Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 19. February 2022
By Frank Bosse, via Die kalte Sonne
It’s known that GISS does not process the temperature data as they are determined but rather “corrects” them. Such corrections may make sense, but to what extent they influence warming trends remains an open question. Gavin Schmidt, the director and responsible person for the measurement series, recently tweeted some peculiar things:
Image: Twitter screenshot
He notes that the overall trend decreases with the corrections (green compared to the raw data (black dashed). Now, however, it is the case that the anthropogenic influence on the warming only becomes noticeable after 1950.
If we now digitize this part of the overall series, a completely different picture emerges:
Although the trend decreases from 1880 to 1950, this is relatively insignificant for calculations of climate sensitivity, for example, because very little anthropogenic forcing occurred during this time.
After 1950, however, we see a 13% trend shift due to the “corrections”. This was also quickly communicated on Twitter and one has to wonder why Gavin Schmidt mentioned this irrelevant reduction in early trends so prominently. Smokescreen?
Years ago we used to call them fiddle factors
No change there
In those years ago, we never fiddled the data. Fiddle factors were for tweaking a model to fit the data. The climate models have a stunning number of fiddle factors, yet these people still have to fiddle the data!
As I recall, “fiddle” factor was the polite term, as in so many aspects in life & science!!! 😉
Years ago we used to call them fudge factors, and they were a clear sign that the ‘scientist’ didn’t understand what they were doing.
Fudging data was a euphemism for scientific fraud.
The reason GISS reduced the pre-1950s warming in their LOTI data is that climate models could not reproduce it. The models still can’t reproduce the pre-1950s warming even after all of the adjustments GISS made to their LOTI data:
08-model-data-30-year-trends1.png (769×501) (wordpress.com)
The graph is explained in the post here:
October 2018 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations (wordpress.com)
Regards,
Bob
It looks like this pre-1950s correction was maintained until about 2010, and since then has been reversed.
Does anybody know what has happened since 2010, such that the off-set between the two sets of data has suddenly disappeared?
Its’ been adjusted to incorporate the ramping up of CO2 levels following the end of WW2
That is when, overnight, munitions factories became fertiliser factories and Governments everywhere encouraged the use of that nitrate for the growing of food
Nobody wanted any more rationing.
The nitrate grew more food, still does, but it does so firstly by feeding/fertilising soil bacteria with their Liebig Limiting Nutrient.
In return, they produce CO2. Lots of it… about 10 tonnes per acre per year as it happens.
Until they all die from exhaustion and you’re left with a desert – and nothing to eat.
And yet, agricultural production is hitting records and the earth is greening. And certainly, farmers, as stewards of their land, are interested in improving their management practices.
After almost 80 years since the end of WWII there has been no Desertification of any farmland from dying soil microbes.
Must be really hardy little buggers
Perhaps they simply haven’t read Peta’s post yet
Here’s why agricultural production is hitting records. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/02/gmo-crops-increasing-yield-20-years-progress-ahead/#:~:text=They%20concluded%20that%20GM%20crops,mycotoxin%20levels%20by%20one%2Dthird.&text=These%20crops%20were%20planted%20by,technology%20worldwide%20in%20recent%20times.
That’s not the only reason. Tillage practices have also changed which has helped yields.
Die from exhaustion? What is that supposed to mean?
If they divide every 24 hours then there have been tens of thousands of generations since 1945. At which point do you reckon they will suddenly all die from exhaustion?
You’re saying that they “eat” organic matter in the soil, producing CO2 and water, which crops soak up? As such, the process is sustainable as long as the crops grow roots and stems that go back into the soil, which they do every year, no?
Another totally science-ignorant post on the same lines as “deadly radioactive neutrons…” oh dear!
LOTI: Lots Of Temperature Increases?
as Roy has noted, plot IPCC predictions against the UAH record and the trendlines aren’t close
there are months forty years apart at the same temperature in the actual lower troposphere record
lol now try to draw a horizontal line through any two points separated by 40 years in any NASA prediction since Hansen 1988
probably caps ECS at <2
which means, yes, we’ve already wasted trillions of dollars
if not actually slightly damaged the planet’s long-term habitability
So if they don’t continually “correct” them, they are out of a job. Doesn’t that strike anyone as having predictable consequences ?
When a theory fails to predict correctly the Scientific Method requires adjustment to the theory, not adjustment to the data.
Since every scientific hypothesis is subject to experiment it takes but one (reproducible) experiment to prove it wrong.
Climate Change
None of the past dire predictions have come to pass. The science is settled. Global Warming theory is wrong and needs adjustment.
COVID
The experiment has been done. Masks do not work to do more than slightly slow the spread of COVID. Wearing a mask does not protect others from you. The mRNA pretreatment was specific to version zero and is not only ineffective against variants (and if one thing happens with viruses its evolution toward survivability), but the pretreatment actually makes the immune system fight with ineffective antibodies so it can’t deal with variants as well as the unvaccinated.
Nuclear
The experiment has been done. Small modular Gen IV is safe from meltdown. (See also nuclear submarines.) Even current Gen nuclear is remarkably safe. There were no deaths from radiation at Fujiyama, but there were deaths due to evacuation. Chernobyl cannot repeat.
Transgenderism
The experiment has been done. It is clearly unfair to allow a biological male to dress up in a woman’s swimming suit and compete with women. If a man wants to be a female impersonator and dress up as a sexy female, no problem. But to get the rights a woman has? Uh, no. True gender dysphoria is rare.
Race
The experiment has been run. Biology counts. Averages by group (over/under representation by race) are interesting, but ultimately meaningless. Each individual must be judged individually. No one is just like other members of their subgroup. Increased spending in education has not changed any subgroup’s performance so far.
Pick your favorite topic. If you believe a scientifically testable matter is settled you are almost certainly wrong.
” If you believe a scientifically testable matter is settled”
You are effectively claiming science is over. And it never is. But the elites aren’t using science as anything other than a fig leaf.
Who would seriously rely on the state of the models? But they are a useful tool when you have a narrative to prop up. The enemy is time. Not because the climate is in meltdown, but because their claims are continually shown to be false. And those claims get whackier by the day.
” If you believe a scientifically testable matter is settled”
You are effectively claiming science is over. And it never is. But the elites aren’t using science as anything other than a fig leaf.
Who would seriously rely on the state of the models? But they are a useful tool when you have a narrative to prop up. The enemy is time. Not because the climate is in meltdown, but because their claims are continually shown to be false. And those claims get whackier by the day.
Good comment fretslider.
In his recent interview with Joe Rogan, Dr. Andrew Dessler said that the science is “set” not “settled” as the self-proclaimed climate scientists Al Gore and Jane Fonda are so wont to say.
I wonder if Dessler thinks he is clever in making this substitution. Maybe he just had Australian Open tennis on his mind and his thinking was in line with “game, set, match.”
Whacky, nonetheless.
I agree with your compliment to fretslider and your noticing dessler’s odd word choice.
Consider that “set” is a verb instead of an adjective or noun.
That is, “science is set” as in artificially set by alarmists and their politician advocates.
What dessler claims is that science is firmly established to achieve alarmist goals; aka communist/socialist destruction of a republic and any democracy.
It is set in its ways.
Um, let’s use the full quote from the Old.George comment? Emphasis added below for those who couldn’t read the last few words…
“Masks do not work to do more than slightly slow the spread of COVID. Wearing a mask does not protect others from you.”
Do you make a distinction between types of masks? I’ve been using N95 from the beginning since I had a big box of them for years for all sorts of reasons. Some people have worn only those cheap blue masks and not correctly. They wear them when dirty- sometimes not over their noses. I’ve seen people take them off- by grabbing the front of the mask (getting germs on their hands) – and stuff them in a pocket to be used over and over. I’ve recently gotten a mask better than N95- it’s a P95 which keeps out vapors- good for painting.
I see that the Queen has Covid: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/20/world/buckingham-palace-says-queen-elizabeth-ii-tests-positive-covid-19-has-mild-symptoms-will-continue-with-duties/
did she not wear masks? not get the shot? or will they blame it on climate change? :-}
Triple jabbed supposedly.
Now presumably the Queen is receiving the very best of treatment from the Royal Horseguards.
Scissor, are you saying the Queen of England is taking horse dewormer?
“Masks do not work to do more than slightly slow the spread of COVID. Wearing a mask does not protect others from you.”
They don’t work, but they are an easily visible sign of compliance, nothing more.
“I’ve been using N95 from the beginning”
Even they can let the virus through. But lets flag a cab down to real street. The general population – under diktat – has created a huge mountain of plastic masks. While some might wear glasses eyes were exposed to infection.
The one thing missing from this pandemic has been logic and common sense.
The two things missing from this pandemic….
I’ve seen estimates that between 1-2 billions masks are discarded everyday, and if even .5% of them dont end up in a trash basket, that is a lot of masks tossed to the ground.
Where in the world has any one been asked to shave off facial hair…good luck getting a mask seal with a beard.
I have a beard and I notice that the better N95 masks come down under my chin very nicely- they fit very tight. The cheap, blue “surgical masks” do not.
Am I to assume the you haul gravel in a shopping cart. That about how well a n95 mask protects you from COVID. Even the mask manufacture will till you N95 mask don’t work against COVID. After all they don’t want to be sued.
Whatever— I think everyone has a right to decide for themselves- if you want to use a mask, fine- if not, fine. If you want the shot- fine, if not, fine. The reason the mask makers say that- is to nobody can sue them if they get Covid. I think that’s fairly obvious- just like when you get any prescription medicine- you get pages of warnings, makes the liers… er I mean lawyers happy- so no matter what happens to you, you’re less likely to sue.
The mask manufactures know the real capability of their masks. In spite of political diktat, the manufacturers still leave enough information for users to make real decisions.
Masks that only catch a portion of 2.5 micron particles fail to catch most 0.3 micron virus particles. Particles 1/8th the size of 2.5 micron particles.
G’Day Joseph,
…N95 masks come down under my chin very nicely…
For people with beards that are not trimmed close to the face, masks may fit loosely around the beard. However, people with beards should still wear a mask. Masks designed for people with beards are being evaluated, and information will be provided when it becomes available.
