By P Gosselin
Charts produced by Kirye
This October, according to the (untampered) data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the mean temperature in Tokyo came in at 17.2°C, making it it one of the coolest over the past decades:
Data source: JMA.
More significant, however, is the trend over the past 33 years – it’s been downward. As we reported last month, the Tokyo mean temperature trend situation for September is similar – no warming.
Hachijojima island
Tokyo’s rural island of Hachijojima is located some 287 km out in the Pacific, thus making it rather free of massive urban heat island effects. The island saw an October, 2022, mean temperature of 20.9°C:
Data source: JMA.
Going back to 1987, the October mean temperature trend has been slightly downward as well. No sign of warming.
NASA “adjustments”
Yet, when you compare Hachijojima JMA annual temperature data to that from NASA unadjusted and then its homogenized data going all the way back to 1950, readers can get a good idea where all the “warming” is really coming from:
There was no warming, until that is NASA tampered with the data to produce a “warming” trend. NASA’s trend starts to look like forgery and fakery.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The decent into outright fraud was with accepting Michael Mann’s hockey stick. There were indications earlier with altering the conclusions of the IPCC report to find human influences that the evidence did not support, but Mann was blatant.
Piltdown Mann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lxi05i0cd8&t=722s
a Tony Heller video
Is this a case of pandering to what certain politicians want.
A desire for more money..
Re the present Court case.
How can a Judge with legal training make any meaningful decision about a scientific marker when listening to two opposed opinions.
It’s a bit like hearing a case of vrape. He says, she says. Who do you believe.
Michael VK5ELL
The point is that the changes are being made to AVERAGES and in most cases are being justified by using other averages. From what I have found, no one is going back and revising the actual recorded temperatures, they are being left alone.
That is so close to fraud it isn’t funny. Without declaring the actual readings to be in error, showing why, and making corrections to the recorded temps, the simple averages calculated from those recorded temperatures are being changed instead. In essence creating information based on nothing.
Using averages from different temperature distributions to “create” a new average is also fraught with imprecision. The temperatures creating the different means may be totally different. They will likely have different variances. That even applies to daily temperatures. Nowhere is an analysis of variances ever done when combining averages of different distributions.
Yes. A judge can hear evidence about adjustments and the reasons ( which are pretty flimsy anyway ) and the court only accepts evidence of a higher standard than a peer reviewed journal.
Im not sure of these court rules for expert evidence but they are supposed to be independent not a just a mouthpiece for one side. But it happens that they are coached by lawyers to say the right things, which is wrong and grounds for an mistrial
Descent
There’s nothing decent about it
Does NASA publish the methodology for their corrections?
If not, then they are not engaged in science.
How about some House hearings to produce their methodology and some testimony under oath to justify the obviously bogus methods.
They can then be fired for cause if the methods are provably producing spurious warming.
As I recall there are a couple of papers describing the methodology, but I don’t remember if they get into the real nitty-gritty of the exact procedure.
They publish all of the methodology for their corrections in the peer reviewed literature, and full references can be found on their website. NASA also publishes a complete history of their temperature product that allows users to easily compare every single version. And, finally, they publish the full source code for the analysis.
However, it has been proven beyond all possible doubt that NASA’s adjustments do not produce spurious warming. In fact, their adjustments actually lower the global trend and show less warming than the raw data do:
If there were to be any fraud, it would have to be NASA trying to convince us that global warming is not as severe as it truly is.
You say “peer reviewed” like that somehow reduces the stench of the brazen fraud. That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.
Fox: “The chickens let us in the coop because they wanted to be eaten.”
Wolf: “Fact check… true!”
If NASA’s publications contain brazen fraud then do please point it out. Perhaps you can also explain why their adjustments reduce the cooling trend if it’s all a fraud to make global warming seem more severe.
Compare the NCAR 1975 charts with the current 2022 NASA chart and you will see the 1940 to 1975 global cooling was “erased”. You should try to do your own thinking and not let the government think for you.
