There is great excitement – jubilation even – at the Met Office and its mainstream media publishing partners with the news that the U.K. is on track to record its ‘hottest’ year ever (well at least since records began about 150 years ago). Helped by a mild winter and autumn and a glorious summer, the average temperature in 2022 looks to come in at 9.99oC, up from the previous 2014 record of 9.88oC. But the overall global temperature, according to accurate satellite measurements, has not moved for over eight years. As we shall see, the Met Office increases in surface measurements would appear to owe something to increasing urban heat corruption, as well as some curious sitings of measuring devises.
There is no more curious placing of a measuring devise than half way down the runway of a military airbase that houses two squadrons of Typhoon fighter jets. The Met Office tells us that one of the weather extremes of 2022 was a high of 40.3oC on July 19th. Regular readers will recall that we have questioned this ‘record’ at RAF Coningsby, since the temperature held for only 60 seconds at 3.12pm and was preceded by a 0.6oC jump in the previous two minutes. By 3.13pm the temperature had fallen back to 39.7oC. The Met Office first explained that the sudden rise could have been due to cloud cover, but a satellite photo shows clear skies across Lincolnshire at that moment. The Daily Sceptic has since established that at least two Typhoon jets were operating at the base at the time. The Met Office has ignored all our subsequent questions about the claim.
The Coningsby incident is indicative of possible urban heat corruption over much of the Met Office surface temperature database. Airport sitings are common with temperature highs often reported at Heathrow and nearby RAF Northolt. Temperature recordings at airports are an easy source of data, since accurate measurements alongside runways are required for safe aircraft movements. But similar temperature corruptions are also to be found in towns and cities.
In recent ground-breaking work, two American scientists – Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor John Christy – working out of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, have separated the effect of urbanisation on temperature measurements. They used a satellite database of urbanisation change called ‘Built Up’ and found large corruptions across the urban record. Over the last 50 years, it was discovered that warming had been exaggerated by up to 50% across the eastern United States.
Spencer and Christy also checked out a number of U.S. airports, comparing the raw data from the U.S. weather service NOAA with their ‘de-urbanised’ figures. At Orlando International Airport in Florida, the NOAA data showed massive warming of 0.3oC per decade, but this fell to just 0.07oC when adjusted for urban heat. The two scientists have supplied similar findings for Canada and promise further country work in the future including the U.K.
In the U.S., NOAA’s surface data has been criticised on a number of scientific fronts. The American meteorologist Anthony Watts recently published a 10-year study calling the database “fatally flawed”. He found that 96% of U.S. temperature stations failed to meet what NOAA itself considered to be acceptable and uncorrupted placement standards. The findings must be a major concern since the U.S. record is a large constituent of global databases, including one run by the Met Office called HadCRUT. These global databases have been adjusted to show more recent global warming, a trend that is not immediately obvious in satellite or meteorological balloon records.
In light of this recent urban heat evidence, the Daily Sceptic has asked the Met Office if it intends to continue using raw data from airport and urban sites without making substantial recalculations to remove all non-climatic corruptions? As we have noted, the Met Office has failed to respond. But urban heat corruption must be a major consideration when analysing this heavily-quoted data. In the year of the hot summer of 1976, the average annual temperature was 8.74oC, compared with this year’s 9.99oC. But only 56 million people lived in the U.K. around 50 years ago compared with almost 69 million today. Over the last 50 years there has been considerable urban development, and many towns and cities have increased significantly in size and density.
It is reasonable to ask if average Met Office temperatures rising well over 1oC during this period solely reflect natural increases, or is around 50% of the warming a temporary feature of urban development? One day, the Met Office might tell us. Since 1979, the satellite record has shown warming across the globe of around 0.6oC. Temperatures have still to pass the last high point in 1998.
In the meantime, it is full speed ahead with weather catastrophisation stories designed to promote the Net Zero political agenda. In the latest bout of climate Armageddon preaching, the BBC subbed up the Met Office press release and listed this year’s “extreme” events. Obviously, the Coningsby triumph was mentioned (see above), but so was the mild autumn. Also “extreme” was the brief winter cold snap in early December (nobody saw that coming, did they?) and three storms In February. Depressions often follow one another in the middle of winter off the Atlantic, so why this should be considered “extreme” is a mystery. Tinder-dry conditions are said to have “gripped” the U.K. during August. Again, dry periods in the middle of summer – it’s almost beyond understanding.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Stop Press: Tom Slater has written a good piece for Spiked on the rise of the eco-cult.
The UK Met Office has long been corrupted. Nobody employed at the Met Office is allowed to speak the truth, otherwise they would lose their career, good salary, good working conditions and good pension. How the employees can live a working life which is a perpetual lie, I do not know.
Piss off – brain dead spammer.
You’ve just been ratioed into embarrassment.
Because they believe it.
