with funny socks as leader if they had a choice.
John,
How much of the Arctic warming is merely heat from the Tropics conveyed to the north by the various ocean currents?
To the extent that there actually be warming in the Arctic, it is largely thanks to ocean currents, and the major oscillations, like the PDO and AMO, which have warm and cool phases.
There probably has been some air warming in the North Polar Zone, and a portion of that could be from a fourth CO2 molecule per 10,000 dry air moleclues, since the air is drier there. Less H2O makes CO2 more influencial.
But who really notices if dark, winter air T warms up from -39 C to -37?
And there you have the key and the reason for propaganda. Warming from 0.1 to 0.2 is a 100% increase. No wonder the layman is frightened. Yet -39 to -37 is 2 / 39 = 5% increase. Much less frightening and makes it hard to justify upsetting the worlds economies and supply of reliable electricity.
Only a layman would calculate temperature increases in anything other than degrees Kelvin. Percentage increases using any other scale are abitrary and almost meaningless.
Yet degrees C is exactly what CACA spewers rely upon.
John, you misunderstand. You only need Kelvin if you want to calculate percentage increases. For all other purposes, you can use any scale.
I’m not saying that percentages are meaningless. Far from it. But most analyses involve things like trends and relative temperatures, for which K, °C, or °F are equally valid.
w.
OK, let’s go with Utqiagvik, the Alaskan town formerly known as Barrow. If you can believe NOAA, which you can’t, the 30 year annual average baseline there is -9.9 C.
I don’t have its 1901-1990 average, but stipulate two degrees C lower. What climatic effect does warming from an annual average of -12 degrees C to -10 C, mostly at night in winter, have?
Agreed. But I am surprised the warmistas do not use degrees Rankine (°R). The average temperature of the Earth sounds so much warmer at 518°R.
(The best aerospace engineers use °R )
Ok!
-39C = 234K
-37C = 236K
Difference = 2K
(2 / 234) * 100 = 0.85%
Even better. Show that on a graph from 0 – 300!
Shouldn’t we be using absolute temperatures anyway?
Depends what effect it has on the seaice, if the top of the ice is -37 and the bottom is -2 that implies thinner ice.
Most.
Color me unimpressed with a decadal increase of about 2 C over land (no ocean influence) during a periodic upswing in cyclic global temperatures.
Rud,
Not sure why this analysis “shreds any warming alarm”. It shows that the warming trend since 1950 is 0.2 degrees per decade meaning that we are likely to see 2 degrees of global warming by 2050. Which if anything fully supports the alarm over global warming.
What if it’s 0.2 degrees cooler by 2050?
Or 2.0C cooler, like it was from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, according to the U.S. regional chart, Hansen 1999.
Here’s Hansen 1999, alongside a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/
As you can see, the temperatures shown by Hansen 1999, cooled about 2.0C between the 1930’s and the 1970’s. It would be a cooling of 2.5C if the year 1934 is included. That’s the only quibble I have with Brian Sussman’s book “Climategate”. He says this temperature reduction was 0.18C, but obviously, that isn’t the case in North America.
Also note it was just as cold in the first decade of the 20th century as it was in the 1970’s. We are moving in a channel.
Perhaps you’re younger than me, but I have this sneaking suspicion that I won’t be likely to see 2 degrees of warming or anything else by 2050. So if you are, I’m glad you have something to worry about for your future.
I was extremely worried about the effects of Y2K but that turned out to be bunk. My father was extremely worried about the effects of nuclear fallout in the 1950’s. He died at 90 when his heart finally stopped, after complaining how cold he felt for the last 5 years of his life.
If warming of 0.2C per decade happens from now until 2050, it would be a warming of less than 0.6C. That’s not 2C. If you want to add in 1.4C of warming from an arbitrary point in the pre-industrial past to get to 2C, you should also notice that past warming was *beneficial*, not catastrophic, as being the coldest part of an interglacial isn’t remotely optimal for either mankind or nature. If you also want to claim that the next 0.6C of warming (if it happens) will be catastrophic, make it — it’s a hard sell in a world where the “warming” is biggest in a freezing well-below-zero NH winter, where the daily temperature average range is about 10C, and the global temperature range is about 70C. Reproduce figure 4 with all the figures shifted up by 0.6 degrees and the difference would be imperceptible.
Dale,
Willis’ graph shows a warming trend of 0.2 per decade from 1950 to now. Which means that if that trend continues to 2050 there will have been 10 decades of warming at 0.2 degrees per decade implying 2 degrees of warming compared to 1950.
What is the 95% confidence interval around that nominal value?
Does that 2C represent an increasing minimum temp, an increasing max temp, or a combination of both.
It makes a difference!
It was hotter in the 1950’s than it is now, at least around here.
Those Hockey Stick charts are a distortion of reality.
Are you worried about a 5% increase in temperature? Especially if it is generally making night time temps warmer.
Lets play devils advocate and assume you are right an the increase is a whole 2 degrees of your random baseline chosen… so what the world spontaneously catches fire and blow up? Just trying to clarify what happens given we keep being told it’s unprecedented and a climate emergency.
”It shows that the warming trend since 1950 is 0.2 degrees per decade”
Yeah but it’s not actually doing that. It’s hardly warmed for 80 years.
Mike,
where is the evidence for the claim that it has hardly warmed in 80 years?
Oh for God’s sake! Check the video I posted further down. The weather has warmed a bit over the last couple of decades. The climate hasn’t warmed in at least 80 years and probably several hundred.
Stop confusing weather and climate or we’ll never get off this ridiculous merry-go-round. The data Willis posted above is for entertainment purposes only.
We have been hoodwinked into believing the ”Globe has warmed”
Izick,
Please demonstrate for all us ignorant boobs how dire the warming really is! I think a winter solstice celebration in your shirtsleeves in some place like Tiksi, up in northern Siberia, would do the trick!
If you want to be especially intrepid, slip into your swimming suit and go for a dip in the Lena River, or the Laptev Sea! Just be on the lookout for any polar bears; they’re likely to be quite voracious in winter! Maybe you could pack a case of Coca-Cola along to help them wash down their feast
Is C02 the control knob?
What makes you think this trend is linear, and will continue?
Extrapolation quicksand.
This doesn’t “shred any warming alarm” !
The alarm is based on predictions of climate doom, not climate reality.
Predictions are impervious to facts, data and logic.
Well, here’s one for you: The areas of greatest warming (or, “The areas of greatest warming”) are those in which, I strongly suspect, there are the fewest weather stations (as in Siberia). So then, how much of the apparent greatest warming is actually the “result” of insufficient data from those areas?
My thought too. Antarctica, also extremely remote, shows cooling, though. But if you notice the maps indicate “gridded” data which means they took the temperature from specific locations then extrapolated it to (large) areas with no measurements; a method I contend is scientific malpractice. If you don’t have a measurement and you make one up, that’s not an observation of the natural world, that’s artificial. The Berkeley Earth global gridded data is junk science, although the site helpfully allows browsing individual station data.
The reality is that a few stations in high northern latitudes report warming trends. I want to know details of station locations. Are most of them located in urban areas with infrastructure growth causing artificial warming? Or are they well sited and the data reflects an actual (and inexplicable regional) warming trend? I doubt it. The USCRN has the best-sited stations in the world and they represent only a fraction all U.S. weather stations. I suspect that other countries, Russia in particular, don’t go to the same trouble. Notice that the hot spots are centered in eastern Siberia where an oil and gas boom is causing rapid growth of towns and cities related to the petroleum industry.