Copied from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html
It’s been 15 years since my beard was last trimmed. There is no mask that is a ‘good’ fit. (It’s something of an attraction with foreign tourists and other visitors.)
The difference between N95 and a cloth bandana is not anywhere as significant as some super-spreader jerk sneezing phlegmules over the buffet table without a mask, compared to with a mask.
In Japan, it is common to wear a mask if you have a cold to reduce the possibility of sneezing on others and giving them your cold. It is not based on the assumption that everyone is eventually going to catch it, with sneezing on them today actually doing them a favor.
The popular presentation that the mask is to prevent you catching CoVid is mostly nonnsense…its to really to prevent you from spreading it if you have it. Obviously 0% effective amongst the uninfected, so stats are likely meaningless interpretations of sketchy data.
No mask prevents a sneeze from spreading globules of virus laden mucous into the air. They’re not designed to contain so much forceful exhalation nor to keep sealed edges during a sneeze.
Full face rubber masks might contain a sneeze, but the wearer will likely have to remove the mask to clean the inside glass.
Been there, done that.
Here’s how to check if your mask keeps out covid virus: put on your mask ensuring it covers your mouth and nose. Now take a few breaths.
Can you breathe air in and out?
If yes, your mask lets covid in and out too.
If you cannot breathe, congratulations your mask is protecting you.
Simple: scientific: the science is settled. /sarc
It used to be that one could visit 3M online and easily get their official requirements for N95 specifications, including test results.
i.e., N95 indicates the mask is capable of capturing 95%, by weight, of all particles 2.5 microns and larger.
10 micron and larger particles weigh significantly more than 2.5 micron and smaller particles.
Meaning, that missing 5%, by weight of particles not caught by the mask are all small particles.
COVID-19 was identified early as being 0.3 microns in size and even China described expecting to block COVID-19 viral particles with an N95 mask as seeking to block mosquitos using chain link fence.
Governments pressured others to disguise this “mask” problem by obscuring or hiding the proper abilities of the N95 masks.
Your latest filter is not blocking “vapors” by filter hole size, but by including chemicals that capture vapors. Meaning each type of vapor needs a different chemistry for the filter to absorb it.
N95 have been mandatory in Germany for over a year in public. Go look at the data to see how well they worked. (To save you looking, they made sod all difference.)
On climate science: Everything we know up until now is that claims of climate change due to anthropogenic GHG’s are unsubstantiated. That does not mean that the claims of future climate change are proven wrong. You cannot disprove a future event, just express an opinion about its likelihood of coming true or not. I think you would agree that the climate models are unable to accurately predict future climate, so since we cannot predict with certainty the future climate, one cannot say one way or another that there is not going to be some dramatic climate change resulting from anthropogenic GHG’s.
On mask effectiveness: I just don’t think you have data to support this. Mask mandates are another matter since compliance is largely voluntary and depends on other factors in concert with mask wearing. Clearly many countries have done better at limiting deaths from COVID; you can speculate on the reasons. My impression is that vaccinations have proven highly effective against hospitalization and mortality. Do you have data to show that this is not the case? The virus mutated, but so what. The flu does this constantly.
There were dozens of peer reviewed studies done on masks before covid, everyone showed that the use of masks did not stop the spread of airborne virus transmission by any significant measure. Sorry I don’t have the links because of PC problems, but they are out there.
The reason people said that vaccines would be ineffective against coronaviruses before any have been created was that the coronavirus family mutates so quickly, that by the time you have a vaccine, the next variant will have already appeared.
From what I know, there are 14-18 Flu variations out there, and they pick from that to put in the annual flu shot, which is why the efficacy is between 45-80% each year.
If I look, I quickly get to this:
An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19 | PNAS
It’s still in open question in my own mind as to just how effective they are, but my point was he did not have data and I’ll wait for yours.
It’s one thing to make a logical argument as to why something should work, however, the real question is whether it reduces risk in a meaningful way to justify requiring it’s use.The latter has not been shown.
Of course. Saying science is settled is not science unless you have the data and the facts on hand. If you are making a statement about something being settled, then you should back it up, or state it as an opinion.
Latest study on mask effectiveness, like population in same community. Fargo school had mask mandate, West Fargo schools did not. Infection rate between schools, no difference. That data, live with it.
Funny the studies show they don’t work. There are studies going back to the 70s show mask wearing in surgery increase the infection rate. What does that tell an intelligent person how well they are going to stop an airborne virus when they can’t stop bacteria!
Can you supply a citation for that assertion?
You just quoted a piece saying use cloth masks (if nothing else is around) , which even the CDC has said are almost useless. “Medical masks” is a quite vague term, the thin blue ones that we have all seen for decades, were never designed for airborne virus prevention, but for visible projectiles like spit or blood splatter. Distancing is a complete joke. You only have to look at places with mask mandates and those without. The number of infections per 100K is the same everywhere.
For work I have been required to receive annual respirator fit test. I remember in the past the issued card listed the OSHA standard, the current card (2022) only lists my employer’s General Lab Protocol #
First requirement is medical clearance. Properly fitted respirator (ie mask) restricts normal breathing pattern. A filter is only effective when all the air (100%) is passing through the filter. For some people changes in breathing air pressure causes stress. No testing will be given without current medical clearance. Next the actual test is a series of tasks designed to mimic daily work activities – walking, talking, head movements. Test involves a detectable tracer. If the tracer is detected during any task, that model/style mask is deemed inadequate. A different style/size made be tried. Partial and Full face masks with attachable cartridges (thinks military style gas masks) are considered last resort options. The operators administering the test also watch for respiratory stress in the people taking the test. Another avenue for mask failure.
There is no way the general public is capable of verifying a properly fitted mask. Any mask that does not maintain the AIRTIGHT seal at all times/activities is not effective for either the wearer or the people around the wearer. Properly fitted mask will NEVER fog up eyeglasses, this is a major leak in the masks seal not a minor or insignificant leak – a MAJOR failure.
I can not see how the government can mandate mask wearing when there is a n% of people with respiratory issues that could be seriously harmed by wearing them. I believe the government/medical community knew their recommended cloth masks and the generic ear-looped masks with their ineffective sealing would have little to no respiratory issues for the general public. Hence little to no value is slowing the spread of any virus.
What is your line of work? In mine, BOEM reps on our platforms would spot check to see if the hands had shaved their mask/skin contact area every day. Even a days worth of growth could allow for H2S respiration.
Point being, we’re not talking about that kind of respirator.
Pop quiz: What do you do if someone yells “GAS!” in a military setting?
The PNAS statement is a word-salad of Bullshit. They provide no data to backup their broad assertions. This is politics designed to back-up politicized bureaucratic mindless meddling, not science.
Israel?
Deaths trending upward and to their highest levels since this began do not bode well given that the current variants in circulation are the mildest.
Actually, one can make such a claim. All one has to do is examine the past.
Over the last 150 years, CO2 levels have risen from 280 to 410ppm. During the same time period temperatures have only risen about 1C. Beyond that, when you plot both temperature and CO2 levels on a yearly basis, you find that there is precious little correlation between CO2 and temperature.
On a longer basis, we can estimate with a fair bit of precision, both temperatures and CO2 levels going back several hundred million years. Once again, there is no correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. Temperatures have been much hotter than today, with less CO2 than we have today. Temperatures have been much colder than today, even though CO2 levels were much higher than today.
CO2 levels have been as high as 5000 to 7000 ppm, and nothing bad happened.
If you want to completely re-work the world’s economy and send billions of poeple into grinding poverty, you need a lot better than: Well you can’t prove me wrong.
I have demonstrated that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature during the seasonal ramp-up phase. However, since there appears to also be a correlation between El Nino events and the slope and range of the ramp-up, it appears that the temperature is causing the increased flux of CO2.
See especially figures 3 and 6:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
I respect that the preponderance of the information we have at hand does not suggest worrying too much about cataclysmic climate disruption due to anthropogenic GHG’s. And certainly, the claims we are exposed to on a daily basis from the MSM are just wild speculation, but because they are wrong doesn’t mean therefore that the science is settled in the other direction. Science is never settled in this way, if it ever is.
As I have said before, in the geological past when there was 19 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere than today, the Earth was in the middle of an Ice-Age…………..go figure that one!!! Manmade CO2 emissions do not & will not cause a climate catastrophe/disaster/chaos/crisis/breakdown/emergency/armageddon. I remember listening to a gardening show on the radio show years back, in which a member of the audience asked if, as was his thing at the time, talking nicely to his plants, was the Prince of Wales helping/benefitting them, the experts response was only by breathing out a tiny amount of CO2 might help them grow a little bit better, but nothing more!!! I hate to say it, but for me that simply reinforces my view that more CO2 = good, less CO2 = bad!!!
Here’s a very nice compilation of mask worthiness. I’m not the author.
Yes, and breathing through the nose provides the best natural immunity defense against airborne pathogens.
Frequently, mask wearing diverts breathing to the mouth and exhalation toward the eyes, which can be routes of entry for pathogens.
Good point about diversion of exhalation to the eyes, Scissor.
Tom, re proving or not future damage from CO2 increase: you are superficially right. However, assertions do not have a nod from science. Phrasing it as as a question that might be investigated is fine. Setting about to test such an hypothesis is the next step for science. Look up ‘ Bertrand Russell’s orbiting teapot’ for an assertion that we wouldn’t bother investigating.
What happened with climate ‘science’ was they came out of the gate with a full blown, incontestable settled theory of catastrophism from human caused additions of CO2 to the atmosphere instead of a legitimate question: Is this change going to be a problem?
After almost 40yrs of fighting a rearguard battle with no crisis in the offing despite a 40% increase in CO2, they have simply doubled down, spending trillions, destroying world economies, and civilization itself.
So far, the only palpable sign of climate change has been a 40% greening of the planet and associated global bumper harvests. Might we have something to worry about in the future? Sure, we should remain vigilant, but climate science projected temperatures that proved to be 300% too high so they were wrong about imminent crisis. There is even some concern now about cooling. Have I been extreme in my assessment Tom?
Tim.1 says:”That does not mean that the claims of future climate change are proven wrong.”
If something is physically impossible it is easy to say that future claims based on something that is impossible are proven wrong.