1970’s Global Cooling Scare | Real Climate Science
What is the specific dataset being used in the 1974 Des Moines Sunday Register clipping from that link (I presume this is the “NCAR 1975 [sic]” chart you’re referencing.
Regardless, NASA has hardly erased any midcentury cooling, it is abundantly evident in the graph I posted above.
Funny that, they never ‘not adjust’ . often its to increase the gradient of the mean as that fits the narrative.
Please also explain how did NASA become a weather agency and involved with weather stations and their adjustments .
Upper atmosphere physics and satellite observations , maybe where they should stick to their knitting
That pretend graph is complete nonsense. According to radiosonde data temps in 1958 and 2001 were the same not half a degree warmer as that manufactured utter crap of a graph.
Other than a sharp temporary peak in the early 1940s, the chart shows a flat trend, nothing like what NCAR reported to the public in 1975.
Again, can you identify the specific dataset being used by the 1974 Des Moines Sunday Register clipping from that link (I presume this is the “NCAR 1975 [sic]” chart you’re referencing)? I don’t know what the source is, or how the data were prepared, or what stations were used in the analysis, etc. There’s certainly no reason whatsoever to think that the NCAR in 1974, via the Des Moines Sunday Register, had a better handle on global temperature analyses than NASA does today. Your insinuation of nefarious “erasure” of 1940s cooling is completely baseless.
Not much is known about the global average temperature before 1920 so the official numbers are closer to wild guesses than reality
The significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975, as reported in 1975, was adjusted away before the chart you presented was made. That is a chart used by liars.
The chart I presented shows the unadjusted, raw temperature data, which are the same data available in 1975.
Your chart does not show recorded temperatures. It shows anomalies which are calculated via averages. The averages you are looking at should be gone through all the way back to the Tmax and Tmin temperatures.
You simply can’t declare an average of those two temperatures as incorrect without also declaring the actual recorded temperatures being incorrect also. To declare them incorrect, you need to specify what is wrong and what they should read instead. Simply changing a calculated temperature average as incorrect has no scientific basis at all.
No one is declaring the recorded temperatures as “incorrect.” Sometimes the recorded value can actually be shown to be in error, and this is flagged in the raw data, but adjustments are not being performed to correct measurement errors. Adjustments are being done because we want to take a finite set of point-level temperature measurements and use them to represent a continuous surface – we want to paint between the dots, so to speak. That means the individual points need to be as representative of the areas between the dots as possible, and so adjustments are performed. And on top of this, we want stations to represent changes to the climate through time, and so we have to remove signals from the station records that don’t record changes to the climate but record changes to the station itself instead, whether those are changes in instrumentation or a physical relocation of the station from one place to another.
But as we can see in the graph above, the effect of the adjustments is quite small, and you can pretty much discard all of them and get very close to the right answer anyway. Scientists only perform them because they care very much about getting things as close to correct as possible.
AlanJ writes “But as we can see in the graph above, the effect of the adjustments is quite small, and you can pretty much discard all of them and get very close to the right answer anyway.”
What you can see from the graph is a rate of warming for 40 years before anthropogenic CO2 was having much impact (according to the science) that is the same or greater than when it is thought to be the cause of the warming.
You are lying again and again
The adjusted temperature data presented to the public in 1975 was very different from the adjusted temperature data presented today. That is a fact that can not be disputed,
I did my best effort at digitizing the “NCAR Graph” and plotted it alongside temperature series for the NH,SH, and globe from NASA:
I don’t think they are materially different, except that the NCAR graph is much more smoothed and shows a tiny bit less warming pre-1940 than NASA’s shows.
I also think it’s very likely that this “NCAR graph” is primarily using stations from the northern hemisphere, but without the actual data source that is impossible to verify.
There are no raw unadjusted temperatre data
The so-called raw data includes wild guess infilling
Infilled data are not raw data
They are not data at all.