You mention both population growth and ‘tinder’ dry conditions.
The two are connected as there has been very little if any new reservoir capacity built in the last 40 years to match the population growth.
If there had been, then people could have watered gardens and farmers irrigated fields averting some of the fires that occurred in urban areas and crop losses elsewhere.
If the government and others really believed the threat of hotter and drier conditions, why have they not built the reservoir capacity that could combat the threat?
Because there are no brown envelopes to be had for essential work.
The real reason is that the UK is still in thrall to the EU Water Directives that seek to avoid building new reservoirs and forbid new inter river basin water transfers, preferring to ration by quota and price.
Because the government legally allows the water companies to have huge leakage rates. The UK works by patching up the pipework whereas in Japan they focused on renewing the pipework to prevent leakage and have achieved a loss rate of just 2% – probably as much as the UK loses in a week.
Of course it was the hottest year ever. The data comes mostly from meteorological stations affected by urban development. Until the population stops growing along with infrastructure, every year will be the hottest year ever or close to it. It would make more sense to develop a network of well-sited stations like the US Climate Reference Network but an enormous amount of funding for pet “climate” projects relies on being able to claim that temperatures are only going up. So they will.
I would shorten the title to something more appropriate:
“Questions Remain Over Met Office”
Not really. The answers are plain to see. The Met Office is the Anglican version of the Vatican of the Church of Climastrology.
Seek and ye shall find…
“”Dr Mark McCarthy, a senior climate scientist at the Met Office, said the provisional figures are in line with the “genuine impacts we expect as a result of human-induced climate change”.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64111625
At most airfields etc
What they “expect” is based on flawed climate models.
Also “in line with” actually means very little since it suggests agreement without stating any measurable ( and thus falsifiable ) claim of accuracy.
For a “senior climate scientist” to make such unscientific statements tells us they cannot make any scientific claims so resort to linguistic red scarf tricks which generate a false impression with the public yet remain safe from being proven as a lie because they are totally meaningless in reality.
Anyone with the title “senior climate scientist at the Met Office” is a spin doctor, public relations manager, not an honest scientist giving you an objective assessment of anything.
I liked his term of ‘genuine impacts’
As if it’s more real…
Should have been ‘actual real life genuine impacts’
Hey, stand by for the Guardian/BBC reports of the hottest temp yet ‘recorded’ in the UK.
I can see the headline already. ‘UK temperature being affected by summer Typhoons.’
Monbiot would happily peddle the misplaced truth in that story, as he shoves another log onto one of his three domestic log burners.
“summer Typhoons”
At RAF Coningsby
Actually the BBC website headline was “2022 was the hottest year ever”, my emphasis. That prompted a complaint from me, even if it was the hottest year since records began it certainly wouldn’t have been “ever” (about 4 billion years ago would have been the hottest year ever across the globe guaranteed, never mind more recent times millions of years ago etc).
REPORTER:
“How hot was it?”
MET Office:
“In scientific terms, it was so hot outdoors at noon in most days that one could fry an egg on a bald man’s head.”
REPORTER:
“What does that mean in degrees?”
MET Office
“It means climate change was WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT and is a health hazard for bald men”
I tried frying an egg on the tarmac on the hottest day of the year, in the south of England. It didn’t work.
You needed to nip around to the “Walkie-Talkie” and find the focus for that.
Australia, plausibly, has less UHI potential because of power population density.
Exhaustive analysis of ground stations is at Chris Gillham’s waclimate web site.
Here is UAH satellite for Australia.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahdec2022.jpg
Quote:“It is reasonable to ask if average Met Office temperatures rising well over 1oC during this period solely reflect natural increases, or is around 50% of the warming a temporary feature of urban development?
No its not reasonable. Assert something. Assert yourself. Do not be a simpering over-obedient little wimp who will be relentlessly shagged, robbed and abused by these people.
They are supposed to be YOUR servants – you pay the piper, you call the tune, they do what you tell them.
Okaaaaay, in the spirit of politeness & niceness, yes you do ‘ask’ but those ‘asks’ are in fact ‘orders’
Start by telling them that the wester side of England, for 2022, had it’s 6th out of 20 warmest year. That the Eastern side had its warmest
TELL THEM, that you want to know why
Tell them that the Western side, for last 20 years is on a cooling trend and Eastern is rapidly warming
TELL THEM that you want to know why
Tell them that the summer months were above average warmer but that for whole of England, we’ve just had the 2nd coldest|December in the last 20 years.
TELL THEM you want answers as to why that is.
Demand to know how CO2 did any of those things and why, presence/absence of water is completely ruled out.
Real answers, not computers models, not trashings of the 2nd Law, not personal insults (incl being ignored or cancelled), not because ‘scientists’ say.