Rather than using Berkeley Earth’s maladjusted data, how about Willis tries his R skills on the satellite-only UAH or RSS temperature record?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
A quick glance at UAH shows a dramatic cooling trend above 60° N since 2016 that doesn”t appear in the Berkeley Earth plot. Here’s a plot I did of UAH about a year ago. Click on the legend to add or subtract latitudes. See “Northern Polar (60°N–90°N):
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&npa
Contrast with Berkeley Earth for the same latitude. Oh wait, there is none, only “northern hemisphere” which doesn”t help:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/northern-hemisphere
Can anyone find UAH or RSS data on the Berkeley Earth site? Or data specific to high northern latitudes? I don’t see any. Let’s see the same comparison with UAH data, Willis.
When it is 50 below it doesn’t take much of an urban island to have a large apparent effect. An actual city glows like a light bulb and smoke and steam from even a small village is visible for miles.
http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&npa
WR: Interesting link. Choosing only Northern Polar Land and Northern Polar Ocean, the very equal UAH atmospheric temperatures above both suggest that equal weather patterns cause equal temperature trends.
If Willis used the BEST Primary Product it is not data, it is computer Modelling output.
Convenient but not raw data.
Thanks, AC, but when we talk about a global temperature average, “raw data” are the individual station records. Everything else is those records combined in some manner. So I’m not clear just what “raw data” you are suggesting I use.
w.
~20 years ago I researched this –
USSR High Magnitude Climate Warming Anomalies 1901-1996
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ussr1.htm
Summary of Findings
In not one grid box, in any of the datasets, could this survey find in rural records the 1901-1996 warming magnitudes featured in Karl 1998.
In 80% of comparisons the Jones 1994 trends were warmer than GHCN or GISS. The GHCN and GISS trends are generally in fair agreement considering the sparse station density and frequent gaps in data.
In some cases, strong warming trends were based on data from fast-growing cities such as Irkutsk. In view of the well-documented urban heat island effect in such localities, the use of such data to indicate climatic trends lacks credibility.
Data gaps early in the 1901-1996 period, and the increased likelihood of outlier data in pre-1935 records which are hard to check, may have imparted other non-climatic effects on trends.
Despite the central control of the soviet system, the continuity of meteorological recordings over the period is far from impressive. It also appears that economic and social re-adjustments during the 1990’s have precluded significant improvement in record-keeping over this huge land-mass, despite the sharper focus on climate issues since 1988. Given the substantial contribution of “Soviet warming” to “global warming” shown in Fig 1, it is vital to reassess all of the Soviet station-by-station records.
William D Larson:
No, the warming is not the result of insufficient data.
Atmospheric Industrial Sulfur Dioxide aerosols reflect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface. Their levels in the atmosphere are monitored by NASA satellites, and as shown in the image below, they are essentially absent from the arctic regions,which allows those regions to warm more rapidly.
William D Larson:
The NASA images of atmospheric SO2 levels are dynamic .Here is another one, from June 27, 2020
And as the warming is from killer cold to slightly less, but still killer cold, forgive me if I am not all that concerned.
Yes, the warming is at night, in winter and the higher latitudes, but that’s not what the so-called mainstream media tells us or shows us. Drought with a blazing sun and dry cracked river bottom mud is the usual fare. Here’s the LINK to an example from NOAA
A simple consideration of how “green house gases” affect sky temperature will point to areas with the lowest temperatures being affected most by changes in “GHG” concentration and hat the effects will be more pronounced at night. Seeing the Arctic warming fastest makes perfect sense.
Since Antarctica has numerous mountains that limit the amount of the most important GHG, water vapor, the warming there is much less pronounced than in the Arctic (may actually be cooling).
And then all the “attribution” studies use projected future average temperatures.
Scarey stuff, good job the global parasite class is planning the “Great Reset” to disenfranchise us plebs so they can splurge our $Trillions on their “Green” plan to transform the global financial system and coral all the worlds resources under their watchful eyes and save us from ourselves.
My energy costs have almost doubled this year, I almost feel safer already, a bit higher and I’m sure I’ll feel completely safe.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/un-backed-banker-alliance-announces-green-plan-to-transform-the-global-financial-system/
Fret not, the U.S.A. government will soon be helping you out even more.
I live in Germany, and I get a big, big laugh about your picture.
Simply because your behavior on this blog reminds me all the German antivax people who
On average, at least 75 % of the ICU patients (up to 90 % in Bavaria) were not vaccinated – though they very well could have been.
The ICUs are in many hospitals filled with Covid patients to such an extent that many other highest priority interventions – like cancer, stroke prevention, orthopedic surgery etc – have to be delayed,
Thanks to these people, we are facing another tough lockdown. Great.
Yeah – this is the dictatorship of the few…
No on average most people in hospitals where partly or fully vaccinated.You keep following your nazi masters again,it sure helped you the first time.Ausweiss bitte!
Wrong! I have followed that on various newspapers and know what I speak about.
And thanks a lot for your completely stoopid and cowardy insult:
” You keep following your nazi masters again,it sure helped you the first time. “
In Berlin, currently 30% of hospitalized Covid patients are fully vaccinated, and that number has increased much faster in recent months than the vaccination rate. The total number of hospitalized Covid patients however is merely ONE THIRD of what it was in April this year, when there was no breakdown of the intensive care system, so THREE TIMES as many patients as we have currently have been cared for in the past and doubtlessly could be cared for again if needs be. The claim of “hospitals breaking down under a flood of Covid patients” is either a lie, or an artifact of hospitals reducing their staff and their number of beds (during a pandemic!) rather than hiring and training new staff and building new units from the enormous income generated by all these vaccinations and treatments so far. The hospitals have stolen that money instead of investing it and now complain about lacking capacities.
Among those with any Covid symptoms (i.e. including the great majority who is not in hospital but quarantined at home), the incidence among vaccinated if one-fifth of that among unvaccinated. With 70% vaccinated against 30% unvaccinated, that translates to a (0.7*0.2) : (0.3*0.8) = 0.14 : 0.24 or roughly 3 : 5 ratio between the actual numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons falling ill from the virus. In other words, the vaccines are a bad joke, not working at all in one of five persons (a fact that sets them apart from other, well-established vaccines like those against measles, polio, or smallpox), yet despite this obvious weakness of the Covid vaccine, vaccinated people are legally allowed – even encouraged – to gather without masks, without distance, without tests (so the many light and completely asymptomatic cases among them have every opportunity to spread the infection to their peers). No wonder the numbers – mostly those of asymptomatic and light cases that are basically harmless as they require just a few days of home quarantine until the affected stop spreading the stuff around – are “exploding”!
Finally, comparing the incidence of even mildly symptomatic cases with the total incidence found by random routine testing of apparently healthy citizens at the workplace or in shopping malls, it shows that roughly two out of three persons won’t even notice that they have caught Covid unless a test shows it. And this number is probably badly underestimated, as only unvaccinated persons (i.e. less than a third of the population) are required to undergo mandatory tests in most places now. If they start (again) to mass-test the vaccinated, the number of identified asymptomatic carriers will likely multiply, because all that these feeble vaccines do is _suppress_the_symptoms_ in 80% of users, so they feel healthy enough to work, party, travel etc. while the virus merrily grows, spreads, and eventually mutates silently among them, while the unvaccinated – both by regulations and by common sense – are much more wary and careful not to risk too much contact to potentially infected strangers, keep better track of their being infected or not by regular testing, and will not so lightheartedly ignore the “common cold” symptoms of Delta-Covid as harmless like those who are being told every day that they needn’t worry because they are vaccinated. Yet, the media continue to talk about the “irresponsible” unvaccinated minority as the cause of all evil.
BTW: All statistics quoted above are taken from the official pages of the local Berlin health authorities: https://www.berlin.de/corona/lagebericht/ No need to even look at “alternative”, possibly faked and “conspirative” non-official sources. Just read the official sources carefully and don’t fall for the shameless spin our politicians and journalists give them!
