It’s about 70 F early in the morning of November 6 here in north central Massachusetts. No doubt the local climatistas are tearing their hair out and whining, “but it’s suppossed to be much colder with rain and snow and winds and….”. And I’m about to head off to a forest for a day of timber cruising! Can’t wait!
We’ve had a very mild October and start of November this year in the English East Midlands, only one morning of ground frost.
I’ve heard weather people on all channels say “temperatures are x degrees above where they should be”. They’ve no idea what average means. It’s not where temperatures “should” be it’s just the average of where they have been in the recorded past. It’s all part of the Global Warming mantra
As RickWill keeps explaining, Northern Hemispheres will get more sunlight in autumn, leading to slightly warmer temperatures. Somehow all the brainwashed don’t complain about the beautiful days, but if it was cold and windy they would be miserable
We are having what is sometimes called an “Indian summer” here in Maryland and much of the east coast. Basically it refers to a spell of warm temps after the initial cool weather that ushers in fall.
But the funny thing is that when temps are colder than average local meteorologists might note that on newscasts but Warmists never make mention of it at all! Or, if they do, they blame it on climate change….
Enjoy, looks like a good day here to go bring in some more White Ash ravaged by the borer, great firewood, drys quick and keeps the seasonal affective disorder at bay not to mention keeping the house nice and warm on the long winter nights.
Had to cut down an Ash last month. Planted it 35 years ago, and up til late last year it was doing fine. This Spring it was almost all dead at the top and sending out lots of shoots along the trunk. Looking forward to using it in the fireplace this winter.
I believe the record for yesterday was set in 1994. So it’s been thirty years and still no warmer!! I used the lovely weather to do my outdoor chores and winter prep. Much nicer to do it in the low 70s than the low 40s or 50s
Go west…in Colorado and Wyoming it isn’t so warm. That’s fine, our ridiculously resilient ridge from late summer/early autumn was raising our fire danger.
In early October we had some heavy frosts in New Zealand .
The middle of spring and frosts were quite common 40- 50 years ago
I was growing a lot of maize (corn ) and we would never plant till after October 20th because of the risk of frost damage .
The frosts damaged a lot of KIwi fruit and other frost tender fruiting plants .
The kiwi fruit will have very little fruit if any on the damaged vines this year .
But this takes the prize for DUMB.
I heard our Prime Nut minister being interviewed and she blamed the frosts on climate change .
That demon CO2 the gas of life can cause frosts and heat waves .
Alan Welch
November 6, 2022 3:31 am
Help still required – no answers in last Open Thread
How can the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich data be easily accessed?
Has it been compared with Jason 3 data and the 2 data sets “spliced”?
Heads up everyone along the east coast of Florida. Your in the sights of another big storm. Joe Bastardi believes it will be a hurricane when it comes ashore and at this time thinks it will come ashore somewhere between Miami and Cape Kennedy.
Not climate change, age. Lately I’ve been converting photos from color to black and white or sepia. The photos? Head and shoulders shots of mature subjects. Makes a heck of a difference on mottled skin tones.
“”Joe Biden’s climate envoy has questioned the UK’s plans to expand North Sea oil and gas production dramatically, warning it will not solve the energy crisis
The former US vice-president said he did not know the full details of the UK’s controversial plans which are set to award more than 100 licences to extract oil and gas in the North Sea.
But he said: “The truth is, and this is indisputable, that wind power and solar power are cheaper energy than fossil fuel energy today.””
Kerry: “The truth is, and this is indisputable, that wind power and solar power are cheaper energy than fossil fuel energy today.”
Only if you ignore land acquisition costs, the costs of and the long term availability of materials, manufacturing costs, shipping costs, installation costs including the grid tie in, maintenance costs, disassembly, replacement and recycling costs plus any standby generation facilities and government incentives.
I think investors are slowly starting to realize this :<)
Has anyone looked at how much good farmland has been ruined with windmills. Just drove through central Illinois and a lot of really good cropland has been trashed.
A 2009 study by NREL of 172 wind farms determined that the average wind farm produces 0.4 MW per acre of land directly impacted (i.e., the turbine and its surrounding foundation, access and arterial roads, power stations and distribution lines, offices, monitoring stations, and storage space), and the average power output per acre when the total land area was accounted for was 0.012 MW per acre (https://www.semprius.com/how-much-space-does-a-wind-turbine-need/). Of course that was in 2009. I imagine those number have changed a bit for newer wind farms since turbines have gotten bigger.
A wind farm occupies around 50 times more acreage than a coal, gas or nuclear power plant, to produce the same power output. This figure is based on a wind CF of 30%.
According to the wiki (Yea, I know): “Worldwide, there are about 8,500 coal-fired power stations totaling over 2,000 gigawatts capacity.” This works out to an average of about 235MW per coal-fired power station. Using the NREL numbers (above), 235MW of wind farm at 0.4 Watts per MW would directly impact about 587 acres. If the average coal plant takes around 12 acres then your factor of 50 only represents the amount of acres directly impacted by an equivalent wind farm. However, the total area required for an equivalent wind farm would be around 30 sections (i.e., 19.6k acres at 0.012GW per acre).
Joe C:
Yes. And according to a Manhattan Institute artice from 2019 the EIA
[Energy Information Agency] LCOE calculation also does not include:
transmission, taxes, utility profits, and uses a 30 year depreciation schedule which is
almost twice as long as the life expectancy of onshore wind turbines.
I am curious about global warming as in warming around the globe allegedly caused by CO2 and Greenhouse gases.
As Andy May has pointed out it seems that AR5/ AR6 now records the Northern Hemisphere is warming at 0.26 C per decade and the Southern Hemisphere at 0.11C per decade, some 2 and 1/2 times less.
As is well publicised the world is said to have warmed by 1.07C since pre-industrial times ( the baseline being 1850-1900) but in Australia the State of the Climate Report notes the continent has warmed at 1.44C since 1850-1900.
Then there is the paper that Willis notes showing no warming in the Antarctica in seven decades ( Schmidt et al ?) and the paper showing no warming in Northern China in 5000 years.
Plenty of papers elsewhere show varied warming globally.
To the point.
How can CO2 a pervasive well mixed gas encircling the earth cause such diversity in warming?
I think W.E.had it right.
There are many other forcings and influences at play in the climate as well as negative feedbacks influencing the Greenhouse Effect.(GHE).
Views?
Just the last 8 years, or extended to the last 45 years shows minor warming. Meanwhile, CO2 is up some 10 to 24% respectively so how can it be the driver of Earth’s warming?
Still waiting for the causation….
The differences in warming rates around the globe were addressed here at WUWT years ago by me and other contributors. Regarding the differences in warming rates between the northern and southern hemispheres, first consider that land surfaces and sea surfaces are warming at different rates, with land surfaces warming considerably faster than the surfaces of the oceans. Second, oceans cover about 60% of the surface on the Northern Hemisphere and cover about 80% in the Southern Hemisphere. Third, the Northern Hemisphere has a naturally occurring oceanic process called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (or AMO), through which the surface temperatures of the North Atlantic can warm faster (or slower) than the rest of the ocean surfaces, thereby enhancing (or suppressing) the rise in surface temperatures. Since the late 1970s, the AMO has been enhancing the warming. Fourth, the Northern Hemisphere (alone) has another naturally occurring phenomenon called Polar Amplification, through which land surface air temperatures at high latitudes vary much faster than those at lower latitudes.
You could use the search function here or at my blog for more-detailed explanations.
Herbert, first and foremost, there is not just one homogenous climate operating around this planet.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of unique climates spread around the globe, all doing their own separate things at different times according to their local influences.
Averaging of sampled recordings of say temperatures or precipitation etc is nonsense.
Especially claiming to be accurate to hundredths or thousandths of a unit.
By orthodox means, there are a couple of variables to explain this.
GHG forcings. GHGs stay around for a long time, this spread out globally and accordingly produce a truely global warming
Aerosol forcing (negative!). Aerosols would cancel about 1/3 of global GHG related positive forcing. But aerosols do NOT spread globally
Ocean heat capacity. For instance the heat capacity of a kg of water is 6 times larger than that of a kg of air. Logically water takes longer to heat up, meaning faster adaption of land
Polar amplification. While “climate science” got the cause of polar amplification wrong, it still exists
There is yet some “noise”, some short-lived influences from volcanos and some minor contributions from land use or aviation induced cirrus. By and large the four points named above have to explain the warming scheme there is. And that – does not work.
The whole southern ocean (<45S) is barely warming. You get this from Gavin Schmidt:
There are systematic differences in the Southern Ocean in recent decades between the observed and modeled SST trends
Obviously there is no polar amplification in the Antarctic, but since there is neither warming around it, what should be amplified?
The biggest problem however is this. The Arctic amplification is to be expected, but next to it mid NH latitudes saw most warming. That’s exactly where negative aerosol forcing is concentrated. Within this region negative aerosol forcing should be stronger than positive GHG forcing.
The large negative aerosol forcing makes no sonse whatsoever. You can not have most warming where its concentrated, and no warming where there is none (like the southern ocean). It is exactly the opposite.
You might ask so what? Climate change is about the warming by GHGs, not the cooling by aerosols. The problem is, if aerosols were not cooling, or even warming instead, then you have only little warming left to be associated with GHGs. Climate sensitivity then is necessarilly to the low end.
You say: “Aerosol forcing (negative!): Aerosols would cancel about 1/3 of global GHG related positive forcing. But aerosols do NOT spread globally.”.
Here, you are completely mistaken:.
SO2 aerosols (the only ones that have any detectable climatic effect) DO spread globally, as shown in the inset.
SO2 aerosols can have BOTH Negative and Positive forcings. Negative when they are introduced into the atmosphere from Industrial activity, or by stratospheric volcanic eruptions, cooling the Earth, and positive when their concentration in the atmosphere is reduced, due to Clean Air efforts, or when volcanic aerosols eventually settle out.of the air.
Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions peaked at 136 Million tons in 1979, and due to global Clean Air efforts, by 2019 they had fallen to 79 million tons. This decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels was the cause of the warming that began circa 1980, and NOT the accumulation of “Greenhouse Gasses) in the atmosphere..
Decreased levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere causes increased warming, because the Sun’s rays strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity.
This simple FACT is ignored by ALL proponents of GHG warming..
You also say”if aerosols were not cooling, or even warming instead, then you have only little warming left to be associated with GHGs. Climate sensitivity then is necessarily to the low end”.
Here, you are correct. As noted above, aerosols both cool and warm, and the observed climate sensitivity to GHGs is undetectable (ZERO).
SO2 aerosols (the only ones that have any detectable climatic effect) DO spread globally, as shown in the inset.