Tell them you want real actual thermodynamics involving:
Else tell them to close the door on their way out and not to come back
(They weren’t really trying to say that a passing cloud caused the high temp at Coningsby – were they?. Lord help us all if so)
Insulting your intelligence is their normal mode of communication.
Stand up to them and they vanish like the snows of yesteryear.
I’m talking about YOU Mr. Betts!
Speaking of insulting intelligence, has Griff been banned, received his last booster?
See my analysis of the record-breaking stations at https://cliscep.com/2022/08/15/meltdown/
Good work.
Going to get “hotter” in Britain? Yahoo! Then, just like the Roman Warm Period, Britain can up its production of wine grapes and have an alternative to drinking warm beer. Wait for it.
They knew already in October that it would be a record year. It depended a bit still on how warm the remainder would be but the announcement was already being prepared. Then there was to their utter surprise apparently, a serious cold spell in December but the memo about that was lost in the strikes by the Post Office. By the end of next year it will be quietly peddled back because by then we will be hearing with much fanfare that 2023 is on course to become the hottest year ever.
“It is reasonable to ask if average Met Office temperatures rising well over 1oC during this period solely reflect natural increases, or is around 50% of the warming a temporary feature of urban development? One day, the Met Office might tell us. Since 1979, the satellite record has shown warming across the globe of around 0.6oC.”
Or could it be that different parts of the world are warming at different rates?
UAH shows Northern Hemisphere Land warming at 0.2°C / decade, around 0.9°C since 1979.
Oceans warm less than land, so the NH warms faster than the SH
Oceans have thermal inertia,
The SH has more oceans (%) than the NH
Also Antarctica does not warm from greenhouse gas increases, while the Arctic warms a lot.
“Or could it be that different parts of the world are warming at different rates?”
An “average” means some higher and some lower. That also implies that some areas could be *cooling*. The entire globe doesn’t have to be “warming”.
The “average” also fails to show WHAT is warming? Daytime temps, nighttime temps, or both? This is a *very* important distinction that must be made if proper judgements are to be made. But you can’t tell what is happening from “averages”.
Are there places that are cooling?
“An “average” means some higher and some lower. ”
Exactly the point I was making. The quote is implying there is something suspicious about the UK warming faster than one of the global average data sets. But this is to be expected if some parts are warming faster than others.
“Daytime temps, nighttime temps, or both?”
I’ll check the trend for you when I get a chance, but in the UK this year it’s been the daytime temps that have doing more if the work. In the CET maximum temps are going to beat the old record by around 0.5°C. Mean temps are beating the record by around 0.1°C. I suspect this might be connected to the fact it’s been quite sunny this year.
“Are there places that are cooling?”
All the information is available. You could easily answer the question yourself.
Here are GISS changes since 1979. Main areas that are cooler is in the Pacific and around the Antarctic.
Here are the top 10 annual averages for the UK,
Starting with TMEAN
TMIN
TMAX
So, 2022 was the warmest on record for both mean and maximum temperatures, but only second warmest for minimums.
On the other hand note that all 10 warmest years for mean and mins are from the 21st century, there are, there are a couple of early 20th century years that sneak in for maximum temps.
Since 1979 (for comparison with UAH), the linear trends have been
TMean: 0.32 ± 0.11 °C / decade
TMin: 0.27 ± 0.10 °C / decade
TMax: 0.37 ± 0.12 °C / decade
(Trends based on OLS regression using annual values. All uncertainties are 2 sigma values, and do not take into account auto-correlation. )
So over that period there has been a faster rate of warming during day time rather than night time temperatures.
Here’s a graph showing the complete range of UK max and min temperatures since 1884.
All this shows is the increasing impact of UHI on temperature trends.
Why do you think that would cause day temperatures to warm faster than night?
UHI would cause daytime temps to go up faster as the measuring station is biased by the heat being absorbed and emitted by the surrounding microclimate. E.g. airplane exhausts heating the tarmac next to a measuring station which is then picked up as increased temps by the measuring station. Or air conditioners exhausting more heat during the day as buildings are warmed by the sun. Or measuring stations situated over gravel instead of grass. Lots of multiple impacts of UHI will show up, even windblown UHI from upwind sources.
Without the input from the sun, i.e. at night, there is less input to the microclimate. Less air conditioning heat being exhausted. Less heat being absorbed and re-radiated by gravel. Fewer airliner take-offs and landings heating the tarmac. Less wind at night dispersing UHI. Nighttime temps will *still* decay slower if things like airliners keep flying after dark but they will still go down faster than daytime temps go up.
Nothing can be allowed to challenge the Holy Trends.
Give it a rest. Your inane trolling isn’t helping anyone.
Statement proven…
“In the CET maximum temps are going to beat the old record by around 0.5°C.”
+/- 0.5C is the accepted measurement uncertainty in most field temperature measuring stations. So we really don’t know if this year is any warmer or not.
“Mean temps are beating the record by around 0.1°C.”
Which, again, is meaningless in the face of measurement uncertainty of +/- 0.5C per measurement station. The mean of measured physical quantities is not itself a measured quantity, you can’t go out and actually measure a mean temperature. Therefore the uncertainty of the measured quantities must be propagated onto that calculated mean. You cannot decrease measurement uncertainty by calculating an average that cannot itself be measured.
It’s the annual average, not an individual measurement. Unless you think each of the stations decided to measure 0.5°C warmer every day of the year, compared with previous years, it’s very likely that this year was warmer.
“You cannot decrease measurement uncertainty by calculating an average that cannot itself be measured.”
You can if if you stop ignoring how propagation actually works.
And you call me the “troll”, heh.
I do when you behave like one. Posting countless one line personal insults, rather than respond to the point being made.
Given we’ve been over the argument about how to propagate independent uncertainties when averaging for almost 2 years now, I don’t see much point in repeating the explanation again at this late stage.
You will continue to propagate these lies, and I will continue to laugh.
An average is an average. The annual average is ultimately derived from daily mid-range values (misnamed an “average”) which are then used to develop a set of monthly “averages”. Those monthly averages are then used to calculate the annual average.
“Unless you think each of the stations decided to measure 0.5°C warmer every day of the year, compared with previous years, it’s very likely that this year was warmer.”
Where does this statement come from? The issue is that unless all those stations actually measured temperatures with a difference greater than their uncertainty (i.e. 0.5C) you simply can’t tell what happened! In actuality since one temp could be at the +0.5C end of the uncertainty interval and the next one at the -0.5C end of the interval (or vice versa) you could say that you need a 1C difference in readings to be sure something actually happened.
If you have 100 boards, 50 measured with a device having a +/- 0.08′ uncertainty and 50 measured with a device having a +/- 0.05′ uncertainty, whose average length is 6′ then what is the measurement uncertainty of boards that are 6′ long?
If you calculate the average measurement uncertainty it turns out to be +/- 0.0063′. *That* is the value climate scientists want us to believe is the measurement uncertainty of the average board that is 6′, when in actuality those boards that are of average length either have a measurement uncertainty of +/- 0.08′ or +/- 0.04′!
This applies directly to temperatures as well. You simply cannot reduce the measurement uncertainty of the mean by finding the average uncertainty of the population. Nor can you substitute the standard deviation of the sample means for the uncertainty of the mean, The standard deviation of the sample means is an index of something not associated with the measurement uncertainty of the mean.
CAGW advocates hate measurement uncertainty. It is messy to evaluate, it is messy to propagate and, worst of all, it invalidates their attempt at saying one year is .01C hotter than the previous year. So they just assume that all measurement uncertainty cancels and doesn’t need to be addressed in any way. So they just keep adding data elements in an attempt to make their “average” more and more precise instead. With enough data elements they actually believe they could lower the uncertainty of the average out to any level they want, even out to the thousandths digit.
Only (apparently) in climatology do practitioners get away with reporting these absurdly small 10-50 mK field temperature “uncertainties”; people on the outside who are more aligned with reality can do nothing but laugh and shake theirs heads at the incredulity of these numbers.
Climatology really is a pseudoscience.
“An average is an average.”
Correct. You might want to stop there, whilst you’re on a streak.
“The annual average is ultimately derived from daily mid-range values (misnamed an “average”) which are then used to develop a set of monthly “averages”.”
I’m not sure of the relevance here, as it was the maximum temperatures you were complaining about.
“In actuality since one temp could be at the +0.5C end of the uncertainty interval and the next one at the -0.5C end of the interval (or vice versa) you could say that you need a 1C difference in readings to be sure something actually happened.”
Again, that’s just talking about one measurement. If you have 365 daily measurements from one year and another 365 daily measurements from a previous year, the odds on every one being at one end of the uncertainty interval in one year but at the other end in the previous year, is very small.
“If you have 100 boards, 50 measured with a device having a +/- 0.08′ uncertainty and 50 measured with a device having a +/- 0.05′ uncertainty, whose average length is 6′ then what is the measurement uncertainty of boards that are 6′ long?”
Not sure what you mean by “uncertainty of boards that are 6′ long”. Are you asking about the uncertainty of the average length of a board, or an individual board that is already known to be 6′ long?
“If you calculate the average measurement uncertainty it turns out to be +/- 0.0063′.”
No, the average measurement uncertainty is (0.08 + 0.05) / 2 = 0.065′. I’m assuming you mean the measurement uncertainty of the average.
“*That* is the value climate scientists want us to believe is the measurement uncertainty of the average board that is 6′, when in actuality those boards that are of average length either have a measurement uncertainty of +/- 0.08′ or +/- 0.04′!”