Sorry I missed the start of this huge distraction. Please take all discussion of COVID to a thread that is actually about COVID. It’s a discussion worth having … but not here. This thread is about the location and timing of warming
Thanks,
w.
Please explain the brand new German study showing a direct correlation between vaccination percent and excess deaths!
The study was only of the German states, but the correlation is beginning to pop up everywhere with high rates of the jabs!
Perhaps you could also explain the growing number of European footballers suffering heart problems recently!
Sorry I missed the start of this huge distraction. Please take all discussion of COVID to a thread that is actually about COVID. It’s a discussion worth having … but not here. This thread is about the location and timing of warming
Thanks,
w.
Sorry Willis
I got a bit unnecessary crazy about this disgusting correlation between people who suspect a problem with CO2, and the Nazi murders.
Shouldn’t have happened; but on the otherhand, such comments are undignified and certainly do not contribute positively to this blog.
Sorry I missed the start of this huge distraction. Please take all discussion of COVID to a thread that is actually about COVID. It’s a discussion worth having … but not here. This thread is about the location and timing of warming
Thanks,
w.
See if you’re still laughing in spring. Hint: TV Biology is cartoon science.
https://gigaohmbiological.com/review
Sorry I missed the start of this huge distraction. Please take all discussion of COVID to a thread that is actually about COVID. It’s a discussion worth having … but not here. This thread is about the location and timing of warming
Thanks,
w.
Weird. According to the CDC, 75% of the hospitalized in a New England county were fully vaxxed. Strange days indeed.
Please, no more covid. This is a thread about climate. Lots of covid threads out there, take it to one of them.
w.
Good cartoon, Gringo! We better not laugh too much, though, because I think AOC has this very vision in her head.
AOC is pushing for 300,000 Climate Change Brownshirts in the new spending bill.
Senator Manchin better be careful voting for something like this, because AOC just might have them “marching” around his houseboat in protest, or surrounding his automobile, screaming at him, if he doesn’t toe the radical leftist line in the future. Be careful what you vote for, Joe Manchin. It may come back to bite you.
A report well worth a read. TPTB really are more of a threat than ever.
Spring and Autumn trends would also be interesting to look at, as the changes in sunshine hours are different for each season.
It’s really when people go inside, in the us there are spikes in the summer, lots of AC
Willis, I’m confused. Figs 3 and 4 are titled “ Land Surface NH” yet the y-axis is Antarctic to Arctic latitude degrees. Would’t Jan-Dec be most meaningful ?
Sorry for the confusion. The title is “Land Surface NH Winter” … meaning the entire land surface at the time of the NH winter, Dec/Jan/Feb.
w.
I had a conversation with a believer in the comments section of another blog. I pointed out a 2004 paper that found only 4 sites in Argentina that had a good record for the 20th C (one starting in 1930s). They had trends of 1 to 2 degrees cooling per century. The other guy pointed out that BEST had over 70 stations (implying that the peer reviewers let fake news slip through). Many of these extra stations were labeled AP and started in the 19th C.
Argentina is coloured as a 0 trend in your plots.
I had looked closely at my home town in BEST. It had a station at the PO from 1889 to late 40s, and an AP site from the end of the war with a few years of overlap. The BEST site labelled AP starts in 1889. The amusing thing is how they have a PO site of the same pre 1945 data but different identification of break points and adjustments. The two sites are 10 km apart. One in the middle of town a short walk from a major river to the north. The other in irrigated farm land surrounded by lawn.
There is good reason that a switch to new instrumentation 10 years ago cause an artificial warming of maximum temperatures (https://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/05/corrupting-australias-temperature-record/), the local vineyards went from overhead and flood irrigation to drip irrigation and other water saving methods, and the local airport went from mid afternoon watering of the lawns to overnight. It’s local lore that watering in the mid afternoon was intentional to keep maximums down in extreme weather to avoid scaring potential tourists.
None of this is identified and corrected for – downwards.
Do I understand you correctly that…
“PO” = “Post Office”?
“AP” = “Airport”?
Your home town was in Argentina?
And BEST thinks there was a temperature gauge at the airport, there, in 1889??
Yes, except for my hometown is in Australia. They treat a combination of two or more stations as one, even though 10 km apart.
Wow.
@Willis – what is with those trend graphs? Unless “NH” means something other than “Northern Hemisphere”?
(Edited – why I thought this was a Dave post completely escapes me. I should be sufficiently caffeinated by this time.)
The coldest I have ever been was in a rice paddy on ambush at night in Vietnam during the monsoon season.
I can believe that you were more miserable then me when on a -33°F night in Iowa I walked 7 blocks home. Nasty, but I wasn’t wet, and I had the right clothing.
And, thanks for the service. John
John, thank you for your kind comment. But I always respond that I was drafted. Plus I say I prepaid my healthcare in Vietnam (VA, which is very good BTW.).
It’s surprising how cold it can feel in Vietnam.
I had less insulating body fat then, Tom.
Me, too. 🙂
It is Arctic amplification, not polar.
How many surface stations are in the Siberian lava traps anyway?
Did the Siberian surface stations pick up the Tsar Bomba 50 mt nuclear test in Oct. 1961?
Tsar Bomba – Wikipedia
This is the raw absolute data out of GHCN daily for the Siberian station nearest to Sukhoy Nos on Severny Island, Novaya Zemlya,
RSM00023146 68.4667 73.5831 2.0 MYS KAMENNYJ
for this magnificent explosion, starting a few days before it happened:
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 10 28 -5.1
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 10 29 -3.1
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 10 30 -1.1
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 10 31 -1.7
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 1 -3.3
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 2 -19.4
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 3 -21.1
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 4 -24.1
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 5 -25.7
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 6 -20.7
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 7 -19.2
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 8 -19.2
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 9 -20.6
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 10 -20.7
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 11 -16.6
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 12 -21.9
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 13 -25.6
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 14 -15.0
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 15 -18.2
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 16 -18.8
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 17 -15.7
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 18 -11.0
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 19 -13.0
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 20 -19.3
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 21 -17.8
RSM00023146 63-101 1961 11 22 -22.8
Maybe you find something.
For me, that looks pretty good like a sudden cooling due to the Sun disappearing for a while…
Aren’t climate warriors using this wonderful available satellite data in their studies, or is it models of their phantasy phizziks only? No wonder there is nothing to worry about. No wonder sealevel rise isn’t accelerating – heating up the winter night from -25C to -23C (only in the NH!), doesn’t produce any meltwater.
Here’s a big tree at Tuktuyaktuk in NW Canada in the Arctic coastal area. It is a 5000yr old white spruce still rooted. Today’s treeline is 100km south, but you would have to go a few 100s kms further south where the temperature averages about ~6-8°C warmer than at Tuk to find a white spruce this size (yes the same species!!). Since Arctic enhancement causes roughly a doubling of the global anomaly, it would indicate that the globe was ~3-4°C warmer than today. How’s that for “precedented”.
Oops link
Good heavens how did the polar bears survive?😳
Caviar and mint juleps.
Clyde,
Caviar!? With mint juleps!?
All polar bears know that mint juleps go best with spicy, Southern fried walrus, or seal! Throw in some fried okra and you’ve got a happy bear!
Related paper:
Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline
HARVEY NICHOLS
Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline (ucalgary.ca)
Fascinating study, John. Real science that specifically discusses alternative theories. Not CliSciFi at all.
Wider rings => Warmer.
“it would indicate that the globe was ~3-4°C warmer than today.”
How can alarmists continue to claim we are experiencing unprecedented warming today given evidence like this that clearly shows it was warmer in the past than now?
There is no unprecedented warming today.