I clicked on your link “a complete history of their temperature product”.
It appears that their linked graphs show exactly the opposite of your graph.
The latest adjustments (2019) have cooled the past from 1900-1965 and warmed the most recent data.
The plot I posted above shows the latest version of NASA’s temperature dataset compared to the raw, unadjusted temperature data. The NASA website shows the latest version(s) of NASA temperature dataset compared to the earliest versions of NASA’s (adjusted) dataset. Changes in NASA’s analysis have essentially brought their adjusted dataset closer to the raw data, and mostly this is due to changes in the number of stations available for the analysis.
Raw temps or raw averages?
I want to know what year those data charts were compiled. It’s likely to be after the 1940 to 1975 global cooling period ended. That would tell us the first NASA-GISS charts were very different than the existing temperature charts from other scientific agencies. And that would identify when the large arbitrary revisions (that you deny) were first made:
“Following approval by NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan in December 1960 and formal announcement on January 29, 1961, the institute was established by Dr. Robert Jastrow in May 1961 (originally as the New York City office of GSFC’s Theoretical Division) to do basic research in space sciences in support of GSFC programs. Research areas included the structure of Earth, Moon, and other planetary bodies; the atmospheres of Earth and the other planets; the origin and evolution of the solar system; the properties of interplanetary plasma; Sun-Earth relations; and the structure and evolution of stars.”
“The institute’s early study of the Earth and planetary atmospheres using data collected by satellites and space probes eventually led to GISS becoming a leading center of atmospheric modeling and of climate change. Led by Dr. James E. Hansen from 1981 to 2013, research at GISS emphasized a broad study of global change,”
SOURCE: Of QUOTES:
NASA GISS: About GISS
Dang it, my embedded link failed.
All of the GISTEMP graphs show the adjustments from earlier iterations cooling the past and warming the present.
The only exception is the warm period prior to 1900, which was cooled. Presumably to make the temperature data more closely fit the CO2 curve?
Can someone embed the first graph for me? I lack the requisite “google fu”.
The GISTEMP analysis is completely consistent with the raw data, and in fact shows less warming than the raw data shows, as I demonstrated earlier. Whatever changes NASA made to their analysis over the years has had only extremely minor impacts, and most of those have been driven by an increase in the number of station records available for the analysis.
Wut?
How does adding more stations in 1955 result in NASA changing the observed temperature anomaly in 1900 nine times since 1981?
The number of stations that exist in the world at any point in time and the number of station records that NASA has available for each version of their temperature analysis are distinct quantities.
Lying again and again!
Anomalies ARE NOT temperatures. Show the recorded temperatures that have been changed and the reasons. If the readings aren’t changed, then the averages are simply made up values!
I just have to ask – *what* is the raw data? Prior to the 80’s there wasn’t much for computer based records, it was all manual.
What was the uncertainty of the data? Berkeley Earth typically uses the instrument precision prior to the 40’s which actually has nothing to do with uncertainty of the measurement device due to calibration drift and microclimate differences.
I suspect the “raw data” is pretty much what they want it to be. Unless they can put verified, scanned copies of the manual records on-line somewhere I’m not sure I trust anything put out by the government.
You are delving way too far into conspiracy theory territory to possibly sustain rational discourse. Yes, it’s possible that all of the recorded station measurements are fraudulently made up. It’s possible the government is run by lizard people. These aren’t things that can actually be shown. There is no evidence that there has been fraud, so there is no reason to believe in baseless conspiracy theories arising from your fantasies. But I cannot rationally persuade you to abandon such silly notions because logic did not drive you to them to begin with.
Conspiracy?
What’s next Russia colluuuusion 😉
“You are delving way too far into conspiracy theory territory to possibly sustain rational discourse.”
In other words you don’t have an answer. So you use the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal.
“There is no evidence that there has been fraud,”
Lack of evidence is inconclusive, it is *NOT* proof of anything.
Keep up with the argumentative fallacies – they are fun to read.