No, they do not, and the chart shows it. The chart may be a bit confusing here, since it paints the 1/2 of the globe in light purple, which is next to white.Given the color scheme has some odd logarithmic shape, light purple still means minimal concentrations.
If you get over this, it is still true SO2 remains close its place of emission. Also the chart gives a momentary situation, with given prevailing wind schemes. Naturaly wind speeds and direction are changing. Anyhow..
SO2 aerosols can have .. Negative .. forcings .. when they are introduced into the atmosphere from Industrial activity, or by stratospheric volcanic eruptions, cooling the Earth
Not so fast! SO2 in the stratosphere is very different from having it in the troposphere. The problem starts with not understanding what it does in the stratosphere. After turning into sulfuric acid (SA) it starts to absord sun light, warming the stratosphere. Also it SA is a good emitter in the IR. That means lots of solar energy being absorbed and emitted back into space, without it ever reaching the surface or the troposphere.
Within the troposphere this is a different story. First of all, solar energy in the troposphere is not lost in a similar way, as tropospheric temperatures are linked to surface temperature. Secondly SA will add to the GHE thereby reducing emission temperature. Therefore I will strongly doubt SA from pollution (staying in the troposphere) has the same effect as SA from volcanic eruptions. Moreover it should rather be warming than cooling.
On top of that, as I said above, it makes absolutely no sense to have most warming where aerosols shall be cooling, and least where they do not.
“it is still true that SO2 remains close to its place of emission”
No, SO2 does NOT stay close to its place of emission. Volcanic SO2 aerosols circulate around the globe, taking about 14 months for its maximum cooling effect to occur. Industrial SO2 aerosols also circulate around the globe, as shown in the chart,where there are low levels over the Pacific, and elsewhere, where there is NO Industrial activity
“Not so fast, SO2 in the stratosphere is very different from having it in the troposphere”
NASA’s fact sheet on atmospheric aerosols states that stratospheric SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth’s surface underneath, and that tropospheric SO2 aerosols have the same effect, also reflecting sunlight,and cooling the Earth’s surface. Your statement that SO2 absorbs sunlight is incorrect.
“On top of that, it makes no sense where aerosols shall be cooling, and least when they do not”
??. Any SO2 aerosols suffused through Earth’s atmosphere will cause cooling, with less cooling where its concentration is lower, and none where it is absent. The resultant temperature differences drive much of our weather.
Northern Hemisphere is warming at 0.26 C per decade and the Southern Hemisphere at 0.11C per decade, some 2 and 1/2 times less.
You might want to consider whether the Northern Hemisphere, with its increasing urbanization and greater land mass, is having its temperature record contaminated by the Urban Heat Island effect.
There is considerable degree of incompetent thinkers in climate science. They deal in their own phiisics that does not relate to the world of measurable physics. Even the concept of GHE is misplaced because it has zero influence on Earth’s energy balance.
Most naive people accept temperature anomalies as meaningful.
A good example of how anomalies can hide real information is the Greenland plateau. It has warmed tremendously over the last 70 years. But when you look at the attached you see that the minimum temperature has risen significantly and the maximums hardly changed. And the maximums still below freezing.
You then have to ask why are the coldest temperatures getting warmer when there is little to no sunlight. The only way that happen is through latent heat transport and that results in more snowfall. That can only be due to changed air flow or more open ocean water in the proximity of Greenland.
Earth’s orbit is progressively shifting peak daily solar intensity northward from the South Pole. It will take another 30,000 years before the North Pole has peak daily solar intensity. This is the July solar intensity for the North Pole from J0000 to J28,000:
-2.000 516.900986
(J2000) 0.000 507.377261
2.000 501.944599
4.000 500.616988
6.000 502.605219
8.000 506.356509
10.000 509.687485
12.000 510.810505
14.000 509.837376
16.000 508.704041
18.000 509.248797
20.000 512.176361
22.000 517.241640
24.000 523.235441
26.000 528.435187
28.000 531.424092
30.000 531.532900
32.000 529.100411
So it is still reducing in July at 90N but will begin to rise in 4,000 years time. If you come down to 50N, it is presently at the minimum July sunlight of 475W/m^2. It peaks at 496W/m^2 in 28,000 years. So sunlight over any place on Earth is NEVER constant like the climate modellers assume.
We do know that the surface temperature, both land and ocean, is highly correlated to sunlight over an annual cycle. What is more difficult to determine is how different regions respond over long periods. We know it takes tens of thousands of years for the deep oceans to respond to solar changes. Latitudinally constrained bodies like the Mediterranean respond at depth over shorter time frame = probable centuries to thousands of years.
I can tell you that climate modellers would not know if their backside was on fire. What I cannot tell you is how long it will take for the voting masses to realise they have been conned by incompetent climate modellers like Suki Manabe working in concert with power grabbing politicians to lead the developed countries into deteriorating living standard.
Consider the energy storage and delivery effectiveness of water vapor in the atmosphere.
How might one visualize this to get the full picture?
First, one can calculate that one inch of precipitable water represents about 17,600 Wh/m^2 of energy stored as latent heat (just considering condensation, not freezing.)
Every day, the Climate Reanalyzer website uses the NOAA/NCEP Global Forecast System to depict weather conditions, including temperature, wind, precipitation, pressure, water vapor, etc. The visualizations are pretty good. Not animated, but you can see the weather systems and circulations.
The precipitable water is given in Kg/m^2, which is equivalent to millimeters. So 25 Kg/m^2 (= 25 mm or about 1 inch) represents a little over 17,000 Wh/m^2 of stored latent energy.
Look at the visualization and the scale. Sure, “warmer air holds more water vapor.” But you can’t keep it there, and you can’t keep it from circulating, precipitating, evaporating, and completely obscuring the minor incremental strengthening of the static radiative effect of GHGs. The static warming effect of a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv is often given as 3.7 W/m^2, or 3.7 Wh/m^2 per hour. It’s vanishingly thin on the scale.
From low to high altitude, and from the tropics to the poles, latent energy is on the move.
And my take on the 3.7 W/m^2 effect, or any claim of the warming influence of non-condensing greenhouse gases? Good luck finding it. It disappears in all the motion, overwhelmed by what water does.
And blaming weather events like floods, heat waves, and drought conditions on GHG warming? Nope. Not a chance of ever isolating that effect for reliable attribution.
I glad to see the continued interest in the energy stored in water vapor (in the true vapor state). It can be released and/or stored in many ways via: condensation due to temperature decrease, elevation change, pressure change, velocity, turbulence, re-evaporation due to electromagnetic radiation, etc. Moist air has some incredible properties along the boundary state of phase change! And the path to the Triple Point is full of surprises with the air even changing density! It’s absolutely fascinating!!!
Good point. The claimed effect of gradual GHG warming is completely obscured. It simply cannot be isolated for reliable attribution by any means we have available to us now or any time soon.
The temperature swings shown are largely due to differing levels of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere.
Case in point: In a Stalled High Pressure Weather System, temperatures ALWAYS rise because the air within the area is stagnant, allowing the SO2 aerosols within the area to settle out of the atmosphere. Usually takes 4-5 days to settle out.
A matter of perception; perceptibility of climate.
Philosophical ramblings for Sunday morning:
What is the relative importance of 0.6C global average anomaly deviation over the course of days, vs 1C anomaly over the course of a century?
What of the relationship between perceptual experience and perceptual belief on the issue of climate?
One does not necessarily come to acquire perceptual beliefs by virtue of perceptual experience.
It can be argued that climate changes are certainly not perceptible by experience within one’s lifetime. It requires an extrapolation of belief.
Does one perceive a 0.6C global anomaly deviation over the course of days by experience?
We can be perceptually engaged with the word in various ways.
What is the relationship between perception, belief, and knowledge?
Today perceptual knowledge appears to align more closely with one’s perceptual beliefs.
Perceptual experience has little value in knowledge of global temperature anomalies, this is quite certain.
Perceptual experience can only be used to provide justification for one’s belief, such as cases of unusual weather in our local areas. But of course, as we’re reminded, weather is not climate.
Does one ‘notice’ a fair-weather day?
Today it is deemed unsophisticated to acquire perceptual beliefs by virtue of simply seeing the world for what it is –
a rather academic, and pretentious, worldview IMO.
A philosophy causing us to lose our footing, to become ungrounded.
Perception is nothing but the acquiring of knowledge of, or, on occasions, the acquiring of an inclination to believe in, particular facts about the physical world.
Consider the likely measurement uncertainty limits on these values which are never reported nor even calculated.
littlepeaks
November 6, 2022 5:58 am
If we could actually control the weather (and I don’t think we can), could we actually agree on what the weather should be? Personally, I LOVE hot weather — it is 30 degrees out this morning here in Colorado, and I am freezing my butt off.
That’s what I always wonder – what exactly do the AGW enthusiasts expect the temperature and weather to be like? If we all go back to living in the 17th century, what kind of weather should we expect? Well, truthfully we all know nothing will change….
I don’t know….I’m guessing they are expecting weather that literally always follows the averages of whatever location is in question, and of course, no tornadoes and no hurricanes, because we all know those things didn’t exist before humans started using fossil fuels! (sarc)
Me, personally, I hate heat and humidity. I have no desire to move to Alaska or the furthest northern states either. But living here in Maryland the summers are hideous – high humidity and heat. It’s bad enough here – I can’t imagine living in Florida or the deep south, or worse, some tropical country where it’s like that all year. I never go anywhere in the summer months without at least one bandana in my pocket or purse (on really hot days I need two) to avoid being blinded by my own perspiration. My husband, OTOH – loves the heat, but he rarely sweats!
Seems highly unlikely. I call BS. “They can store hydrogen without compressing it.”
Then why not just fill a balloon with hydrogen? Pure hydrogen is the best way to store hydrogen. Any other method just adds extra mass and volume. This quickly becomes much larger than the hydrogen itself. The fundamentals are very hard to overcome.
I’m almost interested to see what accounting tricks, omissions, or lies they use to come up with their quoted numbers but there have been so many before that I don’t want to spend the time looking further.
There was no discussion about how much of the power generated by the fuel cell will need to be used to power the lasers that release the hydrogen from the film. Presumably it is less than the energy lost compressing hydrogen, otherwise this makes no sense at all.
The logistics of swapping out cartridges that were said to weigh 15lbs for 20mi range seems the big issue. The cartridges comparable to an ICE car fill-up would weigh about 667 lbs to achieve a 500 mile range (300kg for 800km range). That would seem very difficult. My ICE car typically gives me that range on a fill-up that I do weekly in about 3 minutes. With gasoline, 15 gallons (57 liters) weighs about 90 lbs (41kg). The claim made is that this is lighter and less volume than a battery with the same range.