If we draw the 50N parallel, we find that most if not all of orange/red colours area is to the north of it. We also find that excluding northern part of Canada the rest is Russia, mainly Siberia. I have to be convinced that temperature/area function measurements in the either case is as representative of actual situation as it may be in the western Europe or the USA where density of stations is of order of magnitude greater.
This bit got cut off during the edit
“Infrared satellite measurements may be also affected by atmospheric temperature gradient at high laltitudes. Stratosphere in polar regions is as low as 10km altitude.”
In winter, the tropopause above the 60th parallel drops well below 10 km.
Radiation into space at reduced tropopause height is stronger (decrease in surface temperature).
Interesting as always, a minor criticism: in the interest of clarity the color codes on both global diagrams ought to be the same.
Great stuff! Canada shouod love the warming, but sadly no.
David …. unfortunately in Canada the loons of the left are very loony!!
50 degrees north is mainly all of England and my home town Manchester 53 degrees north. Has it warmed a bit, well yes, as we now rarely get snow but who knows. You see it kind of warmed overnight from 1979 ice age to 1986 dying of heat. It can cool very fast, however, as it did here the 1940s after the wonderful 30s…..maybe soon(hopefully) we will get our regular snow back……it will probably come this winter(sod’s law) just as natural gas prices are taking off to the moon….
Given what I have been reading of the Winter temperatures at the South Pole (lowering over last 60 years and not just fractions), perhaps the Southern Hemisphere should crack a mention more often?
God bless you Willis.
“And having slept a few times in my youth on a piece of cardboard on the streets of Manhattan in wintertime, with newspapers wrapped around my legs and arms inside my clothing to help keep out the cold, I can personally guarantee that the homeless in New York City won’t object if the winter nights are a bit warmer.”
I have done this. Not in NYC but in France and Spain, Tangiers and Gibraltar. Back in the 70s. Had a young lady by my side in those days. Very happy days indeed. Met many (genuinely) good folk. Slept in ruined churches. Been cold many times. A journalist by training and experience – but learned to stick-weld in Gibraltar. Happy days with some good folk. Please keep the faith Willis. Those of us who have been ‘on the road’ understand the complete idiocy of global warming alarmism. The truth will out.
Not lot of fun sleeping in cardboard boxes.I had a go at it in my student’s travels, in the gardens of a gated community in S. France, but got chucked out by a security man. I told him I’ll be back. Now I have an appointment in there.
Willis: Figs 3&4 weight all the latitudes equally but in fact the global area between 30N and 30S is approximately 50% of the planet’s area. As you are using equal areas graphs for Fig 1&2 should you not do the same for Fig 3&4?
I actually thought about it but I was not sure how I could even do that … what would you suggest?
I suppose I could compress the x-axis towards the poles … but my final thought was, how would that change any conclusions about where the warming is occurring?
Ideas?
w.
Well you would have to do the +-30 at 50% of the base and +-60 at 73% or so. It is basically a near sinusoidal layout as I’m sure you are aware.
It won’t change the conclusions about where the warming is occurring but would set that out more accurately in weighting as to its global importance.
As I said you use equal area for Figs 1&2 so why not for Figs 3&4?
Hey, we’re a full-service website. Here you go. Not sure it makes any difference to the point I’m making, but it was an interesting exercise.
Thanks for the push,
w.
Willis: Thanks for that. I note that most sensible people are shifting away from Mercator to prevent the visual distortions that it brings and it is nice to see latitude layout treated the same way.
The point is that it shows is that the warming effects are concentrated in a much smaller area than your previous graph. By far the majority is below 0.2c. Averages which include outliers (such as this shows) are always going to be a problem.
Very interesting Willis, thanks! “Global” warming diminishes going from the North to the deep South.
My guess: there is a strong relationship with changing water vapor, our main greenhouse gas. Changing weather patterns enhance water vapor over the most northern latitudes. Probably lower pressure (during winter, especially north of 45˚N) coincides with the warming pattern.
If so, natural variation is causing warming: regional patterns already suggest. CO2 is rather equally distributed over latitudes and more or less equal for day and night. Still, regional patterns differ, even for day and night. My guess: water vapor plays an important role. And changing weather as caused by changing oceanic behavior could be the cause for [probably temporarily] changing water vapor and temperatures. ‘Temporarily’ means here: over decades, centuries, so at the time scales of the Earth.
Willis Eschenbach
Thanks for this guest contribution, which however wonders me a bit.
You speak about moving from absolute to relative trends, whatever you understand under ‘absolute’ trends: for me they are simply (linear) trends.
*
But if I understand your Figure 4, you moved in fact from (absolute) trends to absolute temperatures instead.
It is the same as if I would, starting from UAH’s 9,504 cell grid data, compute the latitudinal averages for the anomalies
and then do the same job for the absolute data we can obtain by combining the grid anomalies with their current climatology wrt 1991-2020.
I’ll modify some objects and methods to obtain such an ‘absolute grid’, and would not much wonder if its graphical representation looks similar to your Fig. 4.
Conversely, it would be interesting to generate anomaly-based latitudinal averages of a 2.5 degree grid containing the worldwide station data, and to compare them with UAH’s.
*
Last not least, here is the latitudinal averaging of all 9,504 UAH grid cell trends
which looks strangely similar to the latitudinal average of the UAH anomaly values.
Rgds
B.
This clear article shows how a climate trend of unknown cause, which is highly beneficial to all living organisms on Earth, can be turned, by Media concentration and political influence, into a catastrophe of major proportions requiring the expenditure of vast capital resources.
May the water vapor in the Arctic keep the temperature up in winter. More water vapor equals more heating.
Interesting as always.
Are Berkely Earth figures now considered reliable? After the calculations behind each figure are Berkely Earth figures even considered data?
“And having slept a few times in my youth on a piece of cardboard on the streets of Manhattan in wintertime, with newspapers wrapped around my legs and arms inside my clothing to help keep out the cold ……..”
Yes, Willis, but unfortunately that was before back radiation was invented.
Isn’t science wonderful?
I fear you misunderstand the physics involved.
I would have been MUCH colder if I were exposed to the 3 W/m2 back radiation of outer space instead of the ~340 W/m2 back radiation from the atmosphere.
And having spent many cold nights outdoors commercial fishing in the Bering Sea, I can also personally testify that downwelling thermal radiation (aka “back radiation”) is also the reason that when a cloud comes over on a clear winter night, you can feel the immediate increase in warmth.
Let me suggest that you take Maurice Switzer’s excellent advice, viz:
Regards,
w.
Was the cloud the cause or the result of the warmth?
The cause. You can tell because you can watch the cloud approaching. When it comes over you can feel the warmth. When it has passed you feel cold again.
w.
Sorry for this, couldn’t resist:
Joni Mitchell – Both Sides, Now [Original Studio Version, 1969] – YouTube
On a cool, cloudless night anywhere, just walk under a tree. Of course, there are those posting here that deny the GH effect.
“Of course, there are those posting here that deny the GH effect.”
And there are those posting here that do not have a sliver of evidence that the GH effect is a real forcing.
That includes you, Dave Unfair.
Feldman et al (2015) had a go at it. Since then – nothing.
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9321/1/2/14/htm
Thank you for your fact-less opinion, leitmotif.
I’ll stick with real science like the latest from Wijngaarden and Happer. Unlike you, they are real atmospheric physicists. Argue with them.
Dave,
Real science?
From HITRAN –
“It must be emphasized that the parameters that exist in HITRAN are a mixture of calculated and experimental.”
Can you identify which parts of HITRAN are based on reality, and which parts are wishful thinking? Wijngaarden and Happer just merrily ignore the fact that an unknown amount of HITRAN data is guesswork.
Notwithstanding the possible HITRAN deficiencies, the paper to which you refer is nonsense. Read the first sentence of the abstract, and be prepared to defend it – if you have the courage of your convictions.