It is physically impossible for CO2 to cause the climate to change because it increased the temperature.
There you go again Tom. Back door arguments.
It’s true the models cannot predict the future.
But since the Scientologists who say the models are predictive are the same ones who tell us we are in a climate emergency every day we need to discount everything they say
Because they have an agenda
Someone who lies every day is a liar
Sorry, but you are mistaken, but I get you.
However, it also does not mean that the claims are valid. But, why would anyone believe unsubstatiated claims? Future conditions are little better than than an unsubstantiated opinion. That does not warrant turning the world economy on its head. If someone from the tin-foil hat brigade makes what appears to be an absurd claim, should they be believed?
That is not the point. I’m not defending the alarmists’ arguments, but many people here use arguments against various things not based on science and which are similarly unsound. The future of climate change with respect to human influence should be a matter of scientific inquiry. Anyone should be able to see that at least the potential to affect the global climate due to human influence exists. I expect we will learn a great deal more about this in the next 100 years or so, just to pick a number.
Tom.1
On clear nights I have noticed a certain periodic attenuation of star light. My theory is that a great galactic fleet is heading our way. At some point they could arrive and blow up the earth. You can’t prove me wrong.
I got into this discussion because someone said, “the science is settled”. Is that your argument? No, it’s not. You said you have a theory, and hair-brained though it may be, you did not claim that your theory is settled science.
“My impression is that vaccinations have proven highly effective against hospitalization and mortality.”
Like they say: in God we trust, all others must bring data.
When mask mandates came in, I thought: there’s a way of testing this. Japanese are used to wearing masks. If they work against the coronavirus then Japan will have lower infection rates. – I looked it up, and yes Japan had lower infection rates. Now this does not show that masks work, all it does is to not show that masks do not work. And of course there are multiple other issues, such as inaccurate and/or non-comparable data. Not being prepared to do lots more detailed research, I wore a mask on the basis that it was a very small price to pay and it might work.
It seems pretty clear that nothing has actually been very effective, other than draconian measures (such as closing borders) which arguably do more harm than good. What truly ps me off is that governments never looked at all the other things that were “a very small price to pay and it might work”, like Ivermectin and 46 other drugs (see below) that showed promise, were very cheap and easily supplied, and were already approved for human use. Surely, in a major emergency such as the coronavirus, governments should use every possible means to deal with it. They did not, and preferred to pander to big pharma’s sociopathic push for obscene profits.
About those 46 other drugs: https://theconversation.com/we-found-and-tested-47-old-drugs-that-might-treat-the-coronavirus-results-show-promising-leads-and-a-whole-new-way-to-fight-covid-19-136789 – how could there have been no further mention of any of those 47 drugs for nearly two years, other than by active suppression of all research and testing??
I’m open to the idea that masks are not all that effective. Many people claim that they aren’t; almost none bring any real evidence. It’s all anecdotal. Common sense suggests that they would provide some benefit. To me, they are a little like seat belts. The chances of having your life saved by wearing a seat belt vs. not wearing one are, I imagine, quite small. I have worn them long before it became law. I think very few people do not wear seat belts, probably because they can’t drive the car without it being buckled. Still, there is not that much complaint, and I suspect very few people ever look at any statistics to convince themselves that wearing one is a good idea in spite of the inconvenience. It is a government requirement that people accept. So is stopping at a stop sign, or not smoking in public places. Somehow mask wearing has become a placeholder for resentment against government overreach. Let’s face it, wearing a mask is a trivial inconvenience. Why are people so upset about it? We have not done especially well in the US on COVID vs. many other countries. My theory is that we lack the kind of social cooperation that exists in someplace like Denmark, and effectively dealing with a pandemic does require some acceptance that people have a kind of civic duty to cooperate in keeping it down. I believe that if the mortality rate of COVID were a lot higher, and more evenly distributed across age groups, people would be falling all over themselves to get the best mask and get vaccinated.
On top of this, what the heck does it have to do with climate change?
Surgical masks were initially to prevent the spread of infection, mostly bacterial. They have not been good at stopping the transmission of small viruses. That’s where n95’s come in. Just take a look at size of material they all stop.
What surgical masks do is slow the droplets down so they don’t travel as far. That’s what the 6′ distance is supposed to do. Keep your distance and use disinfectant on your hands is probably better than most masks.
Comparing Denmark to the US is apples and oranges. Much different health profile and diversity of peoples., fewer large and congested cities and didnt have the mental midgets sending infected folks into LTC communities.
India has a much lower excess death rate then the US and a much lower vaccination rate as well.
COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)
Believe what you want.
Fukushima, not Fujiyama
The hypothesis that increased spending on “education” will affect performance of subgroups is the only thing that is disproven. (That increased spending on family destruction – aka welfare – negatively affects subgroups is a fact.)
When the money does not go into actual education, it cannot be a significant factor. As in a “discrimination” court case in Kansas City some years ago, where a judge ordered the high school to install an Olympic sized swimming pool, but not a computer lab, or any STEM or trade facilities.
How they get away using that graph to represent the Earth’s temperature is beyond me. There is terrible data coverage pre WW2. The ocean temp data is just made up. We know this from climategate emails. 1921 was a hot year around the world but they show it as cooler than the 70s when scientists were warning of a coming ice age. Nothing in that graph ties back to published temps at he time.
Here’s a little temperature record history lesson:
You see, the Climate Change Charlatans can’t have the past being just as warm as the present because then they can’t claim we are experiencing unprecedented warming due to CO2, so the Charlatans distort the temperature profile from a cyclical warming and cooling trend, into a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile, so then they can claim we are living in the hottest time in the last 1,000 years and it’s all the fault of human-derived CO2.
This is the biggest science fraud in human history. We are right in the middle of it. And the heart of the fraud is the bastardization of the Earth’s temperature profile. Without this bastadization, the alarmists would have nothing to point to as evidence of CO2 warming.
Where did you get those two plots, particularly the one from 1999? – I’d love to be able to reference these when people deny that the “official” temp record has been altered…
I don’t have the source of those plots, but this is how they (NOAA) were reading them:
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html
Here is a blow up of the first part of the NYT article:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3bf2bdd004b44d8f03186e8699782c2e
I have no argument with someone who tells me that “2020 was the hottest year ever“, because that is what the data shows. However, I always insist that they cite the dataset that they are using to make that claim. Most often they readily agree to my request, as that is good science… and then they make the discovery that there are different version numbers of the datasets. And finally they realize that the claim they are making is based solely on the version number, because the warming signal isn’t present in the raw data.
After allowing them that “guided discovery”, I have them go on to other national datasets, like HADCRUT, and the Australian dataset… and they find the same versioning.
And if they are still curious, I have them explore the the NOAA US Climate Reference Network:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/14/despite-attempts-to-erase-it-globally-the-pause-still-exists-in-pristine-us-surface-temperature-data/
And at that point the “lightbulb goes on“… and again, I non-confrontationally reiterate that I have no problem with their warming claim, but they need to cite the dataset they are using as good scientific practice.
Tony Heller’s work. You can find it here.
His https://realclimatescience.com has lots of good videos about climate.
The graph on the left was in James Hansen’s 1999 paper
I did the experiment, went on the GISS site and graphed the same parameters and it’s easy to see the change
Greatly cooled past
Here’s the Hansen 1999, U.S. surface temperature chart:
Great graphic!
The biggest fraud in history was Ptolemy placing the Earth fixed at center when everyone knew of Aristarchus’ discovery.
The other fraud was Euclid – the flattening of Pythagorean physics.
These 2 caused a 1800 years dark age, identified precisely by Kepler. These 2 frauds still persist – climate placed the Earth at the center of the universe, and Euclid is still biblically taught.
The oligarchy has a looong tradition of fraud.
All such frauds attacks are exactly the same – against human creativity. The reason? Creativity increases population potential, which the oligarchy cannot tolerate. Modern medicine, modern agriculture … all under attack for exactly the same reason – 1 billion have the right to live according to this wealthy tiny crowd.
Tom, now that you know (I and others informed you several months ago) what is different between those two NASA graphs from 1999 and 2017 would you mind explaining it to the WUWT audience?
You want me to explain the obvious?
I guess I must have missed your previous post where you informed me of something.
Here is the history again. In 1999 GISTEMP used GHCNv2-qcu (unadjusted and bias contaminated). It wasn’t until 2000 that they switched to USHCN-adj (bias corrected) for the US portion. That means everything prior to 2000 is contaminated with the time-of-observation bias, station shelter/instrument bias, etc. It wasn’t until 2011 that they switched to GHCNv3-qcf (adjusted and bias corrected). That means between 2000 and 2011 everything except the US was contaminated with these biases. Along the way more and more station records were getting digitized. In 1981 the station count was 1000. That increased to 2200 in 1987, 7200 in 1999, 26000 in 2019, and we are now close to 28000 in 2022. They are still working on digitizing records from the 1900’s and even 1800’s and getting them uploaded to the GHCN repository.
The point is that the 1999 graph you posted is contaminated with significant biases. The time-of-observation and shelter/instrument biases are particularly acute in the United States. See Vose 2003 and Hubbard 2006 for details regarding these biases. The 2017 graph has those biases corrected.
I advise informing the WUWT audience the next time you post this graph.
Mr. x: I’m guessing this has been thoroughly aired out elsewhere, but from your post, we learn that prior to ’99, biases were in play. US records corrected for that in 2000, then globally in 2011.
So, there is absolutely no reason to adjust US records after 2000, right? Yet, they still are adjusted. Same for global, no way they made any adjustments after 2011, right?
Mr. x, why are they still making adjustments? Where can we find the program they use? You should be able to show why your statement above explains ongoing adjustments. You don’t have to explain why the adjustments consistently cool the distant past and warm the near past. Not yet.
PC said: “So, there is absolutely no reason to adjust US records after 2000, right?”
Post 2000 data still has to be adjusted because time-of-observation changes, shelter/instrument changes, station moves, and other non-climatic changes are all still occurring.
I will say that USCRN is a network that was specifically designed to be mostly (not entirely) immune from these kinds of non-climatic changes. As such USCRN is used as reference to objectively score the adjustments made to USHCN [1].