There was also no discussion about how the cartridges would interface with the car and its fuel cell. Would you be limited to only a few cartridges at a time yielding a short driving range?
What sort of equipment will be needed to remove spent cartridges and dispense full cartridges at the retail site? That sounds very capital intensive.
How will they build out refueling stations across the country? Would each refueling site “recharge” cartridges on-site with a local hydrolysis unit or would spent cartridges need to be transported back to a factory to be refilled with H2 and then transported back to each retail refueling station? A great deal of waste energy may be involved in those logistics.
All cars made to use this technology would need to standardize on the same cartridges to be compatible with the refueling stations. How likely is that?
Those are a few questions I would have. I would be very surprised if there are compelling answers.
Thomas
November 6, 2022 6:17 am
NOAA has updated the National Temperature Index that is based on the US Climate Reference Network—a network of more than 100 highly accurate weather stations located at pristine sites that are roughly evenly spaced out around the conterminous 48 plus Alaska and Hawaii.
Prior to the update there was a 7 year and 7 month period of cooling, now that period shows warming. The old version showed cooling of 2.8 °F per century, the new data shows warming of 3.5 °F per century.
NOAA say that they only updated the data to reflect the new 1991 to 2020 Climate Normals, which in this case would be a set of “normal” temperatures for each month at each site. But I can’t see how that would change the overall trend for a site or for the US as a whole.
NOAA says they do this (see background section at above link).
USCRN observations since commissioning to the present were used to find relationships to nearby COOP stations and [to] estimate normals at the USCRN sites using the normals at the surrounding COOP sites derived from full 1991-2020 records (Sun and Peterson, 2005). The normal values for each month are then subtracted from each monthly temperature average to create anomalies or departures from normal that can be compared between networks over time.
The process also involves a final step.
“In the final step, the station data are interpolated to 0.25° latitude by 0.25° longitude grids over the lower 48 states and then combined in an area weighted average for the whole U.S. The final results of this process are the monthly National Temperature Index (NTI) values for nClimDiv and USCRN.”
That’s not a very good explanation (interpolated how?) but I still don’t see how any of that would change the trend. I emailed NOAA to ask the for an explanation.
The purpose of the US CRN is to give us a long term temperature trend for the US that is unaffected by local changes around traditional weather stations, such as increased urbanization, which could introduce a spurious warming trend. In my opinion doing anything to that data set that changes the long term trend is unwarranted.
Here is a chart that shows the difference in the original data set and the new data set.
Interesting. You shouldn’t be touching raw data from weather stations that have absolutely no bias. I never heard of this issue before, let’s hope Anthony takes a look at this. He’ll have an explanation
That’s not a very good explanation (interpolated how?)
Indeed! That is a very good question. With air masses generally moving west to east, interpolation along the track of movement can probably be justified, albeit recognizing that there can be abrupt changes across cold fronts. How are temperatures auto-correlated along and orthogonal to air mass tracks?
Some interpolation procedures, particularly for gridding, use distance weighting. However, the problem is that apparently it isn’t made explicit what method is used and why.
Distance weighting makes sense. The grids are 0.25 degrees, latitude by longitude, or about 5 km by 5 km—larger in the south and smaller in the north because longitude lines converge at the poles.
The USCRN stations are much further that 5 km apart, so a distance waiting is probably used to interpolate a value for each grid in between two stations.
It would have been nice if they had made that more explicit, but I think “distance weighted interpolation” is probably what they mean.
I have also only download and used USCRN. But if you look closely you will see that the USRCN dataset at the above link is called the National Temperature Index. One data set is based on USCRN the other on nClimDiv. The USCRN dataset that has been processed as described in the background section on the website.
I also don’t trust the ClimDiv data. But the background sections says,
Close agreement between these two datasets demonstrates that nClimDiv and USCRN are both capable of accurately measuring the surface air temperature of the U.S. currently, in the past, and into the future.
I didn’t save the old nClimDiv data, so I can’t say for sure, but I think the recent changes to USCRN (maybe also to nClimDiv) have resulted in the nClimDiv data now being in better agreement with the USCRN data. In other words, their corrections have made nClimDiv look more like USCRN.
The nClimDiv data almost certainly has a long-term warming trend that is partly caused by localized heating effects near historical weather stations, such as urbanization, which have increased over time. Therefore, some of the warming trend shown in nClimDiv is probably not due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
The USCRN network was installed for this reason. It is intended to give us a record that is not effected by urbanization and other factors that could impose a spurious warming trend.
NOAA seems to want us to believe that we can trust that the old nClimDiv dataset has no spurious warming trend because nClimDiv agrees so well with USCRN.
I’m unconvinced. The growth of urbanization from the 1890s to 2005 (when USCRN starts) would be much greater than from 2005 to present. And NOAA’s processing of the datasets is too opaque.
The update took place sometime between January and October of this year.
sailor76
November 6, 2022 6:23 am
Conservatives are mis-interpreting the Fetterman Flag incident.
It was actually a positive for Fetterman. He was cutting a promotional video for Renewable Energie, in this case Wind Energie. As usual Conservatives did not get the deeper meaning of what Fetterman was trying to convey.
When will there be discussions of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere, something the public would be more likely to understand? Based on Muana Loa Observatory measurement, the Atmospheric CO2 level in 1960 was 315 parts per million (PPM). Converted to percentage this was three hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. In 2020 the CO2 level measurement was 420 PPM which was four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere, a growth of the CO2 level of one hundredth of one percent in sixty years. If one percent of CO2 in a CO2 fire extinguisher would render that extinguisher ineffective for extinguishing a fire, then why should a small fraction of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere be capable of changing the temperature of the Earth to the extent that it changes its climate?
A Democrat opens his mouth and the Star Spangled Banner crashes to the ground. Perfect.
Bruce Cobb
November 6, 2022 7:26 am
I noticed this morning that there was suddenly more light than usual. This surely must be due to the “climate crisis” we keep hearing about. Also, we have been having near record-breaking warmth the past few days, and it will continue thru tomorrow. Further proof that the earth is literally burning up, and it’s all our fault. Help us, Obi-Wan-Sharm El-Sheikh. You’re our only hope!
I don’t think it’ll be news.
I think it’ll be like the old mafia saw ” You won’t hear nothin’ from them anymore”. Just like that journalist that stupidly walked into a Saudi embassy.
It strikes me that nothing in contemporary times illustrates more starkly just how stupid post-WW2 developed nations have become than comparing the switch-out from whale oil to mineral oil as an energy source than the reticence currently on display to switching from mineral oil to nuclear fission.
Mineral oil was quickly recognized to be a more utilitarian energy source than whale oil because it was abundant, dense, storable, had application to everyday essential needs (lighting, heating), and was economical.
Of course there were cons, as there are with any comparative choices.
But rational, unemotional analysis quickly found that the overall benefits surpassed the risks & drawbacks.
Now, we have a rational pathway to progress from using oil and coal to nuclear as fuel sources for essential applications like electricity generation, but our prevarication on emotional grounds hinders this logical progression.
Einstein was right again – “there are only 2 things that are infinite: the universe and man’s stupidity”.
John Oliver
November 6, 2022 8:35 am
To me it looks like we have had a very slow gradual sea level rise post last ice age for aprox 6000 years as taken from proxies, and is probably a rough proxy itself( sea level rise) for temperature. What we are experiencing now just seems to be a continuation of the same ,with normal little blips up and down.
Thanks for the reply. Basically i was just trying to say it looks like in the long run current atmospheric conditions don’t seem to be deviating much from the past 6000 years-roughly speaking
I just looked at the USCRN database. At first everything seemed normal, but when I looked back on a previous blog post here from Jul 30, 2019. I found something very peculiar. In the blog post it lists all of the data points from Oct. 2018 to Jun. 2019.
Oct. 2018 -0.68 F
Nov. 2018 -2.92 F
Dec. 2018 1.22 F
Jan. 2019 -0.05 F
Feb. 2019 -3.51 F
Mar. 2019 -3.40 F
Apr. 2019 1.35 F
May 2019 -1.42 F
Jun. 2019 -0.67 F
Is there a different baseline and I’m just stupid? Someone should look into whether the data has changed. There is another blog post in this thread talking about the same problem. I hope they are not adjusting the data; otherwise we’d have nothing
The National Temperature Index, based on USCRN, is what changed. See my post at 6:17 PST (above). It was updated to the latest (1991 to 2020) 30-year climate normals. But something else was also done to it. I asked NOAA what they did. Hopefully they will respond.
I don’t know where to find the unadulterated USCRN dataset.
$8.5bn from rich countries: SA to spend most of the money on electricity infrastructure South Africa’s government will invest the bulk of an $8.5 billion (R152 billion) climate-finance deal being offered by wealthy nations on bolstering its energy supply.
An investment plan published Friday envisages 90% of the funds being used to decommission coal-fired power plants in tandem with developing renewable-energy generation, strengthening the transmission grid and modernising the electricity-distribution system. The rest will go toward the development of green-hydrogen and electric-vehicle industries.
The funding, pledged by the US, UK, the European Union, Germany and France, was unveiled at last year’s United Nations-led climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland.
The present electricity supply in South Africa is shambolic at best. This money, if given, is going to enrich a privileged, chosen few with the right government connections but do little to provide a reliable and cheap supply of electricity to the masses of poor people. Electricity supplied in South Africa fifty years ago was among the cheapest in the world. Power outages were rare. This is no longer the case.
I don’t know whether this will work but both these attempts are of a very rough mini bit of research I did recently.
It is a graph of the frequency of the daily amount of Wind Energy I got through my wall sockets.
The amount was calculated as 0.015625 times U.K. total wind power in Gigawatts divided by 64 million population; being ? My share of it?.
OK here goes
Addition to Alasdair above:
Interpreting this it appears that most of the time I get a pathetic amount of Wind Energy; so doubling investment in further Wind Projects would hardly make any difference as the way the wind blows won’t change and the hanging fruit has already been picked.
OK it’s a pesky bit of research with a mere 121 data points and only covering from June to October; but surely it calls for a bit of proper research and analysis by the government bureaucrats before we continue with this NZE policy of “Net Zero Emissions”.
lyn roberts
November 6, 2022 1:47 pm
I am fearing we will have suburb blackouts during the night for power saving purposes here in brisbane australia.
In my husbands case this is going to be a major problem he has heart failure.
He has a pacemaker/defibrillator and a cpap that breathes for him when he forgets to breathe when asleep. AND yes the defibrillator does save his life, confirmed by cardiologist, but have to present at hospital afterwards to check that no damage has been caused.
He also has a boston electronics latitude that downloads his pacemaker memory and sends a file to the heart hospital for monitoring purposes.
Have enquired about having a battery system installed to suppliment our solar system and guarantee power during blackouts, apparently not an option according to power co.
Ireneusz Palmowski
November 6, 2022 2:59 pm
Still, as has been the case throughout the winter, the average temperature in the southern hemisphere remains below the 1979-2000 average. In the northern hemisphere, the average temperature at two meters is clearly inflated by the temperature in the Arctic.
Ireneusz Palmowski
November 6, 2022 3:23 pm
In three days, a bomb of Arctic air will fall on California.
Maybe somewhat off-topic, but who is making these great illustrations / paintings heading many of the recent posts (such as this)?
Really enjoying them …
20 MILLION DEAD FROM THE COVID-19 JAB WORLDWIDE AND 2 BILLION ADVERSE REACTIONS TO DATE Dr. Roger Hodgkinson estimated 20 million dead from the Covid-19 jab worldwide and 2 billion adverse reactions to date, and it’s not over. https://gloria.tv/post/9gFxV6Shy9eR1yxNcSiaQwrFm The vaxxed are screwed – I warned everyone on 21Mar2020. Regrets.
_______________________ COVID UPDATE: WHAT IS THE TRUTH? Dr Russell L. Blaylock
[excerpt]
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.
For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.
____________________
THE CONFINEMENT OF THE HEALTHY
BY Dr Aaron Kheriaty NOVEMBER 6, 2022
[excerpt]
COVID-19 represents the first time in the history of pandemics that we confined healthy populations. While the ancients did not understand the mechanisms of infectious disease—they knew nothing of viruses and bacteria—they nevertheless figured out many ways to mitigate the spread of contagion during epidemics. These time-tested measures ranged from quarantining symptomatic patients to enlisting those with natural immunity, who had recovered from the illness, to care for the sick.
From the lepers in the Old Testament to the plague of Justinian in Ancient Rome to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, lockdowns were never part of conventional public health measures. The concept of lockdowns arose in part from a public health apparatus that had become militarized over the previous two decades. We now routinely hear of “countermeasures,” but doctors and nurses never use that word, which is a term of spycraft and soldiering.
____________________
To my knowledge, mine was one of the first published correct calls on the phony lockdowns for Covid-19.
I published the following posts in March 2020. Six months later, world experts stated the same recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration (4Oct2021). We were all correct.
I reached this conclusion by ~Feb2020, but only published ~3 weeks later after a discussion with one of my physician friends, who told me his 600-bed hospital was emptied to room for a “tsunami of Covid-19 patients” that NEVER ARRIVED! Nothing made sense. The Covid-19 lockdown was a SCAM from Day 1.
The difficult part of my (accurate) analysis was finding quality data in a swamp of corrupted misinformation. It was obvious from the start that Covid-19 was only very dangerous to the very elderly and infirm, and all we needed to do was over-protect them and get everyone else back to work and school. The misinformation was deliberate and agenda-driven – a world scale fraud to destroy the economies of the great democracies. The WEF, WHO, Drs Fauci & Collins and a host of corrupted government leaders and health authorities were all part of the scam.
21March2020 LET’S CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five. This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH. 22March2020 This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.
I advised our Alberta and Federal governments 13 months ago on 8Jan2021 that the Covid-19 “vaccines” were TOXIC AND INEFFECTIVE and that also has proved correct. That was the second part of the Covid-19 SCAM – to peddle billions of dollars of toxic, worthless injections that have now killed or harmed more people than the Covid-19 virus. It’s now time for criminal trials – Nuremberg 2.0
____________________________________
I hear you Allen, I think at this point in time I am more worried about what has been gotten away with involving the Covid event and subsequent response, censorship and vax tyranny than “ climate change nut zero” .Net zero will fail due the laws of physics and we will be rid of it- eventually. But the Covid and vaccine situation is more insidious. Not sure scam is the right term but something is horribly wrong with the entire process, the Covid the response and the vaccines.
Quelgeek
November 7, 2022 10:09 am
I just noticed António Guterres is trained as an electrical engineer. Listening to his hysterical vaporings I had assumed he was a poet or a journalist or something equally fluffy. How can he stand at COP27 and makes claims no living climate scientist ever would? (When I say “climate scientist” I don’t mean someone who reached into the dress-up box for a white lab coat before super-gluing themself to a can of soup.)
To my American friends – here is why the Dems are acting so crazy – it’s THE PLAN!
[Good luck tomorrow!] Same story for Britain, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, and other governments led by WEF traitors.
THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IS PLANNING THE THEFT OF CANADA? | FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Bob McCarter and I both wrote initial articles (below) about this important issue in the Fall of 2019, before Trudeau’s re-election. Starting in mid-summer of 2019, Bob was my confidential informant and published his article under the pseudonym “Malcolm Carter”.
I wrote my article and received considerable editorial assistance from my friend, a former Editor of the Financial Post, where I intended to publish it circa September 1, 2019. Then, the new Editor of the Financial Post refused to accept it, so I published it on the popular USA website wattsupwiththat.com. This was my first article that was ever refused by any Canadian newspaper.
Actual world events that started in early 2020 with the Covid-19 debacle became increasingly aligned with our two articles. I recently urged Bob to update his article and it was published in October 2022 by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), below. The fact that our articles predicted what actually happened in the dystopian world post-Covid provides strong credibility for our interpretation of the traitorous conduct of most government leaders of the “Western democracies”. Nothing they did during the Covid-19 illness made sense – the full lockdowns were unjustified, costly and destructive, and the Covid-19 “vaccines” have killed many more people than the Covid-19 (“Sars-Cov-2”) virus. The Covid-19 vaccines have driven the evolution of “variants” of the virus and have greatly harmed the immune systems of the vaccinated, leading to many more vaccine-caused deaths and injuries. I expect this carnage will worsen this winter – it was correctly predicted by competent scientists before the vaccines were released. Here are the subject articles. An excellent FCPP interview of Robert McCarter by Leighton Grey is included here: https://fcpp.org/2022/11/07/grey-matter-podcast-the-world-economic-forum-is-planning-the-theft-of-canada/ For those of you who have trouble “connecting the dots”, the Covid-19 lockdown-and-vaccine fraud has unfolded essentially the same in almost all the “Western democracies” and was intended to damage our economies and cause great harm to humanity. There is a powerful logic that states that “no rational person or group could be this wrong, this utterly obtuse, for this long”. Our leaders knew, or should have known, that they were engaging in traitorous, criminal conduct. See https://CorrectPredictions.ca/ for more evidence. BE CAREFUL WHO YOU VOTE FOR by Malcolm Carter, September 19, 2019 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/19/be-careful-who-you-vote-for/ “His starting point, expecting me to agree, was that the present economic model was seriously flawed and had to be replaced. I bit my tongue. He continued, people expected too much, unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and Canadians would have to make do with less. The government would have to take more control over people’s lives enforcing an austere lifestyle.” THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP by Allan M.R. MacRae, October 1, 2019 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/ “Unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and people would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to have more control over people to enforce their austerity and the wealth of developed nations would have to be redistributed to help undeveloped nations.” THE GREAT RESET: PLANNING THE THEFT OF CANADA? by Robert McCarter, October 2, 2022 https://fcpp.org/2022/10/02/the-great-reset-planning-the-theft-of-canada/ “He explained, expecting me to agree, that Canada’s present economic model was seriously flawed and had to be replaced. I bit my tongue. He continued, people expected too much, unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and Canadians would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to take more control over people’s lives and enforce an austere lifestyle. The present high economic expectations are the enemy and we would have to have a strong global government that would redistribute the wealth to poorer nations. Fossil fuels would be phased out on an accelerated timetable and air travel would be limited to need.” Regards, Allan MacRae
It’s about 70 F early in the morning of November 6 here in north central Massachusetts. No doubt the local climatistas are tearing their hair out and whining, “but it’s suppossed to be much colder with rain and snow and winds and….”. And I’m about to head off to a forest for a day of timber cruising! Can’t wait!
We’ve had a very mild October and start of November this year in the English East Midlands, only one morning of ground frost.
I’ve heard weather people on all channels say “temperatures are x degrees above where they should be”. They’ve no idea what average means. It’s not where temperatures “should” be it’s just the average of where they have been in the recorded past. It’s all part of the Global Warming mantra
As RickWill keeps explaining, Northern Hemispheres will get more sunlight in autumn, leading to slightly warmer temperatures. Somehow all the brainwashed don’t complain about the beautiful days, but if it was cold and windy they would be miserable
We are having what is sometimes called an “Indian summer” here in Maryland and much of the east coast. Basically it refers to a spell of warm temps after the initial cool weather that ushers in fall.
But the funny thing is that when temps are colder than average local meteorologists might note that on newscasts but Warmists never make mention of it at all! Or, if they do, they blame it on climate change….
Enjoy, looks like a good day here to go bring in some more White Ash ravaged by the borer, great firewood, drys quick and keeps the seasonal affective disorder at bay not to mention keeping the house nice and warm on the long winter nights.
Had to cut down an Ash last month. Planted it 35 years ago, and up til late last year it was doing fine. This Spring it was almost all dead at the top and sending out lots of shoots along the trunk. Looking forward to using it in the fireplace this winter.
I believe the record for yesterday was set in 1994. So it’s been thirty years and still no warmer!! I used the lovely weather to do my outdoor chores and winter prep. Much nicer to do it in the low 70s than the low 40s or 50s
Go west…in Colorado and Wyoming it isn’t so warm. That’s fine, our ridiculously resilient ridge from late summer/early autumn was raising our fire danger.
In early October we had some heavy frosts in New Zealand .
The middle of spring and frosts were quite common 40- 50 years ago
I was growing a lot of maize (corn ) and we would never plant till after October 20th because of the risk of frost damage .
The frosts damaged a lot of KIwi fruit and other frost tender fruiting plants .
The kiwi fruit will have very little fruit if any on the damaged vines this year .
But this takes the prize for DUMB.
I heard our Prime Nut minister being interviewed and she blamed the frosts on climate change .
That demon CO2 the gas of life can cause frosts and heat waves .
Help still required – no answers in last Open Thread
How can the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich data be easily accessed?
Has it been compared with Jason 3 data and the 2 data sets “spliced”?
https://www.eumetsat.int/sentinel-6-data
Heads up everyone along the east coast of Florida. Your in the sights of another big storm. Joe Bastardi believes it will be a hurricane when it comes ashore and at this time thinks it will come ashore somewhere between Miami and Cape Kennedy.
In the case of Florida, apparently there isn’t much to worry about: https://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2022/11/will-sea-overcome-miami.html
But this time of year in 1926 it would not have been such a good place to be.
This Date In 1926 – Miami Destroyed By A Hurricane | Real Climate Science
Climate change leading to less black and white photography ?
G’Day phil,
“… less black and white photography?”
Not climate change, age. Lately I’ve been converting photos from color to black and white or sepia. The photos? Head and shoulders shots of mature subjects. Makes a heck of a difference on mottled skin tones.
Must have been a big job to move those hotels further from the ocean to allow for rising sea level…..
/s
Unfortunately, these photos have little to do with sea level and everything to do with sand replenishment.
Half of Miami Beach was artificial from the beginning! It was constructed from dredged sand in the 1920’s.
I am old enough to remember when the name was changed back to Cape Canaveral.
Used interchangeably now.
Friends like these…
“”Joe Biden’s climate envoy has questioned the UK’s plans to expand North Sea oil and gas production dramatically, warning it will not solve the energy crisis
The former US vice-president said he did not know the full details of the UK’s controversial plans which are set to award more than 100 licences to extract oil and gas in the North Sea.
But he said: “The truth is, and this is indisputable, that wind power and solar power are cheaper energy than fossil fuel energy today.””
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cop27-climate-oil-gas-kerry-b2218302.html
The truth is the 6 houses, 12 cars, 2 yachts and a private jet don’t count
FJB really is senile.
Compared to the Beanz Meanz Heinz man I have
1/6 of the houses
1/12 of the cars
Net zero yachts
Net zero private jets
Cost of living (eating and heating) concerns
Who really needs to clean up their act? Me or him?
and $700 haircuts- something we plebs find hard to relate to
Kerry: “The truth is, and this is indisputable, that wind power and solar power are cheaper energy than fossil fuel energy today.”
Only if you ignore land acquisition costs, the costs of and the long term availability of materials, manufacturing costs, shipping costs, installation costs including the grid tie in, maintenance costs, disassembly, replacement and recycling costs plus any standby generation facilities and government incentives.
I think investors are slowly starting to realize this :<)
Has anyone looked at how much good farmland has been ruined with windmills. Just drove through central Illinois and a lot of really good cropland has been trashed.
A 2009 study by NREL of 172 wind farms determined that the average wind farm produces 0.4 MW per acre of land directly impacted (i.e., the turbine and its surrounding foundation, access and arterial roads, power stations and distribution lines, offices, monitoring stations, and storage space), and the average power output per acre when the total land area was accounted for was 0.012 MW per acre (https://www.semprius.com/how-much-space-does-a-wind-turbine-need/). Of course that was in 2009. I imagine those number have changed a bit for newer wind farms since turbines have gotten bigger.
A wind farm occupies around 50 times more acreage than a coal, gas or nuclear power plant, to produce the same power output. This figure is based on a wind CF of 30%.
Annual average energy production is more like 18-22% for windmills, which makes the number more like 75 times.
According to the wiki (Yea, I know): “Worldwide, there are about 8,500 coal-fired power stations totaling over 2,000 gigawatts capacity.” This works out to an average of about 235MW per coal-fired power station. Using the NREL numbers (above), 235MW of wind farm at 0.4 Watts per MW would directly impact about 587 acres. If the average coal plant takes around 12 acres then your factor of 50 only represents the amount of acres directly impacted by an equivalent wind farm. However, the total area required for an equivalent wind farm would be around 30 sections (i.e., 19.6k acres at 0.012GW per acre).
Joe C:
Yes. And according to a Manhattan Institute artice from 2019 the EIA
[Energy Information Agency] LCOE calculation also does not include:
transmission, taxes, utility profits, and uses a 30 year depreciation schedule which is
almost twice as long as the life expectancy of onshore wind turbines.
“… wind power and solar power are cheaper …”
Sure, John. Because you say so.
I am curious about global warming as in warming around the globe allegedly caused by CO2 and Greenhouse gases.
As Andy May has pointed out it seems that AR5/ AR6 now records the Northern Hemisphere is warming at 0.26 C per decade and the Southern Hemisphere at 0.11C per decade, some 2 and 1/2 times less.
As is well publicised the world is said to have warmed by 1.07C since pre-industrial times ( the baseline being 1850-1900) but in Australia the State of the Climate Report notes the continent has warmed at 1.44C since 1850-1900.
Then there is the paper that Willis notes showing no warming in the Antarctica in seven decades ( Schmidt et al ?) and the paper showing no warming in Northern China in 5000 years.
Plenty of papers elsewhere show varied warming globally.
To the point.
How can CO2 a pervasive well mixed gas encircling the earth cause such diversity in warming?
I think W.E.had it right.
There are many other forcings and influences at play in the climate as well as negative feedbacks influencing the Greenhouse Effect.(GHE).
Views?
Just the last 8 years, or extended to the last 45 years shows minor warming. Meanwhile, CO2 is up some 10 to 24% respectively so how can it be the driver of Earth’s warming?
Still waiting for the causation….
Hi, Herbert. You sound like a newcomer. Welcome.
The differences in warming rates around the globe were addressed here at WUWT years ago by me and other contributors. Regarding the differences in warming rates between the northern and southern hemispheres, first consider that land surfaces and sea surfaces are warming at different rates, with land surfaces warming considerably faster than the surfaces of the oceans. Second, oceans cover about 60% of the surface on the Northern Hemisphere and cover about 80% in the Southern Hemisphere. Third, the Northern Hemisphere has a naturally occurring oceanic process called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (or AMO), through which the surface temperatures of the North Atlantic can warm faster (or slower) than the rest of the ocean surfaces, thereby enhancing (or suppressing) the rise in surface temperatures. Since the late 1970s, the AMO has been enhancing the warming. Fourth, the Northern Hemisphere (alone) has another naturally occurring phenomenon called Polar Amplification, through which land surface air temperatures at high latitudes vary much faster than those at lower latitudes.
You could use the search function here or at my blog for more-detailed explanations.
Regards,
Bob Tisdale
You could read Bob Tisdale’s excellent analysis of the data about CO2 and about ENSO, etc. in the following:
1
Here: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/tisdale-on-global-warming-and-the-illusion-of-control-part-1.pdf
2.
Here: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/v2-tisdale-who-turned-on-the-heat-free-edition.pdf
How GENEROUS of you, Bob, to offer so much fine analysis and all those hours of hard work for free. Thank you.
Herbert, first and foremost, there is not just one homogenous climate operating around this planet.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of unique climates spread around the globe, all doing their own separate things at different times according to their local influences.
Averaging of sampled recordings of say temperatures or precipitation etc is nonsense.
Especially claiming to be accurate to hundredths or thousandths of a unit.
By orthodox means, there are a couple of variables to explain this.
There is yet some “noise”, some short-lived influences from volcanos and some minor contributions from land use or aviation induced cirrus. By and large the four points named above have to explain the warming scheme there is. And that – does not work.
The whole southern ocean (<45S) is barely warming. You get this from Gavin Schmidt:
Obviously there is no polar amplification in the Antarctic, but since there is neither warming around it, what should be amplified?
The biggest problem however is this. The Arctic amplification is to be expected, but next to it mid NH latitudes saw most warming. That’s exactly where negative aerosol forcing is concentrated. Within this region negative aerosol forcing should be stronger than positive GHG forcing.
The large negative aerosol forcing makes no sonse whatsoever. You can not have most warming where its concentrated, and no warming where there is none (like the southern ocean). It is exactly the opposite.
You might ask so what? Climate change is about the warming by GHGs, not the cooling by aerosols. The problem is, if aerosols were not cooling, or even warming instead, then you have only little warming left to be associated with GHGs. Climate sensitivity then is necessarilly to the low end.
Ed Schaffer:
You say: “Aerosol forcing (negative!): Aerosols would cancel about 1/3 of global GHG related positive forcing. But aerosols do NOT spread globally.”.
Here, you are completely mistaken:.
SO2 aerosols (the only ones that have any detectable climatic effect) DO spread globally, as shown in the inset.
SO2 aerosols can have BOTH Negative and Positive forcings. Negative when they are introduced into the atmosphere from Industrial activity, or by stratospheric volcanic eruptions, cooling the Earth, and positive when their concentration in the atmosphere is reduced, due to Clean Air efforts, or when volcanic aerosols eventually settle out.of the air.
Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions peaked at 136 Million tons in 1979, and due to global Clean Air efforts, by 2019 they had fallen to 79 million tons. This decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels was the cause of the warming that began circa 1980, and NOT the accumulation of “Greenhouse Gasses) in the atmosphere..
Decreased levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere causes increased warming, because the Sun’s rays strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity.
This simple FACT is ignored by ALL proponents of GHG warming..
You also say”if aerosols were not cooling, or even warming instead, then you have only little warming left to be associated with GHGs. Climate sensitivity then is necessarily to the low end”.
Here, you are correct. As noted above, aerosols both cool and warm, and the observed climate sensitivity to GHGs is undetectable (ZERO).
No, they do not, and the chart shows it. The chart may be a bit confusing here, since it paints the 1/2 of the globe in light purple, which is next to white.Given the color scheme has some odd logarithmic shape, light purple still means minimal concentrations.
If you get over this, it is still true SO2 remains close its place of emission. Also the chart gives a momentary situation, with given prevailing wind schemes. Naturaly wind speeds and direction are changing. Anyhow..
Not so fast! SO2 in the stratosphere is very different from having it in the troposphere. The problem starts with not understanding what it does in the stratosphere. After turning into sulfuric acid (SA) it starts to absord sun light, warming the stratosphere. Also it SA is a good emitter in the IR. That means lots of solar energy being absorbed and emitted back into space, without it ever reaching the surface or the troposphere.
Within the troposphere this is a different story. First of all, solar energy in the troposphere is not lost in a similar way, as tropospheric temperatures are linked to surface temperature. Secondly SA will add to the GHE thereby reducing emission temperature. Therefore I will strongly doubt SA from pollution (staying in the troposphere) has the same effect as SA from volcanic eruptions. Moreover it should rather be warming than cooling.
On top of that, as I said above, it makes absolutely no sense to have most warming where aerosols shall be cooling, and least where they do not.
E. Schaffer.
“it is still true that SO2 remains close to its place of emission”
No, SO2 does NOT stay close to its place of emission. Volcanic SO2 aerosols circulate around the globe, taking about 14 months for its maximum cooling effect to occur. Industrial SO2 aerosols also circulate around the globe, as shown in the chart,where there are low levels over the Pacific, and elsewhere, where there is NO Industrial activity
“Not so fast, SO2 in the stratosphere is very different from having it in the troposphere”
NASA’s fact sheet on atmospheric aerosols states that stratospheric SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth’s surface underneath, and that tropospheric SO2 aerosols have the same effect, also reflecting sunlight,and cooling the Earth’s surface. Your statement that SO2 absorbs sunlight is incorrect.
“On top of that, it makes no sense where aerosols shall be cooling, and least when they do not”
??. Any SO2 aerosols suffused through Earth’s atmosphere will cause cooling, with less cooling where its concentration is lower, and none where it is absent. The resultant temperature differences drive much of our weather.
Stop trying to teach me, and instead of quoting some NASA nonsense, try to figure out how volcanic eruptions heat the stratosphere. Good luck!
E. Schaffer:
Volcanic eruptions do not heat the stratosphere.
They inject reflective SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, where their reflectance is sensed as an increase in temperature by the satellite sensors.
The only climatic effect of volcanic SO2 aerosols is to dim the intensity of the Sun’s rays striking the Earth’s surface.
This here should give a much better idea..
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/People/Colarco/Mission_Support/so2_floop/
E. Schaffer:
Yes, their chart of SO2 aerosol emissions show their circulation around the globe.
You might want to consider whether the Northern Hemisphere, with its increasing urbanization and greater land mass, is having its temperature record contaminated by the Urban Heat Island effect.
There is considerable degree of incompetent thinkers in climate science. They deal in their own phiisics that does not relate to the world of measurable physics. Even the concept of GHE is misplaced because it has zero influence on Earth’s energy balance.
Most naive people accept temperature anomalies as meaningful.
A good example of how anomalies can hide real information is the Greenland plateau. It has warmed tremendously over the last 70 years. But when you look at the attached you see that the minimum temperature has risen significantly and the maximums hardly changed. And the maximums still below freezing.
You then have to ask why are the coldest temperatures getting warmer when there is little to no sunlight. The only way that happen is through latent heat transport and that results in more snowfall. That can only be due to changed air flow or more open ocean water in the proximity of Greenland.
Earth’s orbit is progressively shifting peak daily solar intensity northward from the South Pole. It will take another 30,000 years before the North Pole has peak daily solar intensity. This is the July solar intensity for the North Pole from J0000 to J28,000:
-2.000 516.900986
(J2000) 0.000 507.377261
2.000 501.944599
4.000 500.616988
6.000 502.605219
8.000 506.356509
10.000 509.687485
12.000 510.810505
14.000 509.837376
16.000 508.704041
18.000 509.248797
20.000 512.176361
22.000 517.241640
24.000 523.235441
26.000 528.435187
28.000 531.424092
30.000 531.532900
32.000 529.100411
So it is still reducing in July at 90N but will begin to rise in 4,000 years time. If you come down to 50N, it is presently at the minimum July sunlight of 475W/m^2. It peaks at 496W/m^2 in 28,000 years. So sunlight over any place on Earth is NEVER constant like the climate modellers assume.
We do know that the surface temperature, both land and ocean, is highly correlated to sunlight over an annual cycle. What is more difficult to determine is how different regions respond over long periods. We know it takes tens of thousands of years for the deep oceans to respond to solar changes. Latitudinally constrained bodies like the Mediterranean respond at depth over shorter time frame = probable centuries to thousands of years.
I can tell you that climate modellers would not know if their backside was on fire. What I cannot tell you is how long it will take for the voting masses to realise they have been conned by incompetent climate modellers like Suki Manabe working in concert with power grabbing politicians to lead the developed countries into deteriorating living standard.
Consider the energy storage and delivery effectiveness of water vapor in the atmosphere.
How might one visualize this to get the full picture?
First, one can calculate that one inch of precipitable water represents about 17,600 Wh/m^2 of energy stored as latent heat (just considering condensation, not freezing.)
Every day, the Climate Reanalyzer website uses the NOAA/NCEP Global Forecast System to depict weather conditions, including temperature, wind, precipitation, pressure, water vapor, etc. The visualizations are pretty good. Not animated, but you can see the weather systems and circulations.
The precipitable water is given in Kg/m^2, which is equivalent to millimeters. So 25 Kg/m^2 (= 25 mm or about 1 inch) represents a little over 17,000 Wh/m^2 of stored latent energy.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#pwtr
Look at the visualization and the scale. Sure, “warmer air holds more water vapor.” But you can’t keep it there, and you can’t keep it from circulating, precipitating, evaporating, and completely obscuring the minor incremental strengthening of the static radiative effect of GHGs. The static warming effect of a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv is often given as 3.7 W/m^2, or 3.7 Wh/m^2 per hour. It’s vanishingly thin on the scale.
From low to high altitude, and from the tropics to the poles, latent energy is on the move.
And my take on the 3.7 W/m^2 effect, or any claim of the warming influence of non-condensing greenhouse gases? Good luck finding it. It disappears in all the motion, overwhelmed by what water does.
And blaming weather events like floods, heat waves, and drought conditions on GHG warming? Nope. Not a chance of ever isolating that effect for reliable attribution.
I glad to see the continued interest in the energy stored in water vapor (in the true vapor state). It can be released and/or stored in many ways via: condensation due to temperature decrease, elevation change, pressure change, velocity, turbulence, re-evaporation due to electromagnetic radiation, etc. Moist air has some incredible properties along the boundary state of phase change! And the path to the Triple Point is full of surprises with the air even changing density! It’s absolutely fascinating!!!
Enjoy COP27:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/14/cop27-hopeless-hopeful-money-will-dominate-the-discussion/
The most fun yet.
We’re all scratching round wondering where food and energy inflation is going to end up – and up is the word right now.
Sunak is touting Austerity 2 and long term tax rises for all.
Where will this CoP money come from? I dread to think.
Rishi Rich’s mega wealthy wife could pay her taxes here…..
She could, but I suspect that’s the last thing on her mind. I expect she’s already talking to the decorators…
Well BoJo and wife didn’t have much taste
There will be no serious COP money. That is the point of my article and why it will be fun to watch.
What causes 0.6C temperature swings over the course of only a few days?
Good point. The claimed effect of gradual GHG warming is completely obscured. It simply cannot be isolated for reliable attribution by any means we have available to us now or any time soon.
David Dibbell:
The temperature swings shown are largely due to differing levels of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere.
Case in point: In a Stalled High Pressure Weather System, temperatures ALWAYS rise because the air within the area is stagnant, allowing the SO2 aerosols within the area to settle out of the atmosphere. Usually takes 4-5 days to settle out.
Changes in cloud is my guess.
A matter of perception; perceptibility of climate.
Philosophical ramblings for Sunday morning:
What is the relative importance of 0.6C global average anomaly deviation over the course of days, vs 1C anomaly over the course of a century?
What of the relationship between perceptual experience and perceptual belief on the issue of climate?
One does not necessarily come to acquire perceptual beliefs by virtue of perceptual experience.
It can be argued that climate changes are certainly not perceptible by experience within one’s lifetime. It requires an extrapolation of belief.
Does one perceive a 0.6C global anomaly deviation over the course of days by experience?
We can be perceptually engaged with the word in various ways.
What is the relationship between perception, belief, and knowledge?
Today perceptual knowledge appears to align more closely with one’s perceptual beliefs.
Perceptual experience has little value in knowledge of global temperature anomalies, this is quite certain.
Perceptual experience can only be used to provide justification for one’s belief, such as cases of unusual weather in our local areas. But of course, as we’re reminded, weather is not climate.
Does one ‘notice’ a fair-weather day?
Today it is deemed unsophisticated to acquire perceptual beliefs by virtue of simply seeing the world for what it is –
a rather academic, and pretentious, worldview IMO.
A philosophy causing us to lose our footing, to become ungrounded.
Perception is nothing but the acquiring of knowledge of, or, on occasions, the acquiring of an inclination to believe in, particular facts about the physical world.
Seeing is no longer believing.
I wish I could give you 2 up votes but that is reserved for the other side and I have my ethics to be regarded! lol
I must have hit a nerve with regards to multiple voting! roflmao
lol
Consider the likely measurement uncertainty limits on these values which are never reported nor even calculated.
If we could actually control the weather (and I don’t think we can), could we actually agree on what the weather should be? Personally, I LOVE hot weather — it is 30 degrees out this morning here in Colorado, and I am freezing my butt off.
Almost 30 degrees here, also – Villavicencio, Col…
Well it reached 76F (24C) in Connecticut today. People would be dying in the streets if this happened in the UK.
Meridional flow I guess.
That’s what I always wonder – what exactly do the AGW enthusiasts expect the temperature and weather to be like? If we all go back to living in the 17th century, what kind of weather should we expect? Well, truthfully we all know nothing will change….
I don’t know….I’m guessing they are expecting weather that literally always follows the averages of whatever location is in question, and of course, no tornadoes and no hurricanes, because we all know those things didn’t exist before humans started using fossil fuels! (sarc)
Me, personally, I hate heat and humidity. I have no desire to move to Alaska or the furthest northern states either. But living here in Maryland the summers are hideous – high humidity and heat. It’s bad enough here – I can’t imagine living in Florida or the deep south, or worse, some tropical country where it’s like that all year. I never go anywhere in the summer months without at least one bandana in my pocket or purse (on really hot days I need two) to avoid being blinded by my own perspiration. My husband, OTOH – loves the heat, but he rarely sweats!
The Climatistas believe the climate should always and forever be exactly as it was that perfect summer in high school when they lost their virginity.
Anyone have any comments on this technology? https://e-catworld.com/2022/01/20/plasma-kinetics-storing-hydrogen-on-film-or-discs/
They said CDs/DVDs were indestructible….
Seems highly unlikely. I call BS.
“They can store hydrogen without compressing it.”
Then why not just fill a balloon with hydrogen? Pure hydrogen is the best way to store hydrogen. Any other method just adds extra mass and volume. This quickly becomes much larger than the hydrogen itself. The fundamentals are very hard to overcome.
I’m almost interested to see what accounting tricks, omissions, or lies they use to come up with their quoted numbers but there have been so many before that I don’t want to spend the time looking further.
There was no discussion about how much of the power generated by the fuel cell will need to be used to power the lasers that release the hydrogen from the film. Presumably it is less than the energy lost compressing hydrogen, otherwise this makes no sense at all.
The logistics of swapping out cartridges that were said to weigh 15lbs for 20mi range seems the big issue. The cartridges comparable to an ICE car fill-up would weigh about 667 lbs to achieve a 500 mile range (300kg for 800km range). That would seem very difficult. My ICE car typically gives me that range on a fill-up that I do weekly in about 3 minutes. With gasoline, 15 gallons (57 liters) weighs about 90 lbs (41kg). The claim made is that this is lighter and less volume than a battery with the same range.
There was also no discussion about how the cartridges would interface with the car and its fuel cell. Would you be limited to only a few cartridges at a time yielding a short driving range?
What sort of equipment will be needed to remove spent cartridges and dispense full cartridges at the retail site? That sounds very capital intensive.
How will they build out refueling stations across the country? Would each refueling site “recharge” cartridges on-site with a local hydrolysis unit or would spent cartridges need to be transported back to a factory to be refilled with H2 and then transported back to each retail refueling station? A great deal of waste energy may be involved in those logistics.
All cars made to use this technology would need to standardize on the same cartridges to be compatible with the refueling stations. How likely is that?
Those are a few questions I would have. I would be very surprised if there are compelling answers.
NOAA has updated the National Temperature Index that is based on the US Climate Reference Network—a network of more than 100 highly accurate weather stations located at pristine sites that are roughly evenly spaced out around the conterminous 48 plus Alaska and Hawaii.
The dataset is here, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/
Prior to the update there was a 7 year and 7 month period of cooling, now that period shows warming. The old version showed cooling of 2.8 °F per century, the new data shows warming of 3.5 °F per century.
NOAA say that they only updated the data to reflect the new 1991 to 2020 Climate Normals, which in this case would be a set of “normal” temperatures for each month at each site. But I can’t see how that would change the overall trend for a site or for the US as a whole.
NOAA says they do this (see background section at above link).
The process also involves a final step.
That’s not a very good explanation (interpolated how?) but I still don’t see how any of that would change the trend. I emailed NOAA to ask the for an explanation.
The purpose of the US CRN is to give us a long term temperature trend for the US that is unaffected by local changes around traditional weather stations, such as increased urbanization, which could introduce a spurious warming trend. In my opinion doing anything to that data set that changes the long term trend is unwarranted.
Here is a chart that shows the difference in the original data set and the new data set.
Interesting. You shouldn’t be touching raw data from weather stations that have absolutely no bias. I never heard of this issue before, let’s hope Anthony takes a look at this. He’ll have an explanation
Yep.. USCRN has brought the data tampering of US temperature under control. 🙂
They can’t allow ClimDiv to diverge from USCRN, that would show their malfeasance on the pre 2005 data.
Because of the bulge from the 2015/16 El Nino, the calculated linear trend is slightly +ve.. That will flatten out given time.
Indeed! That is a very good question. With air masses generally moving west to east, interpolation along the track of movement can probably be justified, albeit recognizing that there can be abrupt changes across cold fronts. How are temperatures auto-correlated along and orthogonal to air mass tracks?
It seems to me that a simple area-weighted average would be enough.
Some interpolation procedures, particularly for gridding, use distance weighting. However, the problem is that apparently it isn’t made explicit what method is used and why.
Clyde,
Distance weighting makes sense. The grids are 0.25 degrees, latitude by longitude, or about 5 km by 5 km—larger in the south and smaller in the north because longitude lines converge at the poles.
The USCRN stations are much further that 5 km apart, so a distance waiting is probably used to interpolate a value for each grid in between two stations.
It would have been nice if they had made that more explicit, but I think “distance weighted interpolation” is probably what they mean.
And then there is the issue of how to assign weights: linear, squared, or some exponential?
???
USCRN has not been altered, I have the data back to 2005, I just downloaded the current data set, its exactly the same.
USHCN, before 2005, is as we all know, mostly fabricated.
B. nice.
Where did you download it? I sure would like to have the continuation of the old version.
I downloaded it here.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/
It’s the National Temperature Index which is based on the USCRN, but modified as I mentioned above.
Yep, that’s where I have been getting values on a monthly basis (mostly) for a long time.
Wish I could find an older version of the file, but I’m sure I would have noticed a change like that.
I’m just puzzled is all.
When do you reckon these changes took place?
Ahhh…. I just have USCRN data..
I don’t use ClimDiv, because its obviously manipulated to match USCRN to a reasonably close amount.
I have also only download and used USCRN. But if you look closely you will see that the USRCN dataset at the above link is called the National Temperature Index. One data set is based on USCRN the other on nClimDiv. The USCRN dataset that has been processed as described in the background section on the website.
I also don’t trust the ClimDiv data. But the background sections says,
I didn’t save the old nClimDiv data, so I can’t say for sure, but I think the recent changes to USCRN (maybe also to nClimDiv) have resulted in the nClimDiv data now being in better agreement with the USCRN data. In other words, their corrections have made nClimDiv look more like USCRN.
The nClimDiv data almost certainly has a long-term warming trend that is partly caused by localized heating effects near historical weather stations, such as urbanization, which have increased over time. Therefore, some of the warming trend shown in nClimDiv is probably not due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
The USCRN network was installed for this reason. It is intended to give us a record that is not effected by urbanization and other factors that could impose a spurious warming trend.
NOAA seems to want us to believe that we can trust that the old nClimDiv dataset has no spurious warming trend because nClimDiv agrees so well with USCRN.
I’m unconvinced. The growth of urbanization from the 1890s to 2005 (when USCRN starts) would be much greater than from 2005 to present. And NOAA’s processing of the datasets is too opaque.
The update took place sometime between January and October of this year.
Conservatives are mis-interpreting the Fetterman Flag incident.
It was actually a positive for Fetterman. He was cutting a promotional video for Renewable Energie, in this case Wind Energie. As usual Conservatives did not get the deeper meaning of what Fetterman was trying to convey.
WATCH: The American Flags at Fetterman Event Tell the Tale for Dems’ Election Hopes – RedState
When will there be discussions of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere, something the public would be more likely to understand? Based on Muana Loa Observatory measurement, the Atmospheric CO2 level in 1960 was 315 parts per million (PPM). Converted to percentage this was three hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. In 2020 the CO2 level measurement was 420 PPM which was four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere, a growth of the CO2 level of one hundredth of one percent in sixty years. If one percent of CO2 in a CO2 fire extinguisher would render that extinguisher ineffective for extinguishing a fire, then why should a small fraction of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere be capable of changing the temperature of the Earth to the extent that it changes its climate?
Hey Bill,
Not sure how your reply relates to my post?
But when it comes to your gripe about the misrepresentation of CO2 by the Climate Hysteria crowd, I am with you 100%!
Just to be sure, I did leave out the /sarc tag at the end of my post, in case you were wondering where i was coming from.
Ha, HA!
A Democrat opens his mouth and the Star Spangled Banner crashes to the ground. Perfect.
I noticed this morning that there was suddenly more light than usual. This surely must be due to the “climate crisis” we keep hearing about. Also, we have been having near record-breaking warmth the past few days, and it will continue thru tomorrow. Further proof that the earth is literally burning up, and it’s all our fault. Help us, Obi-Wan-Sharm El-Sheikh. You’re our only hope!
The lunacy continues:
Activists glue themselves to Goya paintings in Spanish climate protest
Yawn. It’ll be news when these addle-minded “activists” glue themselves to the gates of a refinery owned by Saudi Aramco.
I don’t think it’ll be news.
I think it’ll be like the old mafia saw ” You won’t hear nothin’ from them anymore”. Just like that journalist that stupidly walked into a Saudi embassy.
What journalist? The Saudis don’t know nuthin’ ’bout no journalist. Just ask ’em.
😉
I guess we have to wait until one of these treasures is damaged or destroyed before these nuts get properly prosecuted.
What did Goya ever do to them?!?
What are they? Napoleon lovers? Lovers of tyranny in general?
They and their lot certainly treat anyone defending data-driven science like Napoleon’s thugs treated the defenders of Madrid….
Guess they are doing some kind of performance art — and don’t realize that they are only exposing themselves.
It strikes me that nothing in contemporary times illustrates more starkly just how stupid post-WW2 developed nations have become than comparing the switch-out from whale oil to mineral oil as an energy source than the reticence currently on display to switching from mineral oil to nuclear fission.
Mineral oil was quickly recognized to be a more utilitarian energy source than whale oil because it was abundant, dense, storable, had application to everyday essential needs (lighting, heating), and was economical.
Of course there were cons, as there are with any comparative choices.
But rational, unemotional analysis quickly found that the overall benefits surpassed the risks & drawbacks.
Now, we have a rational pathway to progress from using oil and coal to nuclear as fuel sources for essential applications like electricity generation, but our prevarication on emotional grounds hinders this logical progression.
Einstein was right again –
“there are only 2 things that are infinite: the universe and man’s stupidity”.
To me it looks like we have had a very slow gradual sea level rise post last ice age for aprox 6000 years as taken from proxies, and is probably a rough proxy itself( sea level rise) for temperature. What we are experiencing now just seems to be a continuation of the same ,with normal little blips up and down.
Sea level is the very best proxy for the heat content of the atmosphere/ocean system.
Atmospheric temperature is a very weak proxy for system heat content, it’s even a weak proxy for atmospheric heat content.
Thanks for the reply. Basically i was just trying to say it looks like in the long run current atmospheric conditions don’t seem to be deviating much from the past 6000 years-roughly speaking
I just looked at the USCRN database. At first everything seemed normal, but when I looked back on a previous blog post here from Jul 30, 2019. I found something very peculiar. In the blog post it lists all of the data points from Oct. 2018 to Jun. 2019.
201810-0.18°F
201811-2.56°F
2018122.39°F
2019010.63°F
201902-3.15°F
201903-2.81°F
2019041.55°F
201905-1.13°F
201906-0.14°F
Whereas the data now shows these values:
Oct. 2018 -0.68 F
Nov. 2018 -2.92 F
Dec. 2018 1.22 F
Jan. 2019 -0.05 F
Feb. 2019 -3.51 F
Mar. 2019 -3.40 F
Apr. 2019 1.35 F
May 2019 -1.42 F
Jun. 2019 -0.67 F
Is there a different baseline and I’m just stupid? Someone should look into whether the data has changed. There is another blog post in this thread talking about the same problem. I hope they are not adjusting the data; otherwise we’d have nothing
That’s odd, The only change I am seeing is a change for June 2022 from 1.26F to 1.31F. and August 2022 from 1.66 to 1.67
These are recent enough to be a change due to late data.
Has anyone else got the full data set saved ?
I saw your comment earlier about having the original data set. Can you post that here? The data from 2005-2009 seem lower.
I’m looking back at this WUWT post from 3 years ago https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/hidden-noaa-temperature-data-reveals-that-6-of-the-last-9-months-were-below-normal-in-the-usa-and-noaa-cant-even-get-june-right/
The National Temperature Index, based on USCRN, is what changed. See my post at 6:17 PST (above). It was updated to the latest (1991 to 2020) 30-year climate normals. But something else was also done to it. I asked NOAA what they did. Hopefully they will respond.
I don’t know where to find the unadulterated USCRN dataset.
Keep us updated please if they email you. If they’re doing something behind the scenes, that would be bad and we’d have no good temperature set.
Will do Walter.
I have the old full dataset. I thin it only goes to Oct. 2021.
Have just discovered a new “WOKE” term: Apparently I am now an “OE”: an Oppressive Extractivist. Must remember that when next I bump into me.
$8.5bn from rich countries: SA to spend most of the money on electricity infrastructure
South Africa’s government will invest the bulk of an $8.5 billion (R152 billion) climate-finance deal being offered by wealthy nations on bolstering its energy supply.
An investment plan published Friday envisages 90% of the funds being used to decommission coal-fired power plants in tandem with developing renewable-energy generation, strengthening the transmission grid and modernising the electricity-distribution system. The rest will go toward the development of green-hydrogen and electric-vehicle industries.
The funding, pledged by the US, UK, the European Union, Germany and France, was unveiled at last year’s United Nations-led climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland.
https://www.news24.com/fin24/climate_future/news/85bn-from-rich-countries-sa-to-spend-most-of-the-money-on-electricity-infrastructure-20221106
The present electricity supply in South Africa is shambolic at best. This money, if given, is going to enrich a privileged, chosen few with the right government connections but do little to provide a reliable and cheap supply of electricity to the masses of poor people. Electricity supplied in South Africa fifty years ago was among the cheapest in the world. Power outages were rare. This is no longer the case.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/55980c72-590b-48b9-abe1-1fa8b7ede38a
I don’t know whether this will work but both these attempts are of a very rough mini bit of research I did recently.
It is a graph of the frequency of the daily amount of Wind Energy I got through my wall sockets.
The amount was calculated as 0.015625 times U.K. total wind power in Gigawatts divided by 64 million population; being ? My share of it?.
OK here goes
Addition to Alasdair above:
Interpreting this it appears that most of the time I get a pathetic amount of Wind Energy; so doubling investment in further Wind Projects would hardly make any difference as the way the wind blows won’t change and the hanging fruit has already been picked.
OK it’s a pesky bit of research with a mere 121 data points and only covering from June to October; but surely it calls for a bit of proper research and analysis by the government bureaucrats before we continue with this NZE policy of “Net Zero Emissions”.
I am fearing we will have suburb blackouts during the night for power saving purposes here in brisbane australia.
In my husbands case this is going to be a major problem he has heart failure.
He has a pacemaker/defibrillator and a cpap that breathes for him when he forgets to breathe when asleep. AND yes the defibrillator does save his life, confirmed by cardiologist, but have to present at hospital afterwards to check that no damage has been caused.
He also has a boston electronics latitude that downloads his pacemaker memory and sends a file to the heart hospital for monitoring purposes.
Have enquired about having a battery system installed to suppliment our solar system and guarantee power during blackouts, apparently not an option according to power co.
Still, as has been the case throughout the winter, the average temperature in the southern hemisphere remains below the 1979-2000 average. In the northern hemisphere, the average temperature at two meters is clearly inflated by the temperature in the Arctic.
In three days, a bomb of Arctic air will fall on California.
Maybe somewhat off-topic, but who is making these great illustrations / paintings heading many of the recent posts (such as this)?
Really enjoying them …
I agree, it is splendid work.
My guess is it’s done by Midjourney AI (https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/01/david_holz_midjourney/). But that’s a guess.
Climate protesters are getting bolder the closer we to the CONference, protesting on runways now:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/05/europe/amsterdam-climate-activists-block-private-jet-runway-intl/index.html
20 MILLION DEAD FROM THE COVID-19 JAB WORLDWIDE AND 2 BILLION ADVERSE REACTIONS TO DATE
Dr. Roger Hodgkinson estimated 20 million dead from the Covid-19 jab worldwide and 2 billion adverse reactions to date, and it’s not over.
https://gloria.tv/post/9gFxV6Shy9eR1yxNcSiaQwrFm
The vaxxed are screwed – I warned everyone on 21Mar2020. Regrets.
_______________________
COVID UPDATE: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
Dr Russell L. Blaylock
[excerpt]
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.
For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.
____________________
THE CONFINEMENT OF THE HEALTHY
BY Dr Aaron Kheriaty NOVEMBER 6, 2022
[excerpt]
COVID-19 represents the first time in the history of pandemics that we confined healthy populations. While the ancients did not understand the mechanisms of infectious disease—they knew nothing of viruses and bacteria—they nevertheless figured out many ways to mitigate the spread of contagion during epidemics. These time-tested measures ranged from quarantining symptomatic patients to enlisting those with natural immunity, who had recovered from the illness, to care for the sick.
From the lepers in the Old Testament to the plague of Justinian in Ancient Rome to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, lockdowns were never part of conventional public health measures. The concept of lockdowns arose in part from a public health apparatus that had become militarized over the previous two decades. We now routinely hear of “countermeasures,” but doctors and nurses never use that word, which is a term of spycraft and soldiering.
____________________
To my knowledge, mine was one of the first published correct calls on the phony lockdowns for Covid-19.
I published the following posts in March 2020. Six months later, world experts stated the same recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration (4Oct2021). We were all correct.
I reached this conclusion by ~Feb2020, but only published ~3 weeks later after a discussion with one of my physician friends, who told me his 600-bed hospital was emptied to room for a “tsunami of Covid-19 patients” that NEVER ARRIVED! Nothing made sense. The Covid-19 lockdown was a SCAM from Day 1.
The difficult part of my (accurate) analysis was finding quality data in a swamp of corrupted misinformation. It was obvious from the start that Covid-19 was only very dangerous to the very elderly and infirm, and all we needed to do was over-protect them and get everyone else back to work and school. The misinformation was deliberate and agenda-driven – a world scale fraud to destroy the economies of the great democracies. The WEF, WHO, Drs Fauci & Collins and a host of corrupted government leaders and health authorities were all part of the scam.
21March2020
LET’S CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH:
Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five.
This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.
22March2020
This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.
I advised our Alberta and Federal governments 13 months ago on 8Jan2021 that the Covid-19 “vaccines” were TOXIC AND INEFFECTIVE and that also has proved correct. That was the second part of the Covid-19 SCAM – to peddle billions of dollars of toxic, worthless injections that have now killed or harmed more people than the Covid-19 virus. It’s now time for criminal trials – Nuremberg 2.0
____________________________________
Alan….
I hear you Allen, I think at this point in time I am more worried about what has been gotten away with involving the Covid event and subsequent response, censorship and vax tyranny than “ climate change nut zero” .Net zero will fail due the laws of physics and we will be rid of it- eventually. But the Covid and vaccine situation is more insidious. Not sure scam is the right term but something is horribly wrong with the entire process, the Covid the response and the vaccines.
I just noticed António Guterres is trained as an electrical engineer. Listening to his hysterical vaporings I had assumed he was a poet or a journalist or something equally fluffy. How can he stand at COP27 and makes claims no living climate scientist ever would? (When I say “climate scientist” I don’t mean someone who reached into the dress-up box for a white lab coat before super-gluing themself to a can of soup.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-63330171 spending money (we don’t have) on climate change
To my American friends – here is why the Dems are acting so crazy – it’s THE PLAN!
[Good luck tomorrow!]
Same story for Britain, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, and other governments led by WEF traitors.
THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IS PLANNING THE THEFT OF CANADA? | FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Bob McCarter and I both wrote initial articles (below) about this important issue in the Fall of 2019, before Trudeau’s re-election. Starting in mid-summer of 2019, Bob was my confidential informant and published his article under the pseudonym “Malcolm Carter”.
I wrote my article and received considerable editorial assistance from my friend, a former Editor of the Financial Post, where I intended to publish it circa September 1, 2019. Then, the new Editor of the Financial Post refused to accept it, so I published it on the popular USA website wattsupwiththat.com. This was my first article that was ever refused by any Canadian newspaper.
Actual world events that started in early 2020 with the Covid-19 debacle became increasingly aligned with our two articles. I recently urged Bob to update his article and it was published in October 2022 by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), below.
The fact that our articles predicted what actually happened in the dystopian world post-Covid provides strong credibility for our interpretation of the traitorous conduct of most government leaders of the “Western democracies”. Nothing they did during the Covid-19 illness made sense – the full lockdowns were unjustified, costly and destructive, and the Covid-19 “vaccines” have killed many more people than the Covid-19 (“Sars-Cov-2”) virus. The Covid-19 vaccines have driven the evolution of “variants” of the virus and have greatly harmed the immune systems of the vaccinated, leading to many more vaccine-caused deaths and injuries. I expect this carnage will worsen this winter – it was correctly predicted by competent scientists before the vaccines were released.
Here are the subject articles. An excellent FCPP interview of Robert McCarter by Leighton Grey is included here:
https://fcpp.org/2022/11/07/grey-matter-podcast-the-world-economic-forum-is-planning-the-theft-of-canada/
For those of you who have trouble “connecting the dots”, the Covid-19 lockdown-and-vaccine fraud has unfolded essentially the same in almost all the “Western democracies” and was intended to damage our economies and cause great harm to humanity. There is a powerful logic that states that “no rational person or group could be this wrong, this utterly obtuse, for this long”. Our leaders knew, or should have known, that they were engaging in traitorous, criminal conduct. See https://CorrectPredictions.ca/ for more evidence.
BE CAREFUL WHO YOU VOTE FOR
by Malcolm Carter, September 19, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/19/be-careful-who-you-vote-for/
“His starting point, expecting me to agree, was that the present economic model was seriously flawed and had to be replaced. I bit my tongue. He continued, people expected too much, unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and Canadians would have to make do with less. The government would have to take more control over people’s lives enforcing an austere lifestyle.”
THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
by Allan M.R. MacRae, October 1, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/
“Unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and people would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to have more control over people to enforce their austerity and the wealth of developed nations would have to be redistributed to help undeveloped nations.”
THE GREAT RESET: PLANNING THE THEFT OF CANADA?
by Robert McCarter, October 2, 2022
https://fcpp.org/2022/10/02/the-great-reset-planning-the-theft-of-canada/
“He explained, expecting me to agree, that Canada’s present economic model was seriously flawed and had to be replaced. I bit my tongue. He continued, people expected too much, unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and Canadians would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to take more control over people’s lives and enforce an austere lifestyle. The present high economic expectations are the enemy and we would have to have a strong global government that would redistribute the wealth to poorer nations. Fossil fuels would be phased out on an accelerated timetable and air travel would be limited to need.”
Regards, Allan MacRae