Or just turn to water, and run away.
Like I said, argue with Wijngaarden and Happer. Comment on their paper; refute it as non-science. Get your Nobel Prize in Physics.
Again, another paper about CO2 not having much of an effect. Truth will win out.
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9321/1/2/14/htm
Again, walk under a tree on a cool and cloudless night. Report on that grand experiment.
Willis,
Your observation is correct – although, of course, your temperature does not rise. Your perception of “warmth” changes.
However, your “back radiation” explanation is completely erroneous.
You cannot raise the temperature of something by getting it to absorb the radiation emitted by something colder.
Try raising the temperature of liquid water at any temperature by exposing it to the radiation from ice at any temperature. In reality, of course, not in your GHE fantasies.
Or maybe make molten lead hotter with boilingliquid water?
Are you still claiming the ground temperature increases when exposed to the radiation from colder clouds?
Not terribly astute or scientific. Semantic games do not change physical fact.
Your observation is correct – although, of course, your temperature does not rise. Your perception of “warmth” changes.
Just to be clear: You are saying that the ambient air temperature does not change, only the feeling of warmth? Does that apply to the tree as well or only the cloud?
Seems easy enough to verify if your hypothesis is correct.
Willis,
Maybe you could take your own advice.
You definitely misunderstand the physics involved. Terms such as “downwelling thermal radiation”, and “back radiation”, are just nonsense jargon promulgated by climate crackpots and their gullible followers, trying to sound important.
I assume you are at least bright enough to realise that the temperature of a cloud above the freezing level is below freezing. If you think that the radiation from ice will warm you up, you are living in a fantasy.
Read a little about the physics of clouds, and the interaction between clouds and radiation, and you will find that your “reason” for your observed “warmth” is complete bollocks. The real reason is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of basic physics.
Others are free to make their own determinations, hopefully based on physics, rather than climate crackpot delusional thinking.
Blankets keep you “warmer” without being “hotter” than you – no fantasy “climatological physics” involved. Think about it, if you want.
Swenson, let me recommend my posts entitled “The Steel Greenhouse” and “People Living In Glass Planets“. They explain how the greenhouse effect works.
As to downwelling thermal radiation being “nonsense jargon”, it is regularly measured, not estimated but measured, by both scientists and automated instruments all over the planet. For example, the SURFRAD stations, as the name implies, measure a variety of types of radiation at the surface. From their website:
To ensure the accuracy of the measurements, the pyrgeometers are regularly calibrated. From the same source:
Now, you’re free to imagine that the manufacturers of the pyrgeometers, and the people that calibrate them on a regular basis, and the scientists who use the pyrgeometer-measured downwelling longwave data to write analyses, and the scientists peer-reviewing those analyses, and the scientists who use those analyses in their own work, are all engaged in some gigantic conspiracy, and they’re all just going through the motions to deceive you and others … however, sane folks think differently.
Next, you say:
Wrong question. The question is, warmer compared to what?
For example, if you are exposed to the 3 W/m2 radiation of open space, and then you interpose a sheet of ice between you and outer space, the ice is emitting ~ 316 W/m2, and as a result, you’ll end up warmer than you were when you were exposed to outer space.
Let me recommend my post Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object for a discussion of this issue.
If you are willing to challenge your view of the world, read those links, come back, and we can discuss downwelling thermal radiation. If you think anything I said in them is wrong, please QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS and show (demonstrate, not claim) exactly why their wrong.
Or you can just shine it on and perpetuate your misunderstandings.
Your choice.
My best to you either way,
w.
Willis,
Appealing to your own authority is just stupid. You wrote (in that piece of eminent silliness called The Steel Greenhouse) –
“Before we start, however, a digression regarding temperature. The radiation emitted by a blackbody varies with the fourth power of the temperature. As a result, for a blackbody, we can measure the temperature in units of radiation, which are watts per square metre (W/m2). For objects with a temperatures found on the the Earth, this radiation is in the range called “longwave” or “infrared” radiation. See the Appendix for the formula which relates temperature to radiation.
This means that we can denote the temperature of a blackbody using W/m2 as well as the traditional measures (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin). The advantage is that while temperature (degrees) is not conserved, energy (W/m2) is conserved. So we can check to see if energy lost is equal to energy gained, since energy is neither being created nor destroyed by the climate.”
Unfortunately for climate crackpots, neither the Earth nor a “steel sphere” happen to be theoretical “black bodies”. Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, except by the scientifically illiterate. Pick up a thermometer and look.
You seem to be under the delusion that the Earth magically receives as much energy from the Sun, as it emits.
Nope. Just man up, laddie, and admit you refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from its initial molten state. In other words, having emitted more energy than it has received, the Earth has cooled. You don’t believe it? It’s a free world – you are free to “believe” anything you want.
Some delusional characters appear to believe that the Earth is somehow “hotter than it otherwise would be”! Really? It has cooled to its present temperature – no more, no less.
No GHE. You can’t even define this mythical creature. Best stop hitting that keyboard, lest you look even more foolish.
You can’t deny the laws of the universe out of existence just to suit yourself – but keep trying if it makes you happy.
Try to heat a teaspoon of water with a billion watts of energy from ice. How hard can it be?
I give up. You’ve proven the truth of the old adage, viz:
You are determined to desperately hold on to your views. That’s fine. I won’t oppose you, but don’t expect me to answer you either. I can’t deal with your level of intransigence.
My best wishes to you, stay well,
w.
Standard radiation physics, take a thermocouple and immerse it in a hot flame so that the measured temperature is about 1700K, make the same measurement when the ThC is surrounded by a transparent quartz tube. Guess what, the measured temperature increases to about 1850K. Just as in the steel greenhouse the radiation balance has been changed, ‘back radiation’ to the thermocouple has increased (losses have decreased).
First, immerse it in a flame is not “radiation”.
Second, show the math, new energy isn’t created, how can it get hotter?
Thirdly, this experiment is so easy to do that scientists everywhere would be using it as evidence. I don’t recall seeing in any paper.
You’re right it is a simple experiment which has been done many times. Plenty of papers on the subject, the earliest I recall was by NACA in 1949. In a flame at a temperature of about 1850K a thermocouple will lose energy to the surroundings by radiation and conduction the largest of which is radiation hence the ThC will be at a lower temperature than the adjacent gas and therefore records say ~1700K. Different methods have been investigated by NACA and others to correct the temperatures. One method was surrounding by a radiation shield (the quartz tube) another reducing the diameter of the ThC. The radiation balance shows an effect similar to Willis’s Steel greenhouse, radiation to the shield from the ThC, radiation from the shield to the ThC and to the surroundings, resulting a higher temperature of the ThC nearer to the actual temperature of the gas. A former colleague of mine wrote a paper on this subject:
https://doi.org/10.1243/JMES_JOUR_1968_010_048_02
You just described the effect of an insulator. Unless the insulator is on fire it cannot raise temperature, it can only affect the energy loss gradient. Energy loss still happens and the temp of the ThC will still fall. That is NOT the same as raising the temp of the ThC.
Yes it is it’s routine energy balance. If you have a ThC in a flame it will heat up until the energy is balanced. So when you put it in the flame it will heat up mostly by convection and at the same time radiate energy to its surroundings, its temperature will stop rising when the energy loss due to radiation is exactly balanced by the convective gain from the flame. That temperature will be below the flame temperature. If you can reduce the loss to the surroundings the ThC temperature will be closer to the flame temperature, i.e. hotter. In order to get a more accurate flame temperature various methods to reduce the losses have been tried including the radiation shield I described. You need to learn how energy transfer works.
“If you can reduce the loss to the surroundings the ThC temperature will be closer to the flame temperature,”
This does *NOT* mean the insulator is warming the ThC! The only energy source is the flame. It is the *flame* that raises the temperature. Lowering energy loss is *not* the same thing as raising temperature.