PC said: “Same for global, no way they made any adjustments after 2011, right?”
Like I said above post 2000 and 2011 data is still contaminated with non-climatic biases. Globally the problem is worse because you have to consider the ocean observations and the switching from bucket to engine to buoy observations.
PC said: “Where can we find the program they use?”
Here is the source code NOAA uses. Here is the source code Berkeley Earth uses. Note that BEST doesn’t actually make adjustments. They uses a completely different method to compute the global average temperature. They split timeseries at the breakpoints and treat them as separate stations instead of adjusting the timeseries. They offer adjusted station timeseries as a convenience to users who want those products. They just don’t use them for the gridding and averaging steps. It is also important to point out that reanalysis does not adjust station timeseries either. They a wildly different technique to assimilate the observations.
PC said: “You don’t have to explain why the adjustments consistently cool the distant past and warm the near past.”
Just so you know it is only the land portion (29%) which exhibits the warm bias in the past and cool bias in the present. The ocean portion (71%) is the opposite with a cool bias in the past and a warm bias in the present. This is why globally the net effect of all adjustments actually reduce the warming trend relative to the unadjusted data. I have explained this Tom multiple times.
“Post 2000 data still has to be adjusted because time-of-observation changes, shelter/instrument changes, station moves, and other non-climatic changes are all still occurring.”
Why? What data set does not record Tmax? Tmax happens at different times based on the distance involved. If the observation is done at 3:00PM in Kansas City, KS and at 3:00PM in Hays, Kansas you will *NOT* be at the same point on the temperature curve in both locations. So what difference does it make if you change the time of observation for one of the locations? You will still actually have a difference in temperature dependent on sin(t) because of the Earth’s rotation! Why is one difference ok and the other is not and must be corrected?
How do you judge whether the new measuring station is more accurate than the older station? Do you just assume the newer station is more accurate? If so, why do you make that assumption? Running them in parallel won’t answer the question. It just identifies that there is a difference, it won’t tell you which one is more accurate.
If someone mows the grass under a measurement station it will change the reading of the station. Are measurements with unmowed grass more accurate than ones with mown grass?
NASA does lot of good stuff elsewhere, what I believe what they were supposed to do, such as matters more celestial rather than to fiddle the climate data.
Four days ago NASA spotted a comet diving towards the sun before it met its fate and evaporated. A bit difficult to spot, just approaching from the 8am direction. They say there was second comet, might have been at another time.
Thanks, Vuk, very interesting.
Every month GISTEMP makes several hundred “corrections” to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) it looks like this for each year since 1880:
Since the 1970s all of the changes increased global temperature.
Here are the number of changes made each month for 2021:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
330 468 338 256 497 348 267 217 285 291 375 277
Over time these changes add up. Here’s a chart that showing that the over all trend from 1997 to 2018 increased by 0.25°C per century:
This goes on like a steady drone every month. One of the peculiar things is the search for the historical LOTI files, see the sources below. Current files need to be saved when they are published as, so I am told, NASA attempts to block any archiving of their data. Why would they do that? And why don’t they make it available on their web pages?
Sources:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Many of the previous LOTI tables can be found at The Internet Archives Way Back Machine however most “Snap Shots” come up “Access Denied” or “Not Found”
_________________________________________
My post disappeared.
Did you disparage Hillary or something?
I have no idea why the mods hold up my posts. This one briefly appeared and disappeared twice. Well it looks like it’s back now after several hours. But by now the audience has mostly moved on.
Use a bigger font?
Please note the baseline used is 1880-1899. And that is significant because………?
Ed Hawkins has a genius way to explain that one:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2015/12/anim_small.gif
From the article: “He notes that the overall trend decreases with the corrections (green compared to the raw data (black dashed).”
The black, dashed line is not raw data, it is bastardized data. Raw data would show the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than today.
So what you are looking at is an adjustment to bastardized temperature data.
The whole thing is a scam.
Here’s the real temperature profile of the Earth, the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999):
All “raw” regional surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the temperature profile of the U.S.Hansen 1999 chart. None of them resemble the “raw” data on the black, dashed line
“The black, dashed line is not raw data, it is bastardized data. Raw data would show the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than today.”
The usual, really thick stuff. Gavin is plotting global temperature. It was US only where the 1930’s were hot. They are different regions.
Just like only Europe was cold in the little I’ve age.
Tom has posted many similar graphs from all over the world
It was hot in most of the world in the 30s
Nick seem to be in denial when it comes to climate history.
Nick needs to read this 1995 document. It is still relevant today and, based on current agriculture harvest, pretty accurate in its conclusions.
https://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
——————-excerpt ———————————-
Only if warmer weather caused more droughts or lowered agricultural output would even Third World countries suffer. Should the world warm — and there is little evidence or theory to support such a prognostication — most climatologists believe that precipitation would increase. Although some areas might become drier, others would become wetter. Judging from history, Western Europe would retain plentiful rainfall, while North Africa and the Sahara might gain moisture. The Midwest of the United States might suffer from less precipitation and become more suitable for cattle grazing than farming. On the other hand, the Southwest would likely become wetter and better for crops.
A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth’s climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished.
Warmer nighttime temperatures, particularly in the spring and fall, create longer growing seasons, which should enhance agricultural productivity. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that the added boost from enriched CO2 would enhance output by 17 percent.[11] Researchers have attributed a burgeoning of forests in Europe to the increased CO2 and the fertilizing effect of nitrogen oxides.[12] Professor of Climatology Robert Pease writes that we may now be living in an “icehouse” world and that a warming of about two degrees Celsius, which is what his model indicates, may actually make the earth more habitable. The higher temperatures combined with more carbon dioxide will favor plant and crop growth and could well provide more food for our burgeoning global populations. Geologic history reveals that warmer global temperatures produce more, not less, precipitation, a fact reflected by a recent scientific investigation that shows the Greenland ice-cap to be thickening, not melting. So much for the catastrophic prediction that our coastlines will be flooded by a rise in sea level from polar meltwaters
————————————————————————
This document was written before real scientists would be cancelled for heresy against the religion of CAGW.
Only in the US was it hot 😉
“The usual, really thick stuff. Gavin is plotting global temperature.”
Plotting is a good term to use here.
How does Gavin get a global temperature profile that differs so markedly from the temperature profiles of all the unmodified, written, regional surface temperature charts from all over the world?
The unmodified (raw) regional charts have the same basic temperature profile as the U.S.regional chart, which show that temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twnetieth Century as they are today. That being the case, CO2 does not show to be an issue.
The two charts above are of the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) beside a bogus, bastardized computer-generated Hockey Stick chart. All the unmodified regional charts from around the world resemble the U.S. chart. None of them resemble the bogus Hockey Stick chart profile. So how does Gavin produce a Hockey Stick chart out of regional charts that look so different?
“It was US only where the 1930’s were hot.”
No, you are wrong and you know you are wrong. I have the Tmax charts that show it was just as warm as the U.S. was in the 1930’s, all over the world. You’ve seen them, yet you pretend they don’t exist. Why is that?
“How does Gavin get a global temperature profile that differs so markedly from the temperature profiles of all the unmodified, written, regional surface temperature charts from all over the world?”
Just hand waving. Show it!
Gavin gets the profile just as I do. He does the sums. Looks at the actual numbers.
Malarky! Attached is a Tmax chart for China. It shows the same profile as the US.
Does that mean you accept BEST as not being “bogus”?
You are comparing Max temperatures, and only the warmest month in each year, with mean global temperatures.
Your graph does not show the same profile as the US. It shows most of the 30s as being average and the 1940s as being a lot warmer.
Here’s the BEST graph showing a 12 month and 10 year moving average.
Source:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/china#
I am not sure how Berkeley has such low uncertainty for China in the 1940s. Where are they getting such data? Its same % as present day even though I doubt there were 25 accurately temperature reading sites for the whole country 80 years ago. The US had over 4000 80 years ago.
Meanwhile you are not even comparing the same data as Tim.
Tmax is the *best* measure of how HOT it is. And of course the profile doesn’t perfectly match the US profile. SO WHAT? It still shows the hot weather in the first part of the century was warmer than today. And the highest Tax was in 1930 not 1940!
It’s a perfect example of why mid-range temps hide what is actually going on with the temp profile and climate!
You didn’t answer my first question. Do you accept BEST data as legitimate or not?
I’m puzzled because this argument was all global data sets are corrupt because they don;t show the 1930s as being as warm as in the US. But now you use exactly this corrupt data to argue it was globally warmer in the 1930s. I really don’t understand how you think BEST is correct when you look at any specific country, but somehow becomes incorrect when this are aggregated into a global temperature.
I have downloaded several million data points for Tmax from the Berkeley site. I just got them loaded in a sql database today. I’ll work up some sql queries to test their data to see what it shows. Something you’ve probably never done.
I did find something out about the the Berkeley data. What they call “uncertainty” is actually the resolution of the measurement device and not a measure of the accuracy of the measurement station. That alone puts their data in question
The problem with the aggregated data that is typically used is that it is the mid-range temperature – which tells you absolutely zero about the climate. Then it is used to determine an anomaly which tells you even less. This appears to be something you just refuse to accept – it lies outside your climate religion. The second problem with the aggregate is that it represents an average of a multi-nodal distribution. The average of a multi-nodal distribution really tells you nothing about actual, on-the-ground conditions. The average of 90F and 0F is 45F. Does that average tell you ANYTHING about the location with the 90F temp? Does it tell you anything about the location with the 0F temp?
TG said: “I have downloaded several million data points for Tmax from the Berkeley site. I just got them loaded in a sql database today. I’ll work up some sql queries to test their data to see what it shows.”
Same. I used SQL Server. What are you using?
TG said: “I’ll work up some sql queries to test their data to see what it shows.”
Yes. Please do. And if you have the motivation and time see if you can work up the breakpoint detection and timeseries split algorithm, gridding algorithm, grid infilling algorithm, grid averaging procedure and report a true global mean temperature. Bonus points if you can do the jackknife resampling as well. Or at the very least just grid and spatially average the data.
TG said: “Something you’ve probably never done.”
If you’re thinking you’re the only who’s ever done this then I’m sorry to disappoint you. I did this several years ago.
TG said: “I did find something out about the the Berkeley data. What they call “uncertainty” is actually the resolution of the measurement device and not a measure of the accuracy of the measurement station. That alone puts their data in question”
That’s true for the intermediate files. Notice what the comment says.
Also notice that they followed the GUM and Taylor procedure of dividing by sqrt(N) where N is the observation count in the month. For example, for station ID 63 Jan. 1953 the uncertainty is 0.0516 with 29 observations. 0.0516 * sqrt(29) = 0.278 C. The astute user will notice that ±0.278 C is equivalent to ±0.5 F which is the precision of a value reported in F with no decimal places. The fact that they did the propagation of uncertainty correctly is almost certainly going to annoy you unless, of course, we’ve managed to finally convince you that your own preferred source (Taylor) and others like it (GUM, NIST, etc.) are correct.
I use Mysql on my linux box. It’s been twenty years since I’ve done sql queries. I’m having to relearn it as I go along.
Part of the problem is isolating those station records that cover the 1920-20xx timeframe. Just looking at all the records together results in a bias factor based on the timeframes with more records. The other problem is isolating those records associated with a region rather than the entire globe.
I’ll get there. It just isn’t quick.
Dividing by sqrt(N) gives you an average uncertainty for one data element. It doesn’t give the total final uncertainty. For instance, if you have 30 +/- 0.2 and 29 +/- 0.4 the average uncertainty is +/- 0.3. But the *total* uncertainty is actually 2 * 0.3 or +/- 0.6. (with only two data elements there probably isn’t any random cancellation). I simply do not under stand why this is so hard to understand!
“Tmax is the *best* measure of how HOT it is.”
That’s right. If you want to know what the hottest year was, you look at the Tmax charts.
TA said: “That’s right. If you want to know what the hottest year was, you look at the Tmax charts.”
Bob Tisdale’s charts are fine if you want to know if the warmest month of the year is getting warmer. It does not tell you which year is the hottest. Here is the exact same data Bob Tisdale used except instead of cherry-picking the warmest month it is the average of all months.
If you *really* want to know which year is “warmest” then you need to be looking at a daily graph of cooling degree-days.
“Your graph does not show the same profile as the US. It shows most of the 30s as being average and the 1940s as being a lot warmer.”
No regional chart matches exactly with other regional charts, but all the unmodified, regional, historic charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
Deny that.
“Malarky! Attached is a Tmax chart for China”
Typical cherry picking. You switch from an average temp for US, to an average daily max for China. Why? Well, here is what the truly corresponding graph looks like:
Just steady warming since 1930. And of course, you don’t show the source graph, just as told (long ago) by Bob Tisdale. Bellman has shown the proper BEST Tmax graph above, which is quite different.
“Typical cherry picking. You switch from an average temp for US, to an average daily max for China.”
A Tmax chart of the U.S. has the same temperature profile as the China chart.
And here is one from India.
It was as hot or hotter around the globe in the 20’s and 30’s as it was in the US.
So the second coldest year in India was during the 1930s, warmest in the 1920s. How does that square with the idea that everywhere was warmer during the 1930s?
Here’s the moving average version.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/india
Once again claiming accurate temperature with any degree of certainty in India pre WWII is highly unlikely. Also One year outliers does not make any point. However we do know India suffered horrendous droughts and famine pre-1970. Tremendous loss of life. Amazing how those incidents have disappeared by a slight increase in temp and CO2 levels. The more consistent and affordable supply of energy the better living conditions a society has.
Here we go again. It’s Tim Gorman who’s using single months of Indian data to “proof” the entire world was warmer in the 1930s.
Not just India but the US and China as well! I’ve more if you need them.
The point is that the whole globe was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than since.
Tell me again how CO2 is the burner knob?
“The point is that the whole globe was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than since.”
You keep asserting that with no evidence. Even if you insist globally hottest only means maximum temperature during the hottest month, you are not doing anything to establish this was globally the case. All of your regions show variable maximum temperatures, with peaks at different times. Average them and what do you get?
“You keep asserting that with no evidence.”
So charts showing it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century is “no evidence”. This is called denial, Belman.
The claim is the “whole of the globe was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than since”. The two charts do not show the whole of the globe, they show two selected areas of the globe, and neither of them demonstrate that it was hotter throughout the first half of the 20th century than any time since.
You on the other hand insist you won’t accept any evidence if it doesn’t show it was warmer in the 1930s than today. What would you call that?
“Once again claiming accurate temperature with any degree of certainty in India pre WWII is highly unlikely.”
Well, it’s the best record we have and it beats making the temperatures up in a computer.
As usual you have missed the whole point! The point is that the entire globe was hotter in the first part of the 20th than today! Before CO2 GROWTH in the last half of the century plus the 21st.
Tell me again how CO2 is the heat control knob?
“As usual you have missed the whole point! The point is that the entire globe was hotter in the first part of the 20th than today! “
You haven’t made the point. Just hand-waving. You have shown a US average, and two Tisdale mis-plotted graphs for Tmax China and India. India doesn’t show any peak in 1930’s, even in your plot. Here is the proper plot for average temperature for India:
It has warmed about 1°C since 1930. China about 1.5°C
Like bellman you miss the entire point. You are using a form of the argumentative fallacy known as Paralysis of Analysis – trying to focus on a specific year rather than the whole of the data. The issue isn’t 1930, the issue is that it was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than at any point since.
Average temps hide the true temp profile. Talk about not making the point! You can’t tell from your chart if the average went up because Tax went up (ie it got hotter) or if the avg went up because Tmin went up!
“The issue isn’t 1930, the issue is that it was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than at any point since.”
Well, your original claim was
“I have the Tmax charts that show it was just as warm as the U.S. was in the 1930’s, all over the world. You’ve seen them, yet you pretend they don’t exist. Why is that?”
But OK, here are all the BEST charts in one plot – China, India, Brazil. Tave on the left, Tmax on the right. Click to enlarge. Now remind me again which one has the proof that “it was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than at any point since”?
I have no idea exactly what you have plotted for Tmax. Adjusted/corrected data or raw data.
I suggest you contact Mr. Tisdale and tell him he is a liar.
Attached is a graph showing the number of states with record highs in a year. The data is copyrighted through 2012. It’s from the accuracyproject.org.
It shows that the vast majority of the state high records happened in the 30’s. To me the graph is a pretty good indicator that the first half of the century was hotter than it is today.
You are ignoring the obvious. My father grew up in the 20’s and 30’s. My grandfather used to say that he had never seen heat like that. So did my father. Subjective I know, but still useful for comparison.
TG said: “I have no idea exactly what you have plotted for Tmax. Adjusted/corrected data or raw data.”
I’m going to tell you the same thing I’ve told you several times before. BEST does not adjust data. They use the “scalpel” method in which the timeseries are split at changepoints and treated like a different station.
TG said: “To me the graph is a pretty good indicator that the first half of the century was hotter than it is today.”
It is a pretty good indicator that more state record highs occurred in the 1930s…nothing more. Now take that same dataset and make graphs of monthly average Tmax, Tmin, and (Tmax+Tmin)/2 for the US. What does it show?
Same kind of data from infoplease.com. Pretty much the same.
“I have no idea exactly what you have plotted for Tmax.”
It is not my plot, As shown on the graphs, they are BEST’s own plots of their data. Here, for example, you can find China. This is the very data that Bob Tisdale cited.
Welcome to the Holocene Inter-Glacial, Mr Stokes!!! Pity this Inter-Glacial is not as warm as the previous four Inter-Glacials, by between 2 & 4 degrees Celcius dating back over half a million years!!! Perhaps your crystal balls can aggregate a time when this Inter-Glacial will end, & the Earth starts to descend into the next Ice-Age, as it surely will!!!
You haven’t established anything of the sort. Just asserted that a couple of places look hotter at different points. You won;t accept global BEST data, but you claim their regional data proves it must have been hotter in the first part of the 20th century.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
It’s impossible to refute faith in a religious tenet.
You won’t accept one example so I give you two. You won’t accept two examples so I give you three.
My guess is that if I give you four it still won’t affect your religious faith that it hotter today than ever before.
Is there any number of regional Tmax graphs you will accept?
Funny how people who say that never thinks it could apply to them.
“My guess is that if I give you four it still won’t affect your religious faith that it hotter today than ever before.”
You would guess right. If you want to convince me that something is global, you need to show me that it happened globally rather than in four selected countries.
And I bet if I showed you data that disagreed with your believe “that it was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than at any point since”, you would dismiss it as corrupt and bogus.
“And I bet if I showed you data that disagreed with your believe “that it was hotter in the first part of the 20th century than at any point since”, you would dismiss it as corrupt and bogus.”
What about that “40’s blip” the Climategate Charlatans were talking about? They were referring to it as being GLOBAL. Sea and land.
Yes, there’s a blip in the 1940s, mainly in sea temperature. I’m not sure what point you are arguing now. First you say the global temperature are wrong because they don;t show the same temperature profile as the US, now you are talking about a rise in global temperatures occurring when the US was cooling.
As I’ve already pointed out, the SH has different weather and climate than the NH. I’ve given you three samples from the NH.
Here is your fourth.
We’ll never know what I would dismiss since you’ve never provided Tmax records based on actual raw data going back to the start of the century. All you’ve offered is the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Slogan: It’s hotter today than today! Except your slogan is based on data that are mid-range values so you don’t actually know if Tmax is higher today than 100 years ago!
I said nothing about the SH. Are you now saying it was only the Northern Hemisphere that warmer temperatures in the first part of the 20th century?
“We’ll never know what I would dismiss since you’ve never provided Tmax records based on actual raw data going back to the start of the century.”
And you are not showing actual raw data. So question, would you accept a single Max of hottest month, using BEST regional data as evidence of it not being globally hotter in the NH in the early 20th century than the 21st century?
“All you’ve offered is the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Slogan: It’s hotter today than today!”
You really must stop making up these fallacies. I’ve never said it’s hotter today than today. That means nothing, and is trivially false.
Sorry, I mistyped. It should be “It’s hotter today than yesterday”.
And article of faith in the CAGW religion.
OK.
“All you’ve offered is the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Slogan: It’s hotter today than [yesterday]!”
That isn’t all I’ve offered I’ve offered all the data sets we keep going over. Including the ones you use to show it was hotter yesterday than today. I’ve used your preferred definition of hotter – looking only at maximum temperatures for the single hottest month. I’ve restricted myself to just averaging the three countries you insist proof it was hotter in the early 20th century.
Meanwhile all you do is insist that any data that shows it being hotter now, then that data must be rejected.
“Here is your fourth.”
You still haven’t explained how you define what you mean by begin hotter in the first part of the 20th century. Your graphs make it very difficult to establish what the overall maximum temperature was over any period of time, becasue there is too much noise. And you cannot prove that “everywhere” was as hot by selecting individual countries,.
Here for example is Russia, using the same process as Tisdale, along with a 10 year moving average. Does this look like it was hotter in the early 20th century than now?
Sorry. Messed up the first graph. Here’s hopefully the correct one.
“You won’t accept one example so I give you two. You won’t accept two examples so I give you three.”
They want to complain about Bob Tisdale’s Tmax charts.
I suppose we should supply them with regional charts that are not Tmax, but are averages, that also show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, all over the world.
I’ll go through my collection and post some of them in later, subsequent articles, since this article is getting a little old. I wouldn’t want Nick to me one.
Let’s see what they complain about then.
“You won;t accept global BEST data, but you claim their regional data proves it must have been hotter in the first part of the 20th century.”
BEST doesn’t have any global data. That’s all made up in their computers.
Where do they get the data they put in their computers? From the regional surface temperature charts.
They take the regional data and use their computers to change the profile of the globe into a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile in order to sell the Human-cause Climate Change scam.
TA said: “Where do they get the data they put in their computers? From the regional surface temperature charts.”
Berkeley Earth grids the planets with 15984 cells. The global average temperature is the average of all 15984 cells. The regional average temperature is the average of the subset of cells for that region. It’s the exact same data either data.
TA said: “They take the regional data and use their computers to change the profile of the globe into a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile in order to sell the Human-cause Climate Change scam.”
Patently False. They do exactly what I describe above. You can see this for yourself in their methods paper here and source code here.
If you don’t understand why your statements are wrong then ask questions. Don’t keep posting factually incorrect information. No harm this time. You probably really didn’t know how it was done. That only makes it misinformation. But now that you know if you continue to post incorrect information I’ll have no choice but to describe it as disinformation in the future.
How do you think the regional temperatures are derived? It’s “all made up in the computer” in the same way – i.e. calculated from the individual station data. People have been quick to dismiss BEST regional temperatures, except when it seems to show what you want to believe.
I asked about what happened if you averaged the three countries. Let me try to do it. I’m doing what I think your graphs are doing – looking at which month has the warmest maximum temperature for any year. Note, for China and the US this is likely to be June, July or August for any given year. For India it’s more likely to be May.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/
First here are each of the three countries along side each other.
First here are each of the three countries along side each other.
And here’s the average of the three, with a ten year moving average.
Of course, I don’t agree with the idea of only taking a single month to represent the temperature for the year. If one year has a hot June but a cold July and August, why should be considered a hotter Summer than a year with three above average summer months?
So here’s the same exercise using the mean maximum temperatures for the summer months. I’m using June – August for the US and China, and April – June for India.
First the three countries together.
And now the average of the three, with a 10 year rolling average.
So even limiting this to the three countries Gorman selects, and only looking at maimum summer temperatures, it’s difficult to see how this proves that it was warmer during the 30s or during the first halve of the 20th century than now.
Which shows that in the USA and China it was as hot pre-1950 as post-1950. India is close. So exactly what do you think you have proved?
I’m just trying to establish what you mean by the entire globe was warmer pre-1950s than today. You’ve ignored the fact that averaging just your three selected regions, your preferred single month metric, doesn’t show that to be the case.
“So the second coldest year in India was during the 1930s, warmest in the 1920s. How does that square with the idea that everywhere was warmer during the 1930s?”
Well, 1936 in the U.S. had one of the hottest periods on record and also had one of the coldest periods on record. A hot record and a cold record in the same year. How does that happen?
Well, it does happen so your example means nothing.
And it’s not “during the 1930’s” it’s “the Early Twentieth Century” that you need to concentrate on.
And you need to explain what criteria you are using to define hottest ever periods. First it was the 1930s were hotter globally, now it’s the early 20th century. First it was annual mean temperature, now it’s one month’s maximum temperature.
Hot is Tmax.
go here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25212-2
A study done by AGRICULTURAL scientists, not climate scientists.
“On average, FFF has been occurring later (by 5.4 days century−1), and LSF has been occurring earlier (by 6.9 days century−1), resulting in the average lengthening of the CGS (by 12.7 days century−1). Annual GDD has been increasing by 50 °C century−1″
“The annual AGDD trends (deviation from mean annual AGDD) in time domain (1900–2014) are presented on a national scale in Fig. 3. The deviation was initially close to zero, which rose to a positive maximum in 1939 and thereby started declining into negative deviations until the end of the study period in 2014.”
So growing degree-days went up till the end of the 30’s and then went down till today. That leads to a specific conclusion. Since CGS has been going up since the 30’s, i.e. a longer growing season, max temps must be going down or GDD would be going up as well. See Fig 3 in the document. CGS has been going up steeply while GDD has been going down. The peak in GDD was pre-1950 while CGS was basically at the average.
This is what you find out when *REAL* scientists without a bias toward CAGW look at reality – without having to worry about being cancelled by people like you.
“Hot is Tmax”
Tom Abbott was initially talking about annual mean temperatures. In particular he won’t believe the won’t accept the global mean temperature sets because they don’t agree with the US data.
“Since CGS has been going up since the 30’s, i.e. a longer growing season, max temps must be going down or GDD would be going up as well.”
But the the paper bases GDD on mean temperature.
I suspect the difference is more to do with there being cold winters during the 1930s rather than differences between max and min,
No, Abbott was talking about Tmax. Go look at what he said again!
GDD is GROWING DEGREE DAYS. That is based on the integral of the temperature profile vs a set point. It is *NOT* based on mean temperature any longer. GDD has to do with heat accumulation.
You are stuck in the *old* way of calculating degree-days. Join the 21st century man!
From Ohio State University’s GDD website:
“ c) Sine Wave Method:
This method is considered the most accurate way to calculate the GDD. First, a graph is made. The rate of development is plotted on the x-axis (1/time) and the temperature is located on the y-axis. The curve produced by this graph resembles a sine wave. The base temperature is considered to be 50F. From here, there are three possible scenarios.”
They actually use this formula:
(New Total GDD) = (Yesterday’s Total GDD) + (1/π) * ( (DayAvg – κ) * ( ( π/2 ) – arcsine( θ ) ) + ( α * Cos( arcsine( θ ) ) ) )
DayAvg = (DayHigh + DayLow)/2
κ = 50 (the base temp.)
α = (DayHigh – DayLow)/2
θ = ((κ – DayAvg)/α)
“GDD is GROWING DEGREE DAYS. That is based on the integral of the temperature profile vs a set point. It is *NOT* based on mean temperature any longer. GDD has to do with heat accumulation.”
Did you read the paper? They use
As I told you and showed you, that is the LEAST accurate way to calculate GDD.
Maybe so, but it’s the method used in the paper you insisted I read as it was done by “*REAL* scientists”.
“No, Abbott was talking about Tmax. Go look at what he said again!”
Not here he’s not. Or here. He says the mean global temperature graphs are wrong because they are not the same as the mean temperature graph of the USA (from a couple of decades ago).
Neither of those are the Tmax charts which were the original subject of the discussion. You are, as usual, lost in the multiverse.
They were the original subject. It’s what Abbott’s been arguing for ages. You’re the one who jumped into the middle of the conversation to bring up maximum temperatures. You need to learn how to work your way up the thread. Click on the name next to “Reply to”. Follow this thread all the way up and you get to Tom Abbott saying “Here’s the real temperature profile of the Earth, the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999)” with the “real” chart being for USA annual mean temperatures.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/20/peculiar-things-about-gavin-schmidts-temperature-series-and-its-corrections/#comment-3458187
The original graphs Abbott posted on WUWT were the Tmax charts. I really don’t care what he posted in this thread. The issue is that the first part of the 20th century was warmer than the last half. You can reject that if you want, but the truth is still the truth no matter how inconvenient it is.
By the way, and this should go without saying, the Ohio formula you want to use is still based on mean temperature.
If GDD goes up you still can’t tell if it’s because maximum or minimum temperatures have increased, and as minimum temperatures get closer to the base temperature the estimated GDD for the day gets closer to the mean. Of course if the minimum is above the base the daily GDD will just be the mean temperature.
It’s based on the AVERAGE value of the temperature profile ( a sine wave) minus the set point. The average value of a sine wave is *not* the mid-range temp.
You’re are going to have to explain why you think the average value of a sine wave is not the mid-rang temp. The assumption made here is that the daily temperature profile follows a sine wave and that makes it symmetrical about it’s middle.
But you are now admitting that the GDDs are based on the daily average temperature. You presumably realize the formula you quoted as the “most accurate” means of calculating the GDD from a max and minimum value is the same method I was using four months ago, when you were insisting it was possible to calculate CDDs using just the maximum value.
The problem is you still insist that an increase in GDD can only be because the maximum temperature has increased. But as the formula makes clear it’s just not so. An increase can be caused by an increase in minimum temperatures even if the maximum stays the same.
“You’re are going to have to explain why you think the average value of a sine wave is not the mid-rang temp. The assumption made here is that the daily temperature profile follows a sine wave and that makes it symmetrical about it’s middle.”
It’s a matter of what you are trying to calculate. Root-mean-square is used on a sine wave to determine the heating value equivalent to a DC voltage. It’s *NOT* zero even if the sine wave is symmetrical around zero.
A sine wave is defined from 0 to 2π radians but the sun only provides heat input to the Earth over the the period of 0 to π, i.e. half of the day.
The average value determined is by evaluating the integral of the sine wave from 0 to π divided by the time period involved = π
The integral of sin(t) from 0 to π = 2. Divided by the time interval of π = 2/π = .64. This is a normalized value only for when Tmax = 1. The actual average for anything else is .64 * Tmax.
This is the AVERAGE temp, not the mid-range temp.
The GDD has to be evaluated for the time period above the growing temperature of the crop involved, e.g. 50F for corn if I remember. So the integral involved is actually the curve between when 50F is reached going up and when 50F is reached going down.
It’s no different from calculating cooling and heating degree-days where the set point is usually around 65F.
“ I was using four months ago, when you were insisting it was possible to calculate CDDs using just the maximum value.”
You may not realize it but you are using the argumentative fallacy of Equivocation where you are changing the definition of a word in your assertion. Again, Average is *NOT* mid-range which is what you were claiming four months ago.
The average value is *NOT* the mid-range value regardless of which part of the sine wave you are integrating, be it from 0 to π or π/8 to π – (π/8), etc.
“An increase can be caused by an increase in minimum temperatures even if the maximum stays the same.”
This is true for a MID-RANGE value. But the mid-range value is *NOT* the average.
You *still* don’t understand the concept of a degree-day. The MID-RANGE temp value can be changed by an increased Tmax, an increased Tmin, or a combination of both. For a cooling degree day the area under the temperature curve and above the set point can only be changed in Tmax goes up. For a heating degree-day the area between the set point and Tmin can only increase if Tmin goes down. A GDD is similar to a cooling degree-day. It is the area between the temp curve and a set point. E.g. the set point for corn is about 50F. It’s not until that set point that corn grows so you need to know the value between the temp curve and the set point, just like you do for cooling degree-days. And that value only increases if Tmax increases.
Again, the only way for a cooling degree-day value to go up is if Tmax goes up. The only way for a growing degree-day to go up is if Tmax goes up.
It’s just one more fallacy of using mid-range temps to try and define climate. Climate is defined by degree-day values, not mid-range temps.
“It’s a matter of what you are trying to calculate. Root-mean-square is used on a sine wave to determine the heating value equivalent to a DC voltage.”
Which has nothing to do with averaging temperatures, or calculating degree days. If you square a negative number it will positive. That doesn’t mean that -10°C is as warm as +10°C.
“A sine wave is defined from 0 to 2π radians but the sun only provides heat input to the Earth over the the period of 0 to π, i.e. half of the day.”
Only true if you are on the equator, and even then not really true or relevant. You want to treat the daily temperature cycle as a sine wave, that includes the cooling during the night.
“The actual average for anything else is .64 * Tmax.”
And, yet again, this is only true if you are only interested in “daytime” temperatures and the temperature is zero at sunrise and sunset.
“This is the AVERAGE temp, not the mid-range temp.”
But it’s not the average used by either of the papers you cited.
“You may not realize it but you are using the argumentative fallacy of Equivocation where you are changing the definition of a word in your assertion. Again, Average is *NOT* mid-range which is what you were claiming four months ago.”
Would you put down your big book of logical fallacies for a moment. The average I’m referring to is the mean temperature as defined by (max + min) / 2. It is both the mean and the median, or mid-range. It may not be the exact mean value, but as you want to estimate degree days by assuming the day is a sine wave, it is the assumed mean temperature.
“The average value is *NOT* the mid-range value regardless of which part of the sine wave you are integrating, be it from 0 to π or π/8 to π – (π/8), etc.”
The mean temperature I’m referring to is the same used by your agricultural scientists and the university of Ohio. It’s the estimated average of the day (i.e. a 24 hour period), not the average temperature for a fraction of the day.
“Again, the only way for a cooling degree-day value to go up is if Tmax goes up. The only way for a growing degree-day to go up is if Tmax goes up.”
Do you ever read the sources you quote. It was less than three days ago you posted this, giving what you insisted was the correct formula for calculating GDDs. You said “You are stuck in the *old* way of calculating degree-days. Join the 21st century man!”. You copied the entire formula
Along with the part where they defined DayAvg
See, that’s TMean, or if you prefer the mid range temperature. It depends on both DayHigh (TMax) and DayLow (TMean). They give an example where Low is 40, High is 80 and Average is 60. They calculate the GDD using that formula as 12.18. Why do you think they quoted the low temperature if it makes no difference to the GDD?
Your challenge for today is to see what happens if you plug different lows into that equation. Does it stay the same?
For a hint, look at what happens when low is greater than 50. You didn’t quote that part, but here it is
TA said: “Well, 1936 in the U.S. had one of the hottest periods on record and also had one of the coldest periods on record. A hot record and a cold record in the same year. How does that happen?”
Weather.
BTW…I download the data.
July 1936 Tmax = 30.3 C
July 2012 Tmax = 30.0 C
Jan-Dec 1936 Tmax = 15.8 C
Jan-Dec 2012 Tmax = 17.1 C
As you can see the July monthly Tmax was higher in 1936 than 2012, but the annual Tmax was higher in 2012 by a long shot.
And here is Brazil, up over 1°C since 1930. I could go on, but the point is that it is just not arithmetically possible to have a global average going one way and its components going another.
And here is Brazil, up over 1°C since 1930. I could go on, but the point is that it is just not arithmetically possible to have a global average going one way and its components going another.
Again you can’t tell what went up. Did Tmax go up or did Tmin? Did it get hotter or did the growing season get longer (Tmin went up)?
That information is available on the BEST website. Both the mean daily Tmin and Tmax went up for Brazil.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/brazil
If this is the same data that shows the US has gotten hotter then it has also been adjusted/corrected. See my graphs of record high temps in the US. They simply do not confirm that it has been getting hotter than it was early in the 20th.
Mean daily temps simply can’t tell you anything about the temperature profile. Means lose data you *have* to know to evaluate the actual climate. Only max and min temps can do that. Means don’t let you evaluate if Tmax went up, Tmin went up. or a combination of the two happened. Anomalies from “average means” just makes it worse.
Attached is a screen capture of a NOAA graph showing NH land temperature anomalies. It shows the 20’s and 30’s as being cooler than the 20th century average even though that is when the largest share of record Tmax values were reached. Huh?
In addition, this discussion started with the US. The US is in the northern hemisphere. So is China and India. The climate is different in the southern hemisphere. More ocean, less land. It’s one of the reasons why trying to cram NH and SH temperatures together to create a “global” temperature is so insane. Not only are the seasons different the temps are different. All you get is a multi-modal distribution where the average is a meaningless descriptor.
TG said: “If this is the same data that shows the US has gotten hotter then it has also been adjusted/corrected.”
We’re talking about BEST in this line of discussion. They don’t adjust the timeseries. They split the timeseries at changepoints and treat them as separate stations. You’ve said before this was your preferred method. Has your positioned changed?
TG said: “It shows the 20’s and 30’s as being cooler than the 20th century average even though that is when the largest share of record Tmax values were reached. Huh?”
Let me present a realistic scenario in which you should be able to understand. You decide that it is time to replace your HVAC system. You upgrade from a low-efficiency single stage unit to a high-efficiency multistage unit. You also decide that since you are saving money with the higher efficiency you decide your budget can accommodate a higher setting on the thermostat to make you more comfortable. With the new system the temperature of the air coming out of the registers is lower (thus Tmax is lower) as compared to the old system, but since it runs longer it is able to keep your home at a higher spatial and temporal average temperature. Not only did the Tmin and Tmax range decrease but more importantly Tmax decreased simultaneous with an increase in the the spatial and temporal average.
I’ve downloaded the base single value Berkeley data into a database. I’ll play with it and see what I can find. Most all graphs showing today as being hotter than earlier in the century are based on looking at mid-range values which cannot tell you what is happening with Tmax and Tmin. It is truly that simple.
You analogy is messed up. If you set the thermostat higher then how can the temp coming out of the register be lower? The temp in the house would never reach the setting on the thermostat!
“Most all graphs showing today as being hotter than earlier in the century are based on looking at mid-range values which cannot tell you what is happening with Tmax and Tmin.”
I’m sure I’ve shown you the BEST max data before. As you don’t like the annual data, here’s just the July max data, which I guess is close to your hottest month of the year BEST regional charts.
Main problem with maximum and minimum data is it doesn’t include sea temperatures.
And again, I hit post comment before uploading the graph, and the edit button doesn’t let you add a picture.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TMAX_complete.txt
Here’s the same but using the annual hottest month, just as Bob Tisdale uses.
Here’s the same using BEST raw data.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Raw_TMAX_complete.txt
Which raw data did you use? Their qualified data? Their single value data? Their Breakpoint data? All of that has been adjusted!
I gave you the link to the data.
The BEST data is adjusted. Go to their website and find the readme.txt file that tells you what adjustments they make!
It’s the same data you used for the regional maximum temperatures. I asked you at the time if that meant you thought BEST was acceptable.
Berkeley’s data is manipulated. You’ve never bothered to actually go look at their readme.txt files for their datasets have you?
Hence all those graphs you used to “prove” it was warmer in the early 20th century are manipulated.
TG said: “You analogy is messed up. If you set the thermostat higher then how can the temp coming out of the register be lower? The temp in the house would never reach the setting on the thermostat!”
The 1st law of thermodynamics! To maintain steady state of a system which has an Eout = X requires Ein = X as well. And to impart Ein = X of energy requires Ein = ΔT * c * m where c is the specific heat capacity and m is the mass of air being heated. m can be expressed as m = F * R * p where F is the air flow rate through the furnace in m3/s, R is the runtime in s, and p is the density in kg/m3. You can then rearrange the equation as Ein = (Th – Tc) * 1000 j/kg.C * (F*R*p). Th is the hot temperature at the registers and would represent Tmax of the home. Tc is the cold temperature at the returns and would represent Tavg of the home. What the equation says is that it is possible to raise Tavg with a lower Tmax as long as you raise R and/or F in the correct proportion. In other words, you can actually raise Tavg by exposing your home to a lower Tmax as long as you do it for longer and/or with more air flow.
It’s the same for any system. You can raise Tavg with a lower Th as long as the Th is being delivered for longer. The 1930’s in the United States experienced brief periods with several high daily Tmax observations with many of those record setting, but those Tmax observations didn’t last long enough to keep the monthly or annual average Tavg or even average Tmax from being surpassed in later years.
For example, according to the same data you and Bob Tisdale are using the monthly average Tmax in the United States during July of 1936 was 30.3 C while in July of 2012 it was 30.0 C yet the annual average Tmax in 1936 was 15.8 C and in 2012 it was 17.1 C. In other words 2012 was hotter in terms the average Tmax than 1936 even though several of the spot Tmax records still stand from 1936 and even though July 1936 was warmer than July 2012.
”
What the equation says is that it is possible to raise Tavg with a lower Tmax as long as you raise R and/or F in the correct proportion. In other words, you can actually raise Tavg by exposing your home to a lower Tmax as long as you do it for longer and/or with more air flow.”
You had better go back to school. Raising R and/or F is also injecting more heat into the entire system. You also neglect that in a forced air system when you add more F you also extract more F.
Lastly this involves conduction and convection.
JG said: “Raising R and/or F is also injecting more heat into the entire system.”
Duh. That in no way takes away from the fact that the laws of thermodynamics allow a simultaneous increase in Tavg and a decrease in Tmax. It is physically possible. Literally.
JG said: “You also neglect that in a forced air system when you add more F you also extract more F.”
No I’m not. At no time did I ever think F on the discharge side of the blower was any different than the F on the infeed side.
And you’re missing point. The point is that it is possible for Tavg to increase even when Tmax decreases. I thought for sure the HVAC example would be a mind numbingly intuitive illustration of this.
Jeesh man! Measure the air coming out of your register. Then turn up your thermostat. The temp coming out of the register will be higher than the average temp. It *has* to be. Otherwise you’ll never be able to get the house warmer. And Tavg is determined by the thermostat! The furnace will shut off when the set point on the thermostat is hit!
I sincerely doubt you have a furnace that increases its output temp with the thermostat setting. The output temp stays the same. Tavg is determined by the thermostat set point. If it isn’t then you have a problem with your HVAC system.
I continue to question whether you actually live in the real world. You have no understanding of basics high school students used to learn in shop class. You apparently have no understanding of HVAC systems!
Why do you think furnaces and air conditioners have to be sized to the volume of the building?
“We’re talking about BEST in this line of discussion. They don’t adjust the timeseries.”
Of course they do! Their own readme.txt tells you how the data is adjusted. Did you *really* think no one would go look?
Nick, I assume you know the data you show for Brazil is adjusted. It is not the raw data.
Here is an example of what they did to one particular Brazilian station
We need to show a lot more charts like this one.
It plainly shows the bastardization of the temperature record, where it has been changed to make it appear that today is the hottest period.
The Dishonest Temperature Data Manipulators have done this to numerous charts from around the world.
The only flaw in their scam is they haven’t erased the old charts that show a different temperature profile.
Tom, I’d like to get your opinion on something. When a new station is commissioned in the same general location as an existing station should the station record in the GHCN repository be a merger of the two stations together or should the two stations be treated separately with two different timeseries in the GHCN repository?
BEST uses the scalpel method. They do not make adjustments to correct the changepoints caused by station moves, time-of-observation changes, instrument changes, etc. like what the other datasets do. Instead they split the timeseries at the changepoint and treat it as if it were a different station record.
“They do not make adjustments to correct the changepoints caused by station moves, time-of-observation changes, instrument changes, etc. like what the other datasets do.”
How does that apply to the station data being adjusted as shown in the graph?
The graph is of the GISTEMP station record. GISTEMP uses GHCN which does adjust via PHA. BEST uses a completely different method.
Sigh. Here’s how it so often goes here:
“BEST’s data proves that the thirties were hottest!”
“No, here are BEST’s plots. They don’t show that”
“BEST’s data is rubbish”
As if BEST is the final word.
It’s computer-generated fraud.
He knows.
All these guys have seen all these charts. They know it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, they just don’t want to admit it to us, and perhaps to themselves.
They’ve been living a lie for a long time and they want that lie to continue. Othewise, they are exposed.
No, you’re just handwaving.
The reason people use the US graph so often is because there is no other large place on earth that had so much comprehensive coverage for the past 150 years. Sure there are some cities that go back that far, GB was pretty well covered , but it could fit inside most US states. And if 3% of the land area isn’t big enough, we still do not have 3% of the oceans covered.
And if you can’t explain the increase in the US temps from 1850 to 1920, then how can anyone explain the increase from 1970 to 2020? If CO2 hasn’t increased the average temperature anomaly in the US over the past 100 years, then how can you say it affects it anywhere?
This is ideological. It’s completely pointless arguing with Bellend, Stokes et al as they will never accept the greater temperatures of the 1930’s. They will merely point to somewhere on Earth which bucks the trend.
If they accept that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century then they are going to look pretty silly, considering all they have said in the past. They don’t want to look silly, so they hang on to that Hockey Stick for dear life.
Nothing can be allowed to disparage the Holy Trends.
You really hit the nail on the head.
Supposedly CO2 is well mixed. That means the U.S. high temps were either caused by increased CO2 or they were not. If they were, then why is well mixed CO2 not acting the same way globally.
If the U.S. high temps were not caused by well mixed CO2, then what was the actual cause and why is it not occurring globally currently??
A good question is why is increasing CO2 not causing new high temperature readings all over the globe? There can be no doubt that CO2 has a higher concentration in today’s world. Why are we not seeing a plethora of high temp records?
Just look at the hockey stick global temps. There should be record high temps everywhere!
“A good question is why is increasing CO2 not causing new high temperature readings all over the globe?”
That’s an excellent question. CO2 concentrations continue to climb yet the global temperatures have cooled by 0.7C. According to alarmists, more CO2 means higher temperatures, but that’s not happening. The alarmists must be wrong.
“If CO2 hasn’t increased the average temperature anomaly in the US over the past 100 years, then how can you say it affects it anywhere?”
Excellent question.
The U.S. temperature profile proves CO2 is not an issue with regard to the Earth’s temperatures. There’s more CO2 in the air now than in the recent past, yet it is no warmer now than then. CO2 has had a negligible effect on the temperatures.
Tom: Here is Capetown’s raw – indistinguishable from US. BTW this corroborates the raw as being generally correct.
This is after homogenization by NOAA/NASA:
Thanks for the charts, Gary. The fraud is there for all to see. Including Nick.
Again more cherry picking. But also a very bad choice. The Capetown graph is a composite of two sites, the Observatory at sea level up to 1960, and the inland airport from 1961 onward. The “raw” shows the drop from one site to a cooler one. If you show the “raw” Observatory alone up to 2000, you see no such dip. And of course the change of site has no consequence for global temperature.
Here is a plot showing just the Observatory observations, top curve (red and blue)
Yet you justify homogenizing temp data over large areas. If two “Capetown” stations can have this much difference, how do you possibly justify homogenization over large areas?
Look carefully at what you are showing.
This graph shows the “CT adjusted” going from around 14.5 to about 17.2 degrees. That is around an 18.5% growth.
Now the same graph shows the “CT unadjusted” going from around 16.5 degrees to about 18.0 degrees. That is about a 9% increase.
Basically, the adjusted graph has TWICE the increase of the unadjusted. And homogenization somehow fixes temperatures? LOL!
“This graph shows the “CT adjusted” going from around 14.5 to about 17.2 degrees.”
Yes. And you can see that the unadjusted, measured consistently at the Observatory, rose by about that amount. The only reason why the “raw” CT curve rose less is that the site moved to a cooler location in 1961. That has nothing to do with any climate change. It is exactly the kind of artificial change that homogenisation removes. In this case the difference is very clearly established because we have about 40 years of overlap, where the Observatory consistently showed temperatures about 1.5°C higher than the airport. If you switch sites, you just have to allow for this.
The whole point is to stop records when different microclimates are used, i.e., station moves. Homogenization is used to keep long records going by changing the recorded data with new fabricated information.
The red was the original Cape Town unadjusted, and as you say there appears to be drop. Do you know if it was moved or another change was made?
The “inland” airport appears in blue since it starts about 1961.
Where does the green come from? It says adjusted. It appears to be a cooling of the original recorded temps in red. In other words, the original data was replaced with new information to make it correspond with the “new” temperatures.
Then the airport temps were cooled to match the new record.
What is real in what you are showing? All these changes were obviously done only so a LONG temperature record could be manufactured. Yet it only serves to make warming look exaggerated. The record should have been stopped entirely and a new one started. I stand by my calculations of percent changes!
This is malarky. The point of a measuring station is to measure the microclimate WHERE IT EXISTS!. If you move it then it is measuring a different microclimate. If that microclimate is different between the two locations then SO WHAT? Where is it written that all microclimates should be the same and give the same measurements? As JG points out this is merely to create the illusion of a long temperature record. Why don’t we just pick one station in the US and say that is what all measuring stations in the US should read?
Tony Heller has posted the actual data unaltered and the adjusted data. He also then plots the adjusted delta, and lo and behold but the plot of these adjustment delta values against CO2 concentration is a straight line! (i.e. the data is being altered to match the theory- blatantly)
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/noaa-temperature-adjustments-are-doing-exactly-what-theyre-supposed-to/
There was a time when the alarmists used to claim that there was nothing wrong with these adjustments, after all there were as many adjustments that cooled the record as there were ones that warmed the record. The fact that all of the cooling adjustments were early in the record and all of the warming adjustments were recent, was something they hoped you wouldn’t notice.
Good point, MarkW.
Better title, “Lying Liars and the Lies they tell.”.
Who is he trying to fool? This just seems like a variation of “hide the decline”.
If you were lucky to be 150 years old and lived in Oxford, UK, all of your life, you wouldn’t believe a word they say about the ‘global warming’.
Looks like a lot less really cold months!! I doubt anyone in Oxford wants to spend a month where the temp hovers around 0 ,especially with the gas prices they have now.
Except for the fact that, since 1980, the daily max temp has risen at a rate of ~4.7deg/C, and the daily min temp has risen at a rate of almost 2 deg/C. I’ll agree that, if I was 150 years old, then I probably wasn’t paying attention to that trend since I was 108. I was probably doing TV interviews all over the world…
it rose even faster in 1870s, then fell back again. Solar activity beside its 22 year magnetic cycle, it also has centenary periodicity of five magnetic cycles (~110 years).