I think what you are trying to say is that even though the measurement uncertainty of the average length of the board is ±0.0063′, the measurement uncertainty of an individual board is either 0.08 or 0.04, depending on which measuring device you were using. I’m not sure why you think climate scientists disagree with that.
“You simply cannot reduce the measurement uncertainty of the mean by finding the average uncertainty of the population.”
You can if you understand the maths.
“…it invalidates their attempt at saying one year is .01C hotter than the previous year.”
Nobody should say that if the difference is only 0.01C, we know for certain that one is warmer. But we were talking about the CET maximum temperatures with a difference of 0.5°C.
I think it is statically very likely that this was the warmest year for maximum temperatures, and statistically unlikely that minimum temperatures were a record. But it really doesn’t matter, which year was warmer than another year. It has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, that maximum temperatures were relatively hotter than minimum temperatures.
“Again, that’s just talking about one measurement. If you have 365 daily measurements from one year and another 365 daily measurements from a previous year, the odds on every one being at one end of the uncertainty interval in one year but at the other end in the previous year, is very small.”
That isn’t the point at all but, then, you know that, right?
If the uncertainty interval associated with the 365 Year1 measurements is the same as the 365 Year2 measurements and the difference between Year1 and Year2 is within those uncertainty limits then how do you know what the difference actually is? It could be positive, negative, or 0.
“Not sure what you mean by “uncertainty of boards that are 6′ long”.”
Of course you don’t know. It’s either because you don’t want to know or because you truly don’t understand anything.
If the average length of the 100 boards is 6′ then what is the measurement uncertainty of those boards that are 6′ long?
How hard is that to understand?
“No, the average measurement uncertainty is (0.08 + 0.05) / 2 = 0.065′. I’m assuming you mean the measurement uncertainty of the average.”
That is *NOT* what you and bdgwx keep arguing. You both have argued that average uncertainty is total uncertainty divided by either sqrt(N) or just N.
Using your equation what is the total uncertainty? Is it 100 x (.065) = 6.5? Is it sqrt(100 * .065^2) = 0.65?
And how does *any* of these values tell you what the uncertainty of the average length of board is? It can only be +/- 0.08′ or +/- 0.04′. It can’t be anything else.
It’s why the average uncertainty is not the uncertainty of the average!
“ I’m not sure why you think climate scientists disagree with that.”
Because the *ONLY* way they can get their ridiculously low uncertainty values is by calculating the average value of the uncertainties, i.e. dividing the total uncertainty by a large number!
“You can if you understand the maths.”
The mean is 6′. You have boards 6′ long. The measurement uncertainty of those 6′ boards is *not* the average uncertainty. It is physical measurement uncertainty associated with the 6′ boards.
Do you understand how idiotic your assertion is? That the physical measurement uncertainty is not the uncertainty of the mean value?
“Nobody should say that if the difference is only 0.01C, we know for certain that one is warmer. But we were talking about the CET maximum temperatures with a difference of 0.5°C.”
You will never understand. Look at your graph. All the values lie within the uncertainty interval.
“that maximum temperatures were relatively hotter than minimum temperatures.”
If all the values are within the measurement uncertainty interval then you don’t know anything of the sort.
“If the uncertainty interval associated with the 365 Year1 measurements is the same as the 365 Year2 measurements and the difference between Year1 and Year2 is within those uncertainty limits then how do you know what the difference actually is?”
Using statistics.
“Of course you don’t know. It’s either because you don’t want to know or because you truly don’t understand anything.”
Or because your examples are nonsensical or badly explained.
“If the average length of the 100 boards is 6′ then what is the measurement uncertainty of those boards that are 6′ long?”
Assuming there are any boards that are exactly 6′ long, the measurement uncertainty is the same as for any other board.
“That is *NOT* what you and bdgwx keep arguing. You both have argued that average uncertainty is total uncertainty divided by either sqrt(N) or just N.”
Explains this for the thousandth time. No. We say the uncertainty of the average is the uncertainty of the total divided by N, not that this is the average uncertainty.
“Using your equation what is the total uncertainty? Is it 100 x (.065) = 6.5? Is it sqrt(100 * .065^2) = 0.65?”
Assuming independent uncertainties, it will be sqrt(50 * 0.08^2 + 50 * 0.04^2) ~= 0.63.
“And how does *any* of these values tell you what the uncertainty of the average length of board is?”
Again. Divide the uncertainty of the sum by N and you get the measurement uncertainty of the average. So 0.0063.
“It can only be +/- 0.08′ or +/- 0.04′. It can’t be anything else.”
And we are back to argument by assertion.
“Because the *ONLY* way they can get their ridiculously low uncertainty values is by calculating the average value of the uncertainties, i.e. dividing the total uncertainty by a large number!”
Again. Uncertainty of the average is not the average uncertainty. And again, the uncertainty estimates for global anomalies are not calculated like that.
“The mean is 6′. You have boards 6′ long.”
What if half your boards are 4′ and the other half 8′?
“The measurement uncertainty of those 6′ boards is *not* the average uncertainty.”
It would really help if you explained at some point where this nonsense is going. The measurement uncertainty of a board that just happens to be exactly 6′ long, has nothing to do with the uncertainty of the average.
“If all the values are within the measurement uncertainty interval then you don’t know anything of the sort.”
Then stop moaning about how nobody says if it’s maximum or minimum temperatures that are going up more. Why ask the question if you think it’s impossible to know?
“Using statistics.”
Malarky! This is just you proving that your claim that you don’t believe the average uncertainty is the uncertainty of the average is a lie.
Using this excuse you could use a yardstick to measure something down to thousandths digit! Just take enough measurements and calculate the average!
“Assuming there are any boards that are exactly 6′ long, the measurement uncertainty is the same as for any other board.”
Your statistics, i.e. the average, won’t tell you that. At least not in the way you apply the statistics.
“Explains this for the thousandth time. No. We say the uncertainty of the average is the uncertainty of the total divided by N, not that this is the average uncertainty.”
Did you actually read this after you wrote it and posted it?
The total/nbr-of-elements is *NOT* an average? What exactly do you consider an average to be?
“Again. Divide the uncertainty of the sum by N and you get the measurement uncertainty of the average. So 0.0063.”
But the measurement uncertainty of the boards has already been defined as being either 0.08′ or 0.04′. So the average uncertainty simply is *NOT* the measurement uncertainty of the average!
You suffer from the same malady as most statisticians and climate scientists – living in a separate dimension disconnected from our reality. You can’t even consider that your statistical description simply doesn’t describe reality!
The average uncertainty is merely a value that, when distributed across all data elements and is multiplied by the number of elements, gives the same value as the sum of the individual elements!
It’s a phantom number as far as reality is concerned!
“This is just you proving that your claim that you don’t believe the average uncertainty is the uncertainty of the average is a lie.”
You really need to stop obsessing about this phrase. I’m sure it means something to you, and you are just not expressing it very well, but it just makes you look manic.
“Using this excuse you could use a yardstick to measure something down to thousandths digit!”
I keep explaining why that would be pointless and likely impossible.
“Your statistics, i.e. the average, won’t tell you that. At least not in the way you apply the statistics.”
I don’t need statistics to tell me what the uncertainty of measuring a 6′ board is. You already said what it was in your example. Nor can I fathom why you think knowing the average will tell me what the individual measurement uncertainty is.
These examples would be a lot less tedious if you actually thought about the point you were trying to make in the first place.
“Did you actually read this after you wrote it and posted it?”
I don’t see any typos in it.
“The total/nbr-of-elements is *NOT* an average?”
It is. Why? Do you think it isn’t?
“What exactly do you consider an average to be?”
That’s to complex a question to think about this time of night.
“So the average uncertainty simply is *NOT* the measurement uncertainty of the average!”
As I keep trying to tell you.
This is really the most demented conversation we are in. You keep saying X is not true, I keep agreeing with you, then you keep insisting that you’re correct and I’m wrong because X is not true.
“You suffer from the same malady as most statisticians and climate scientists”
I’ll take that as a complement.
“The average uncertainty is merely a value that, when distributed across all data elements and is multiplied by the number of elements, gives the same value as the sum of the individual elements!”
Indeed, but this doesn’t have anything to do with the uncertainty of the average.
“It’s a phantom number as far as reality is concerned!”
Then stop going on about it. The only person I’ve seen suggesting the uncertainty of the average should be the same value as the average uncertainty is Kip Hansen. But for some reason you never explain why you think he’s wrong.
“You really need to stop obsessing about this phrase. I’m sure it means something to you, and you are just not expressing it very well, but it just makes you look manic.”
It’s reality! Sorry if that intrudes on your delusions but that’s life!
“I keep explaining why that would be pointless and likely impossible.”
Then why do you keep defending the practice in climatology?
“I don’t need statistics to tell me what the uncertainty of measuring a 6′ board is. You already said what it was in your example. Nor can I fathom why you think knowing the average will tell me what the individual measurement uncertainty is.”
Then why did you claim the measurement uncertainty of the board was the average uncertainty and not its defined measured uncertainty? It’s neither 0.6 or .0063 or anything else like you calculated. Are you now trying to run away from your own assertions? It wouldn’t be the first time – but you will *ALWAYS* circle back to those same assertions EVERY SINGLE TIME!
“It is. Why? Do you think it isn’t?”
YOU are the one claiming it isn’t an average, not me.
“As I keep trying to tell you.”
Then why did you claim it is?
“Then stop going on about it. The only person I’ve seen suggesting the uncertainty of the average should be the same value as the average uncertainty is Kip Hansen. But for some reason you never explain why you think he’s wrong.”
That is *NOT* what Kip has said.
You are in so deep you can’t even keep track of your own assertions let alone someone else’s. STOP DIGGING! Your hole is deep enough.
“That is *NOT* what Kip has said.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/09/plus-or-minus-isnt-a-question/
Oddly, the climate alarmist crowd will always greet news of higher temperatures with enthusiasm and with the hope for a continuation of further indications of warming. If they really believed the predictions, they should be hoping for warming to stop, but that would get in the way of their real agenda. Warming must not stop until the world order has been remade in their vision of what the world order should be.
“Accurate” in this context means accurately reflecting the temperature of the air directly above the runway since this is what determines the lift of the aircraft’s wings and is what pilots need to know to calculate passenger and cargo weight limits for prevailing conditions.
The corollary is that this is expressly what you do NOT want if you are attempting to follow general meteorological or climatic changes.
Weather stations must NOT be close to concrete or tarmac surfaces, buildings or other sources of heat ( such as air-con outlets or AIRCRAFT EXHAUST flows ).
Heathrow is the largest commercial airport in Europe with flights leaving and landing every 20 SECONDS on average. It has also undergone massive expansion since 1960 when IPCC is claiming we should see a significant AGW effect.
Everything possible is wrong with Heathrow as a climate recording station , except for the fact that ALL the biases fit the AGW narrative. That is why the lying Met Office keeps using it and “validates” records which it transmits to media sources for scaremongering headlines.
Doesn’t matter if historical temperature data are right or wrong
Hysterical climate scaremongering (CAGW) is not based on historical temperature data. Or any other data. Just wild speculation.
The Central England Temperature (CET) series also set a new record warmest year in 2022 (record starts in 1659). None of its sites are at airports.
“Everything possible is wrong with Heathrow as a climate recording station , except for the fact that ALL the biases fit the AGW narrative. That is why the lying Met Office keeps using it and “validates” records which it transmits to media sources for scaremongering headlines.”
That’s exactly what is happening.
Temperature data has been corrupted at the highest levels of government.
I know from my own garden positioning came make a huge difference .My outdoor thermometer is on a north facing wall and does not get any sun on it , the readings generally agree with weather forecast , another thermometer is on a sunny concrete slab patio , this will read up to 12C higher than my other thermometer .
The chart that the author posts in support of his own argument clearly shows this claim to be false. 2016 and 2020 were both warmer years than 1998 in the UAH record and the warming trend in UAH since 1998 is +0.11C per decade; just shy of the full trend of +0.13C per decade.
And UAH is only one of several satellite data sets. In the other well known one, RSS, 1998 is only the 8th warmest year on record and warming has continued at +0.27C per decade since then.
The margin of error for UAH is 0.1C, so statistically, 1998, 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest temperatures in the satellite era (1979 to present).
If that’s the case you’d also have to include 2019. But the warming trend since 1998 still shows that temperatures have continued to rise since then, even in UAH.
The suggestion that temperatures haven’t risen since 1998 is wrong, even in UAH, which is the coolest-running of all the global temperature data sets.
Headlined as measurements down to hundredths of 1 degree C over each selected 10 year peroid, hey?
Don’t get me wrong, I do not doubt that climate “science” can accurately measure and report time periods of 10 years.
But as for the hundredths of 1 degree C temperatures measurements –
Spurious digits, introduced by calculations resulting in a number with a greater precision than the precision of the used data in the calculations, or in a measurement reported to a greater precision than the measurement resolution.
Irrespective of the precision of the values, they all show warming since 1998. That is not a matter of serious dispute.
So why not just claim that some parts of the world have warmed up over the past 250 years.
A bit here and there?
Wouldn’t that be more honest, and not something that has to be covered with 0.01 C bullshit?
Malarky. If the data is within the uncertainty interval you simply don’t know if warming is being shown or not. You are so tied into using only the stated value of measurements and ignoring their uncertainty that you can’t see the forest for the trees. Stated values within the uncertainty interval could be giving trend lines that are up, down, sideways, or even sinusoidal. How would you know?
From the article: “In the U.S., NOAA’s surface data has been criticised on a number of scientific fronts. The American meteorologist Anthony Watts recently published a 10-year study calling the database “fatally flawed”. He found that 96% of U.S. temperature stations failed to meet what NOAA itself considered to be acceptable and uncorrupted placement standards. The findings must be a major concern since the U.S. record is a large constituent of global databases, including one run by the Met Office called HadCRUT. These global databases have been adjusted to show more recent global warming, a trend that is not immediately obvious in satellite or meteorological balloon records.”
And recent global [unprecedented] warming is contradicted by the written, historic temperature records which show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. There is no unprecedented warming today.
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
Ireland also reporting its warmest year on record.
Neither Phoenix Park or Durrow are airports.
Phoenix Park lies in the centre of Dublin, Ireland’s capital and largest city that has grown quite a bit in recent years. The Durrow station is in the back garden of a house where it is near a hedge and surrounded by wooden fencing.
Yes, and it’s an enormous park. Holds, among many other things, the US embassy and Dublin Zoo. It even has its own herd of fallow deer. A very good spot to locate a long-term temperature station.
But why would Durrow show record high temperatures this year as opposed to any other year? Have wooden fencing and hedges suddenly developed new heat-emitting properties?
Is “0.3oC per decade” really “massive warming”, even if this is a valid number?
Because +0.3C per decade = +3.0C per century. If you think that isn’t a potential problem you’re in a minority.
So you think the trend will continue forever?
You do know it is 0.5C cooler today than it was in 2016 or 1998, don’t you?
Wait a little while longer and the trend may no longer be your friend.
The CAGW crowd believes it will continue forever. So do the climate models.
It’s why they keep having to “adjust” the temperature record – to support their religious dogma.
Extrapolation of OLR numbers is pretty much the only wrench in their toolbox.
The great irony is how they like to lecture people here about statistics.
There has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. Why are we here?
“You do know it is 0.5C cooler today than it was in 2016 or 1998, don’t you?”
Not in the UK it wasn’t.
I’ve no idea, but we’ve been told often enough by the various sages who have contributted to WUWT over the years that long-term cooling is right around the corner. Never seems to happen though, does it?
AND AND ANS +0.3C per decade == +30.0C per millennium!!
The oceans are going to boil!
The ultimate hockey stick!
Run away!
Prove to us that 3 degrees warming would be bad. No, no ‘models’ or unsubstantiated speculation allowed.
Hint. The Eamian interglacial was 3 degrees warmer than now.
The world has clearly transitioned—from sightings of the Virgin Mary in cloud formations, reflections off cars, and knotholes in trees to climate catastrophe in support of the net zero religion. Say three Hail Gaias and go to bed,
The Met Office cannot accurately forecast the weather 24 hours hence. How anyone believes their predictions for decades in advance or the accuracy of their historical data is beyond me. The Met Office has gone the same way as the BBC, pandering to climate alarmists and selling their soul, and reputation, to the highest bidder.
Governments continuously lie to support political and ideological agendas. Who wouda thunk they’d lie about the Leftist climate agenda?
“since the temperature held for only 60 seconds”
I still do not understand how MET-people can statistically justify comparing today’s record highs to records of several decades ago. Now the temperature is logged every second (or maybe even more frequently); back in the old days, a person had to go out there and take a measurement a few times per day. In the old days, this 60-second high would very likely have been missed by this person.
How can you mathematically draw conclusions out of comparing these two totally different data sets?
They can’t draw conclusions, they are just making things up as they go. This is modern-day climate alarmism. They lie and lie and lie.
You can’t compare them. And the climate scientists are *still* clinging to the belief that mid-range temperatures are a useful metric for climate. They aren’t. They may be all that we used to have but, as you point out, we have much better data available today. Yet that data never gets used. Daytime temps are approximately sinusoidal, nighttime temps are approximately exponential decay. Min and max temps simply do not represent the average value of either a sinusoidal signal or an exponential signal and it is the *average* value that best determines climate, not min and max temps. It is why current techniques for determining degree-day values, be they for HVAC engineering, agricultural growing seasons, or anything else are to integrate the temperature curve instead of just using mid-range values. Climate science is stuck in the mid-20th century and earlier for their techniques no matter how advanced the programming of their models is.
The Met Office is just a political indoctrination service – it doesn’t estimate daily weather accurately
The higher maximum 2 meter temperatures on the 19th July 2022 were confined to eastern England where there were much higher levels of air pollution at the time, and very low humidity levels, meaning more solar near infrared reaches the surface.
UK record high daily temperatures 24-27 February 2019 and Easter 2011 both had very high air pollution levels and low humidity, while the minimum temperatures on those days in Feb 2019 were near freezing. The fourth hottest CET July since 1659 in 1783 was when the UK was engulfed in low altitude dust and fumes from the Iceland Laki eruption. The Moscow 2010 record heat saw the city chocked with forest fire smoke.
It is normal for brief Saharan plumes to the UK to be hotter for a day or two than longer duration major heatwaves, but the crucial difference is that major heatwaves depend on positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, and brief Saharan plumes depend on negative NAO conditions and the associated wavy jet stream. Given that the consensus of global circulation models used by the IPCC and UK Met Office project increasingly positive NAO states with rising CO2 forcing, one should expect increased Saharan plumes in the little ice age rather than from our CO2 emissions.
“Since 1979, the satellite record has shown warming across the globe of around 0.6oC. Temperatures have still to pass the last high point in 1998.”
According to the graph posted by the author the last high point was 2016 not 1998.