That’s exactly what it is, lowering energy loss raises the temperature of the Thermocouple. The flame determines the maximum temperature that the ThC can experience the actual temperature depends on the losses.
Tw = Tg – (𝜎𝜖Tg^4 – 𝜎𝛼Ts^4)/h
Tw is wire temperature
Tg is gas temperature
Ts is shield temperature
Energy loss can *never* warm anything. It can’t drive temperature up no matter how much you wish it to be so.
If you wrap the ThC with insulation *after* it has been heated that insulation simply can’t drive the temp back up. All it can do is slow down the cooling.
your forumula shows Tg and Ts as both being negative. That’s a perfect clue that they can’t add heat to the ThC. Without the addition of heat the temp of the ThC can’t co anything but go down. Going down doesn’t *RAISE* the temp of the ThC at all.
Physics of heat transfer refutes your argument. I suggest you look at the equation again, you do understand the function of brackets right? You don’t appear to understand how the experiment works.
I think *YOU* need to look again.
Is 𝜎𝜖Tg^4 > 𝜎𝛼Ts^4 ?
It is highly doubtful that the temperature of the gas around the wire is lower than the temperature of the shield.
Thus 𝜎𝜖Tg^4 – 𝜎𝛼Ts^4 will likely be positive.
Is 𝜖 < 𝛼 or is 𝜖 > 𝛼
If Tg > Ts then 𝜖 < 𝛼 better be true for the gas to be cooler than the shield.
Sorry typo in equation, should be:
(𝜎𝜖Tw^4 – 𝜎𝛼Ts^4)/h
Tw = Tg – (𝜎𝜖Tw^4 – 𝜎𝛼Ts^4)/h is less than Tg.
Thus the closer Ts is to Tw the closer Tw is to Tg, so as I said before to have the Thermocouple represent the gas temperature accurately needs a hotter shield.
Use an unshielded thermocouple in a flame surrounded by a wall at ~500K will cause a significantly lower Tw than Tg because 𝜎𝜖Tw^4 will be much larger than 𝜎𝛼500^4 and therefore net heat loss by the ThC will be large. Put the quartz shield around the ThC and the Ts will be more like 1700K, thus the net heat loss by the ThC will be much smaller and thus: Tw = Tg – (𝜎𝜖Tw^4 – 𝜎𝛼1700^4)/h
Therefore the reduction in radiative heat loss increases the wire temperature.
All you have really shown is that lower heat loss lets the ThC heat driver raise the temperature further. That is *NOT* the same thing as the lower heat loss driving temperature up. The insulating material provides *NO* heat, it is *NOT* a source.
Actually what I have shown is that you lack a basic understanding of the physics of heat transfer. In a system in equilibrium, such as Willis’s Steel Greenhouse or the ThC in a flame, lower heat loss does drive temperature up!
Sorry, insulation is *not* a heat source. It merely lessens heat loss. It doesn’t matter if that insulator is wool, asbestos, glass, quartz, foam, brick, wood, air, or anything else.
conductive heat loss is:
q = [Ak(t1-t2])/x where
A is Area
k is mean thermal conductivity
x is the thickness of the insulator
t1 is the hot side
t2 is the cool side.
You will notice that there is no q_insulator in the equation. That’s because the insulator is not a heat source. It doesn’t matter if the insulator is the gas around the wire or the quartz shield.
If the construction of the ThC is wire inside a quartz tube filled with gas then the heat source is outside the quartz. t1 is the temperature of the heat source and t2 is the inside of the quartz. Then you also have a temperature gradient across the insulating gas where t1 is the inside surface of the quartz and t2 is the outside surface of the wire.
I sincerely doubt that radiation (i.e. T^4) is the driving source of the heat transfer from outside the thermocouple. There simply isn’t enough surface area either from the source or any of the substances making up the thermocouple to transfer much radiative heat. The conductive factor will be much larger.
It still means that the quartz or the gas are *not* heat sources. The heat source is outside the thermocouple. You can make the wire closer to the temp of the heat source by increasing the conductivity of material surrounding it, e.g. by making the quartz thinner which is the “x” factor above. But that is nothing more than reducing the heat loss between the source and the actual measurement device.
The insulator has nothing to do with the system I described. If you’d read the paper I referenced or looked for a similar one you would have seen that.
A fine wire thermocouple is used which has long wires so the main heat transfer mechanism is convection from the flame and radiation loss to the surroundings hence the equation I showed:
Tw = Tg – (𝜎𝜖Tw^4 – 𝜎𝛼Ts^4)/h
Your ‘sincere belief’ is irrelevant, those who have conducted the experiment have found that in the absence of a radiation shield the temperature measured can be ~150K below the flame temperature, addition of a shield reduces that difference.
Try this: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/21099102
“ so the main heat transfer mechanism is convection from the flame and radiation loss to the surroundings hence the equation I showed:”
Slow down and re-read what I said. Insulators cannot be heat sources. That’s exactly what you imply that the main heat transfer mechanism is convection from the flame.
From the abstract: “The energy is transferred by convection to the thermocouple and then dissipated by radiation to the surroundings. :”
Please note that the thermocouple must be connected to something in order to be able to indicate a change of state in the thermocouple. Thus you will also have conductive heat loss through what ever that connection is, it won’t be just radiative heat loss. I don’t have full access to the paper but I have to wonder how they allowed for conductive heat loss. They do not mention it at all in the abstract!
“Please note that the thermocouple must be connected to something in order to be able to indicate a change of state in the thermocouple. Thus you will also have conductive heat loss through what ever that connection is, it won’t be just radiative heat loss. I don’t have full access to the paper but I have to wonder how they allowed for conductive heat loss.”
That was covered in the sentence you conveniently omitted:
A fine wire thermocouple is used which has long wires so the main heat transfer mechanism is convection from the flame and radiation loss to the surroundings hence the equation I showed:
A fine wire thermocouple is used which has long wires so the main heat transfer mechanism is convection from the flame and radiation loss to the surroundings hence the equation I showed:
And you think those “long wires” won’t conduct heat away from the thermocouple?
I don’t see *any* conductive factor in your formula. (Hint: T^4 is a radiative factor, not a conductive factor)
Not significantly, the scientists and engineers who worked on this actually measured the loss due to conduction and determined that it was insignificant compared with radiation. That’s why I didn’t include the term and why authors of various papers didn’t. The reason why one designs ThCs with long lead wires is to reduce the losses from the sensor, the losses are proportional to the length and the temperature drop along the wire which by design is minimized.
Try reading this for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239774423_Thermocouple_Response_in_Fires_Part_1_Considerations_in_Flame_Temperature_Measurements_by_a_Thermocouple
Since you appear to have difficulty reading papers I’ve included the following:
Thermocouple Energy Balance
At thermal equilibrium between a stably oxidized thermocouple and a clean flame, where the thermocouple can ‘see’ cold surroundings at Ts
outside the flame, the heat balance can be written:
(equation omitted because it would not copy properly but it is the same as what I showed above)
This is a simplified form of the heat balance as transient effects and conduction along the thermocouple are neglected. These effects will be
discussed in the following sections.
From another paper:
In general, the conduction error can be minimized by using small diameter thermocouples or by choosing an appropriate wire length. As an example, a length-to-diameter ratios larger than 200 is suggested in Heitor and Moreira (1993) to minimize this effect.
I’m fully aware that T^4 is a radiative effect thank you, I’ve been working on the subject for ~50 years!
“This is a simplified form of the heat balance as transient effects and conduction along the thermocouple are neglected.”
Sorry to be so long in replying. Life intrudes sometimes.