I’m not saying that it is. Lack of evidence of tails does not mean politicians aren’t secretly lizard people, either. My point is that I have no reason to believe your claims that all of the paper station records have been fraudulently edited unless you can provide evidence of it.
Infilled numbers are not raw data — they are not data at all. Adjusted and homogenized numbers are not data. Only raw measurements are data, and you do not have an average of ONLY raw numbers.
Why are most of my area record temps from the 30s 🤔
Hockey stick away
Those NASA corrections conveniently move the temperatures closer to the models. The models have a real problem fitting the strong warming from circa 1910 to 1945 so if you significantly reduce the slope over that period – Hey Presto! – the models must be right and all we had to do was “correct” the data to discover the truth.
Forgery and fakery. Is that like safe and effective?
The Climate Apocalypse has ALWAYS been a fraud pushed by those that hate the freedom and prosperity produced by the West. That is why their solutions are ALWAYS to destroy the very systems that have freed so much of humanity from poverty and virtual or actual slavery!
I highly recommend Neil Oliver’s rant from yesterday on GBN about the “Green” agenda.
Allow me to provide the link:
For anyone outside of the UK who wants to watch GBNews it is available to watch on the internet. It is the only news channel that I watch now: I have long given up on BBC, ITV and SKY.
Tokyo must also have a growing urban heat island effect actually pushing its temperatures up, so its cooling even more strongly
While I certainly can’t prove anything, with Japan’s long-term stagnant economy it might be that UHI peaked out. Who knows?
I got to know Tokyo quite well nearly 40 years ago. Apart from the beautiful parks it was very densely built up and UHI would have been very strong – even in September it was incredibly hot. It was a huge relief to get off the streets to go into an air-conditioned building.
I would guess that Tokyo’s UHI, although very high, effectively peaked quite a few decades ago, so wouldn’t contribute much to warming over the last few decades. It’s the rate of UHI growth that would corrupt measurements of global warming.
Chris
Why “growing”?
Maybe your unfamiliar with the UHI phenomenon.
https://www.japanfs.org/sp/en/
news/archives/news_id027856.html
https://resources.realestate.co.jp/living/urban-heat-island-effect-why-its-so-hot-in-tokyo-whats-being-done-about-it/
But Japan is a shrinking society and a very efficient one, at that, especially since they feel the constant pressure from importing expensive fuel. So, I would expect a compounded shrinking – fewer persons and less per person.
Why would you say that?
Tokyo was a huge s city in 1989 and also in 2022
No reason to expect much of an increase in UHI since then
See reply to post above.
Nothingburger links
They do not even attempt to claim the UHI effect in Tokyo has increased from 1989 to 2021.
The Dreaded Pause since the 1998 el Niño is obvious too. These will be excellent data points when the time comes to recover the egregiously jiggered data.
What about other temp staions in Japan? I would be interested in a temp record on Pitcairn Island…people have been there for over 2 centuries….too bad they did not maintain a temp record.
I borrowed the third chart from NTZ for my climate science and energy blog. It makes an important point about adjustments. The first two charts are not that useful. Theye are not global average temperatures, of Japan average temperatures or Tokyo average temperatures..
THEY ARE THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN ONE MONTH (October) in two locations.
As a result, they are not very useful except for people who ive in those areas, and even then, only for the month of October. HW IMPORTANT IS THAT FOR EVERYONE ELSE?
RG,
You missed the point!
The falling October temperatures at two points is not that important, but the “adjustments” made by NASA and others show how the “global warming crisis” was and is ginned up!
I didn’t miss the point
That was why I used the third chart and did not use the much less useful first twi charts
I have to disagree with you on your argument Richard. Global average temperatures aren’t important for anyone really as almost no one lives globally. The Global average temperature of China, Russia, Europe, Africa, Australia, South America temps don’t matter much to my local life.
My food is grown locally.
My plants are watered locally.
My garden photosynthesizes from my daily sunshine overhead.
I don’t judge whether I need an umbrella by what’s happening in Outer Mongolia.
I don’t dress according to Temperatures in Rio or Johannesburg.
I know no one lives in the global average temperature but it is the main statistic used for Climate Alarmism, so that makes it important. Of course Climate Alarmism is a prediction of the future global average temperature, which is barely related to the past global average temperature. But if the government bureaucrats are dishonest and/or inaccurate with historical temperature data, they also can’t be trusted to predict the future climate.
There are many things wrong with how a “global anomaly” is calculated. NH winter temps and SH summer temps are split between calendar years for one. NH and SH summer and winter are averaged together, yet they have different variances. Worse, the temps before 1980 are integers, yet they show anomalies to the one one-thousandths decimal place. You simply can not CREATE increased measurement resolution by any kind of mathematics. It simply isn’t possible. If it was, machinists would use plain old sliding calipers, take a bunch of measurements and guarantee their work to accurate to the one ten-thousandths decimal place. Ask someone if they would fly on a plane whose bearings and shafts were made that way!
By my assessment, 99.9% of people would not have a clue how bearings are made or even understanding bearing tolerances. And the same goes for temperature anomalies. Most people do not even distinguish between anomalies and a temperature reading.
It would be distorter for climate alarm if people started to look at temperature data rather than being fed on the anomaly diet.Look at the Greenland plateau. Warmed an alarming 5C over 70 years; trending at 7C per century. Its MAXIMUM temperature is still below MINUS 5C.
So the vast majority of people are being hoodwinked by deceptive data.
No one is using the “global average temperature” because no one knows what it is. They only ever refer to an anomaly. Every climate scientist believe they know exactly how much the globe is going to warm for doubling of CO2 but none can tell what the global average surface temperature is today, last month or last year. There is no agreement on what the global average temperature actually is.
GHCN claim to offer a global product in name but there is nothing on temperature available for Antarctica. So any trend produced from that source excludes that tiny mountain of ice.
Historic temperatures are constantly changing through a process of homogenisation that cools the past to ensure there is always a warming trend.
Well, maybe not as important as the single most powerful tree in the history of science was to warmunist modelers a few years back, but still, pretty important.
One of the alarmists core claims is that a rise in global temperatures is happening everywhere, because CO2 levels are rising in every location. This is supposedly a marked contrast from the LIA and rebound, which hit different areas at different times. ANY location that shows cooling is significant, because it contradicts the hypothesis of CO2 as the planet’s thermostat.
Most rising temperatures seem to be actually measuring urbanisation and the introduction of heating/cooling equipment which generates excess waste heat.
Tokyo has a sophisticated modern city for many years. So when temperature studies started it was already using all sorts of modern equipment, giving it a higher than natural temperature.
I suspect that Toyko has been at the forefront of installing modern equipment, that such equipment is typically more efficient and less wasteful of excess heat, and that in Toyko we are simply measuring the cooing effect of introducing modern equipment…
I believe you are right. But I am unsure if the effect of more efficient systems aka lower heat dissipation is really that relevant for air temperature effect.
On the other hand, with air polution changing, more clean air should lead to temperature rise during sunshine and extra cooling at night. I believe for instance that the temperature rise since the 70-ies in western industrial centres is largely due to that.
(When I was during early 90-ies in Bejing, the air polution there was extrem – lot’s of people on the streets went with masks for a qood reason!)
Certainly, Tokyo was far advanced already when this the local trend downwards started at the same time.
balancing out all the places on the planet which are warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet . earth is like the children of lake woebegone – warming everywhere is above average
The UHI effect is not new. The UK’s temperate climate effected family summer holidays for those who chose rural settings with a reminder to pack a jumper or cardigan for the temperature drop as the Sun set something that happens in urban places too but much later in the evening or night in summer. Do meteoroligists mention UHI when declaring their record decimal point high temperature readings? No, they do not, and that is why the despicable Mann started a decline in scientists taking care not to mislead, most of all to misleading themselves about their importance and reputations.
Sadly too many people are making too much money out of this contnued deception but a day will come …
Meanwhile the monthly temperature in Tokyo for March, May, June, July, and August has been warming over the same period, and the annual trend over this period has also been warming:
And, of course, the global trend over this time period has been one of undeniable warming:
Tokyo is a single location that represents less than 0.0005% of the earth’s surface area.
Prove the warming isn’t natural. You can’t.
Prove that it is natural? I haven’t made any claims about causality in my comments in this thread, although I’m glad you and I both agree that the globe is really warming.
There actually being hundreds, if not thousands of unique climates all around this planet, all doing their own individual things, alt different times, according to their own influences, there will always be climates that are warming while others are cooling.
Tell us what goes on in in the place where this “average global climate” operates.
The construct of a “average global climate” is just meaningless nonsense.
There is indeed tremendous variability in regional climates around the globe, but these all arise from the ways that the energy within the earth system is distributed. The “global climate” refers to the amount of energy present in the system that the available to be distributed. It is this amount of energy in the earth system that is increasing. That is what is meant by “global climate change.”
No it doesn’t. It is temperature only. It does not measure the enthalpy at each location which is measure of energy. It is merely assumed that temperature is a valid proxy for energy and that is not a very good assumption.
This isn’t true either. The sun provides the energy in the earth’s system. If the energy is increasing, then the sun’s insolation must be providing the additional energy. Think clouds which climate science has a dearth of research about. My guess is that most climate scientists don’t want to upset the apple cart by learning that clouds are a negative feedback that limits the insolation reaching the earths surface and whose modulation determines cooling and warming.
The energy content of the system is related to the difference in the flow of incoming energy to the flow of outgoing energy. The climate will warm both in the case that energy is flowing in at an increased rate and in the case that energy is flowing out at a decreased rate.
The problem determine which is what and why.
Very scary chart you produced, .4 of a degree warming over 34 years. Properly scaled the trend is pretty flat, 1.2 degrees in a century, or to put it another way, the same warming from 0930 this morning to 1230. Warming, yes, catastrophic, no.
Warming yes. But not much.
A similar slope of warming from about 1910-1945.
No clear correlation to CO2
A good deal of the “global” warming is occurring in the Arctic. For example, I have attached the GHCN chart for the Greenland plateau. It has undergone ENORMOUS warming with average increase of 5C over 70 years.
You can see most of the warming has occurred in the minimums; dramatically up from around MINUS 35C to MINUS 25C. So still mighty cold.
On the other hand the temperature of the tropical oceans is steady. Nino34 region has zero trend over the 4 decades of satellite records.
Anomalies of a some global average temperature is a means of convincing lazy, naive people that there is a “climate” problem.
Start taking a look at what is behind this silly chart you post.
Certainly the starkest warming has occurred in the Arctic, but the entire planet has been warming:
1) raw or adjusted?
2) source of data?
The data in the graph are from the source linked in the head post. They are the raw station measurements.
All climate models show every month everywhere is warming. That is the way CO2 works in climate models. And climate models are the only place where warming is global.
If there is one location that has downward trend for a specific time of the year then that disproves CO2 induced temperature increase. Likewise find any location on the globe that has a long term downward trend also disproves the CO2 induced warming. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean has cooled since satellite recordings have been available over the past 40 years.
Climate models do not show linear monotonic warming, they capture a range of internal natural variability across all timescales:
I don’t think they are the “raw temperatures”. They are the raw averages of Tmax and Tmin. Unless those two temperatures are changed, no averages should be changed either.
The mean of temperatures reflect UHI effects in minimums. Surface temperature measurements cannot be used for scientific studies of global warming. This has been covered at WUWT many times; look it up.
Picture a major tax preparation software program that always and only rounded all values to the benefit of their end users. Rounding up or down would not be based on whether the change portion of a line item was more or less than fifty cents. Instead every instance of rounding would be to the advantage of the end user.
How long before the maker of that program was hauled into court? Fined? Banned from the marketplace?
It seems like virtually all temp adjustments favor the Warmunists. A reckoning is way overdue, starting with valid audits. That seems like a job for a Republican congress, starting in early 2023.
There was actually a case back in the 1970s where a programmer in a bank’s organization was convicted of theft for diverting the decimal places of 1 cent resulting from earned interest calculations into a deposit account of his own making.
Only discovered by accident during a system crash while he was on vacation, iirc.
That was the basis of a comedy movie, too. I forget the name at the moment…
You’re thinking of Office Space, Matthew
The Autumn season across the NH seems to be showing little or no warming over recent years unlike the Spring.
lts the Autumn season that’s been having the largest growth in snow extent over the last 50 years. Here in the UK the Autumn season has shown no warming since around 2005. While my first snow data recorded here in N Linc’s,England has shown no warming trend since it started in 1977.
UK has declining autumn sunlight. This is how October solar EMR is changing at 55N over the centuries:
-0.500 209.016063
-0.400 208.790570
-0.300 208.553514
-0.200 208.305398
-0.100 208.046713
0.000 207.777936
0.100 207.499562
0.200 207.211858
Presently declining around 0.4Wm^2 per century. The variation is also significant from year-to-year from and orbital perspective.
The October sunlight will decline for another 8000 years and eventually get down to 185W/m^2. At some time before then, the snowfall will be enough at similar northern latitudes for ice to accumulate again.
Due to thermal lag, the September solar EMR at 36N will be the main natural driver of land surface temperature in Tokyo. It has been declining at 0.5W/m^2 per century for millennia now. This is the last three hundred years and next 100 year:
-0.300 395.520299
-0.200 395.062350
-0.100 394.604834
0.000 394.148071
0.100 393.690790
There should be a long term downward trend in October temperature as result.
The other interesting aspect of Tokyo is that it has been a modern, energy intensive city for decades now and is making efforts to green the city. The UHI will not be changing as much in Tokyo as other developing Asian cities.
The only useful data is raw data, any data that has been adjusted in any way for any reason is just that adjusted data. The only thing I care about is what my thermometer says in my backyard. Yes I am saying I have more faith in my crappy hardware store thermometer than all the adjusted data in the world.
Do you keep a record of readings or just adhoc?
If you have a record, what is the trend showing (change in mins and max for example) and what is the latitude of your back yard?
AlanJ Reply to Pillage Idiot November 7, 2022 10:26 am
AlanJ shows a graph of global temperature estimates with a blue line labelled “Global Raw”.
That blue line includes data supplied by numerous countries, including my Australia.
Colleague Tome berger and I have examined the Australian “Raw” data and reported our findings here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/14/uncertainty-of-measurement-of-routine-temperatures-part-iii/
AlanJ, you should not claim data as “Raw” data unless you have established that it is.
In the Australian case, we show evidence that some “Raw” data has already been “Adjusted”.
So, AlanJ, will you produce some evidence from other countries that you assume to be providing “Raw” data are actually doing so?
If you cannot show that “Raw” is raw, then you have no argument.
Geoff S
Nothing in your article suggests that the raw data have been adjusted, and claiming that they have been would require you to completely redefine the meaning of the word “adjustment.” You find a tiny handful of minor issues in a few example of BOM data and insisted that these suggest fraud based on… literally nothing whatsoever. You completely fail to show that these tiny handful of issues have even the tiniest hint of material impact on the global temperature index.
Bingo!
The planet warms then it cools. Over the past two thousand years we have had global periods of warming and cooling. Why should modern times be any different and why is it all of a sudden man’s fault? What happened to natural variability? Fraudsters look rediculous claiming CO2 emissions are causing warming with no direct proof. And why did they rename it climate change instead of.global warming? Those who can’t see the scam never will .