I started working in my father’s shop at age 14 using an AC Lincoln stick welder and an acetylene welder. Worked on everything including welding sheet metal, tailpipes on cars, and even cultivator frames on tractors. I’ve used a forge to make a knife and an acetylene torch to harden chisels, scrapers, and mower blades. I’ve even used hair-fine wire to solder directly to SMT parts on a prototype circuit board.
Anyone that ignores transient effects and conduction on *anything* is likely to catch the grease buildup under a car on fire when heating a tailpipe or melting a hair-fine wire connecting to an SMT element. Even when hardening a chisel you don’t rely on radiation to cool the edge, the heat will conduct up the chisel and harden the handle as well thus making it brittle and prone to breakage.
The finer you make the wire the less area it has to radiate heat away and the more it will heat up from conduction (higher thermal resistance because of smaller cross-section). And just how much leeway do you have in making wire shorter? It’s got to be long enough to reach the measurement device! And that doesn’t lessen heat conduction down the wire in the thermocouple as well as connections to thermocouple. That conducted heat will make the connecting wires more brittle and will lessen the life of the device because of breakage.
I suggest you get Planck’s thesis on heat and work through the math so that you can provide some evidence. As Tim has pointed out you must also take into account conduction at least.
Like it or not net heat flows from hot to cold until equilibrium is achieved. It is one direction only. To do otherwise is violating entropy. You need to set up the gradients for each part of your experiment and determine how they change throughout you experiment. If you have had any thermodynamic classes you will know that simple algebra only describes a moment in time, not an ongoing process.
Lastly, ask yourself if the system can ever achieve thermodynamic equilibrium and if so at what temperature. If your math shows a higher temperature than your source, then ask and determine where additional energy is being created. If equal temps are achieved at all points then determine why insulation and back radiation don’t cause a permanent imbalance between the parts.
Are you related to Tim?
Do you understand what ‘net heat flow’ is, by using that term you are implying flow in both directions?
As indicated above the ThC temperature(Tw) is always below the gas temperature (Tg).
The equation:
Tw = Tg – (𝜎𝜖Tw^4 – 𝜎𝛼Ts^4)/h
The experiment shows that Tw will be closer to Tg if the radiation heat transfer from the surroundings, 𝜎𝛼Ts^4 is closer to the radiation heat loss from the ThC, 𝜎𝜖Tw^4.
I can’t access the paper to see how the experiment was set up. I suspect the flame was actually heating the shield directly which then heated the ThC. That’s not an appropriate model for the earth. The sun is assumed to not warm the atmosphere, i.e., the shield.
It’s the same energy balance equation, and yes the sun does warm the atmosphere, about 23% of incoming solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere.
Willis,
You wrote –
“I give up.”
Nonsense. You still refuse to accept reality. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. Nothing has managed to stop it.
You also wrote –
“I can’t deal with your level of intransigence.”
Awww, diddums! Are you sure you didn’t mean that you can’t face facts? Grow a pair, Willis!
And then you wrote –
“My best wishes to you, stay well, . . .”
What a peculiar thing to write! Your best is obviously somewhat less than my worst, so what form of mental defect leads you to think that I would value such a bizarre comment?
Carry on with your Magical Energy Multiplier (AKA the Steel Greenhouse). I do not know whether you are scientifically illiterate, ignorant, or just exceptionally gullible with regard to the nonsense promulgated by the likes of Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Trenberth, and the rest of the climate crackpots.
Off you go now, keep avoiding reality. It obviously suits you.
Pass. I see that I had ignored the first rule of pig wrestling:
“Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll just get dirty, and the pig enjoys it”
w.
“Appealing to your own authority is just stupid. You wrote (in that piece of eminent silliness called The Steel Greenhouse) –”
Astrophysicist Joseph Postma destroyed that piece of junk science but Willis still persists with it.
Very sad.
Please Postma didn’t have a clue!
I think your description is relavent to a point. I’m pretty sure “some back radiation” does exist. Molecules emit as an isotropic readiator, meaning the same energy in all directions via a spherical Electromagnetic (EM) wave. This is modified by the fact that collisions occur quite often where energy is transferred to other molecules reducing the amount of radiation. This does warm the whole atmosphere more than just conduction with the earth.
There are terms being used here that are not precise. To me “surface” means the land and oceans. This is appropriate from a thermodynamic point of view since the surface is what primarily absorbs the short radiation from the sun (that’s ignoring far IR absorbed by H2O). The atmosphere is that substance called “air”. Too many times what is referred to as the “surface” is actually the lower atmosphere. Thermodynamically and traditionally, the atmosphere is another body and is unaffected by the sun’s radiation.
Can a cold body warm a hotter body? No it can’t. However it is more complicated than that. The surface has a gradient (temp / time) of cooling and the atmosphere has a gradient (temp / time) of warming. Basically, the atmosphere acts as an insulator. It warms as the surface radiates. Heat is sent back from the atmosphere to the surface modifying the cooling gradient to make it less. This means over a fixed time the surface will cool less than it would without the insulating affect of the atmosphere. But, here is the rub, the surface still cools, it doesn’t get hotter. What does happen is that the atmosphere will continue warming because of the hotter surface continuing to radiate.
This is one reason simple averages hide things. In reality the sun radiates the earth for about 12 hours and then begins to cool. That means the surface gets warmer faster than the average will show and cools faster than the average shows.
Aha, the great genius nicknamed ‘Swenson’ aka ‘Mike Flynn’ comes here around with his pseudoscientific blah blah blah.
Swenson is the genius who endlessly discredits people knowing about “downwelling thermal radiation” with the amazingly stoopid question:
” Do you think that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? ”
But… no wonder. He also belongs to those ignoramuses who think that Cassini, Newton and all their successors were wrong concerning the Moon rotating about its polar axis… Yeah.
Between sound skepticism and pseudoskepis aka denial,there is an unbridgeable gap.
Yeah, when they start out insulting the author it’s a “red flag” to me. They have an agenda.
Your information, giving context, is appreciated.
“Let me suggest that you take Maurice Switzer’s excellent advice”.
Why should I Willis? You obviously didn’t.
Willis,
Please beware poor data quality. Quick example, on your global T summary map, look at the higher detail in North America versus all of Africa. One cannot really infer similar conclusions from each, or make comparisons with Arctic regions.
The big question that arises with this analysis is why T change gradients (as poorly measured) should vary from one region to another. CO2 is a well-mixed gas, so it should react equally everywhere.
One logical conclusion is that the relation between air temperature and air CO2 concentration is not understood adequately to be used as other than Work in Progress and certainly should not be used for formulating action policies. Geoff S
”Please beware poor data quality”
1958 and 2000 was the same temperature globally. I would add that 1940 to 2020 was probably also the same temperature. Errr…where’s the warming?
Why do people continue to ignore these simple facts? Is money involved?
Here’s the late great Proff Bob Carter saying the same thing in 2013….
“Why do people continue to ignore these simple facts? Is money involved?”
I think it has become a habit for many people. It’s not worth their effort to argue over the nuances of the temperature record.
Even though the central claim of the alarmists is the Earth is currently experiencing unprecedentd warming and this is because of human-derived CO2.
If we are not experiencing unprecedented warming, as you are pointing out, then this means CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures, so the alarmists distort the temperature record (Hockey Stick charts) to make it appear we are living in the warmest times in human history, and many people allow them to get away with it for various reasons.
The written, unmodified temperature record shows we are not experiencing unprecedented warming, contrary to what the alarmists say, and this means we have nothing to fear from CO2.
There is no unprecedented warming today. There is no need to regulate CO2.
Only use radiosondes (1958), satellites (1979) and ARGO (2004). Bob Carter made effective use of a combination of radiosondes and satellites.
I am at 47°N, in the dry central part of Washington State.
Now with 5 inches of snow.
Waiting for warming.
John Hultquist
I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for a (longer) while.
Northern US is, like some parts of Canada, a cold corner with few hope for warming.
I am in Northeast Germany at 52°N, and… zero or very few snow since many years, especially in November.
5 inches? The entire winter 2020/21 brought us less than 10.
Our last winter that deserved that name, with over 30 cm snow in February, was … in 2010.
But in many places in Germany, located below 50°N, the last winter was quite snowy.
Let’s see how the coming winter shows up.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-99.88,50.96,304
It looks like the Polar Jet Stream is pulling back to the north over the U.S., so the U.S. should have fairly mild temperatures until the next dip in the jet stream circles around this way.
The Subtropical jet stream is bringing moisture into the south-central U.S.
I think this shows it best:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/usT2me3Mon.html
All these poor people living in Northern CONUS, Western Canada and Alaska, who still keep thinking that NOAA only produces fudged data, might have a big surprise in a few months:
That’s not data, that’s a climate forecast. Is it right? Who knows.
w.
Willis
That was just a bit of irony concerning John Hultquist’s statement:
” Waiting for warming. ”
*
Btw: I’m making the interesting experience that since the beginning of the current La Nina, many people discredit NOAA’s forecasts concerning temperatures as something ‘speaking about the unknown’, but conversely fully agree with the NINO3+4 forecasts coming from the very same institution:
Strange days…
Here in England any warming during the winter months l think has largely been down to changes in the weather patterning. With more warm coming from the Atlantic and less cold air been drawn down from the Arctic or the east due to a decrease in northern blocking. But there has been little to no change to the timing of the onset of winter over the last 40 or more years here in England. As there has been no real delay in the timing of the first winter’s snow since the late 1970’s
Willis. I thank you for your contributions to the discussion. If you will forgive me, I would like to make a general comment on global warming and not just your specific post. Just this day, I read about a place in northern Algeria, that would be the Sahara Desert, and that 8,000 years ago it was named either the place between the rivers or the river plateau. Lots of grain raised there, lots of African Crocodiles. Lots of rivers, Hippos, and so on. That caused me to think about the many inland lakes in the U.S. that used to exist and are now dry lakes. Think Bonneville and the many dry lakes in eastern Oregon, Washington, Western Utah, Nevada, Southern California, Arizona and so on. Lots of evidence of Native American settlement and use of those now gone features. (oh, about 8,000 years ago) So, it occurs to me that “Global Warming” is nothing new but in fact a long term process that is largely a positive for human kind. Anyone who thinks global cooling is a good thing is an idiot. You welcome the return of continental ice sheets if you like, I choose not.
By the way, as a child, I lived on a farm in the Ozarks with no electricity, no running water, wood for heat, and a hole in the ground for a toilet and I vote no thank you.
Did we do it? Well, not just no, but hell no. This thing has been going on for thousands of years, long before the so called ‘rise of man’ and the earth will do whatever the hell it will do no matter what we do.
For your reading pleasure:
Saudi Aramco World : Last Lakes of the Green Sahara
I also have always heard that it would warm fastest where it’s colder, and at night, but I understood why they were saying this. Most of the predicted warming comes from H2O, not from CO2. Where it is cold it also happens to be dry(er) because cold air cannot hold as much water vapor. If CO2 manages to warm an area slightly, it should be able to hold more water vapor and that will have a bigger impact on air temperature. Makes sense so far.
This means a place that is just naturally dry (like many deserts) will be less effected at night than areas where it is just cold. The desert looses it’s heat and temperature plummets, but without an available source of water vapor it just will not retain as much heat as it might have done had additional water vapor been available.
The big problem with nighttime warming is it is also a predicted outcome of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. How does one tell the difference? Actually it’s straight forward – just compare nighttime warming of rural areas versus nighttime warming of urban areas and you can easily identify the UHI effect. This has been done with U.S. data and most of the supposedly CO2 induced warming just disappears – it is instead UHI. Since almost all warming in the U.S. has occurred due to a rise in maximum nighttime temperatures and not in a rise of maximum daytime temperatures one is left wondering just how much impact CO2 really has.
” This has been done with U.S. data and most of the supposedly CO2 induced warming just disappears – it is instead UHI. ”
I would enjoy a valuable source. Not something like the (No?)TricksZone.
Here you go. Heating/cooling degree days in the U.S. Funny how the heating degree days are falling faster than the cooling degree days are rising.
This reply, Gorman, is – as so often when you were the author – one more time a perfect non-sequitur: is has nothing to do with what Robert of Texas wrote about.
He wrote:
” Actually it’s straight forward – just compare nighttime warming of rural areas versus nighttime warming of urban areas and you can easily identify the UHI effect.
This has been done with U.S. data and most of the supposedly CO2 induced warming just disappears – it is instead UHI. ”
1) Your graph barely could be put in any relation to that. it’s useless in this discussion.
Moreover, this 65 °F threshold is ridiculous, based on a subjectively set benchmark.
What you should have presented – and what I still expect from Robert of Texas – is a paper discussing a separation of night time minima between rural and urban stations – in CONUS and anywhere else.
*
Thus, the very first would have been to consider minima, as did John Christy in January 2021 in a paper (that soon disappeared due to a stupid gov seal problem). Here is a screenshot:
This evaluation, based on lowest measurements, is for obvious reasons much better than the threshold-based evaluation of CONUS maxima temperatures (above 95 resp. 100F) he presented on Roy Spencer’s thread in 2018.
Here is his maxima evaluation:
Already on these graphs you begin to see that yours does not hold water.
That graph is based on actual measurements dude. Every commercial HVAC installation residential and building is based on cooling/heating degree days. It is used to estimate power consumption, etc. You want to see changes, look at these, not fudged temps.
2) But what I miśsed in John Christy’s CONUS evaluation is a stat concerning not only the lowest minima but the highest ones as well.
I did that for CONUS on the base of GHCN daily (because USHCN of course is restricted to the US), switched from colums to line display and showed the time series with a percentile scaling allowing a better comparison:
And here is the same output for the Globe.
On this graph, we see clearer that the low minima decrease over tine, and that high minima and maxima go hand in hand since the 1970s.
If there was any distinction between rural and urban stations in the 20,000 US and 40,000 Globe stations in GHCN daily, I would of course separate them.
This distinction existed in the GHCN V3 data set, but the rural marks in the metadata are in between completely outdated.
Yes, Mr Gorman: here I go.
Read this! There are two sides to every argument. Declaring yourself the winner is probably premature!
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-021-05626-x
Look at a colorized map of changes in temperatures across the Continental U.S. (CONUS). It will show the bulk of any warming is in urbanized areas. “Average” U.S. temperatures are polluted by UHI.
More like “Warmer where nobody can look outside at the thermometer and call bullshit.“
Thanks for an informative article Willis.
You have a point when you suggest that people living in the north may see it as an advantage to have slightly milder winters.
I still think it’s a dangerous experiment to continue to emit billions of tonnes of CO2 though.
The CO2 level is higher than it has ever been in the last 3 million years, and it continues. to increase by 2 to 3 ppm each year.
We must start on the path towards replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power and renewables.
It will not be easy or cheap, but we have to go in that direction. If not for any other reason, the amount of fossil fuels are after all limited so the use has to stop sooner or later.
The problem, as I see it, is that this topic has become so polarized that any reasonable discussion of viable solutions is poisoned by extremists on each side.
/Jan
Where is the proof that current CO2 levels are higher than have ever been in the last 3 million years? Also, why bleat about a “problem” to which every solution appears to be impoverishment of western democracies?
Jan, not sure why it’s a “dangerous experiment” to increase atmospheric CO2. Nature has already done the experiment without catastrophic results. Here’s a bit of history:
Next, you say: