We’ve been busy.
As the proprietor of “World’s Most Viewed Climate Related Website,” I have a mandate to keep that title. Today, two new permanent additions to the WUWT set of resources are now online. Both are unique, and both are exclusive, both are factually based. Even better, both will irritate climate alarmists.
#1 Earth’s Real-Time Temperature
The first is a really simple widget added to the right sidebar, seen below:
Whaaaat! you say? Real-Time Earth’s temperature – impossible! Only certified climate scientists can do that. Well, um….no. We can do it, and we did. Working with a friend of ours who runs a website https://temperature.global/ (who shall remain nameless) and our resident tech wizard, Eric Worrall, we have made use of their API (specially modified at my request) to display the real-time temperature of the Earth. Data has been recorded back to 2015, as you can see in the graph below. It will continue going forward.
How does it work? It is pretty simple really. Thanks to the Internet, all sorts of global temperature data in near real-time (hourly) is available.
Data sources – click links for details:
- NOAA global METARs 2015-current
- NDBC global buoy reports 2015-current
- MADIS Mesonet Data, NOAA OMOs
All that data is gathered hourly, put into a gridded average, computed and displayed. It is compared to the “normal” baseline temperature of 57.2°F.
In this calculation, the “normal” temperature of the Earth is assumed to be 57.2°F, and that is simply compared to temperature reported by all of the stations to obtain the absolute temperature deviation from “normal” at that moment.
The basis of this number comes from NASA GISS itself, from their FAQ page as seen in August 2016 as captured by the Wayback Machine.
Of course, they’ve removed it now, because well, they don’t want people like me doing this stuff. Only certified climate scientists can do that stuff. /sarc.
#2 Failed Predictions Timeline
We wanted a “one stop shop” that would display all of the bogus predictions (and outcomes) about climate, energy and the human condition all in one easy to use package.
This has been a work in progress over several months between myself, Charles Rotter, and Eric Worrall. At least two previous versions have been thrown out and redone (thank you Eric for your patience). We think we’ve got it right.
See it here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/
Screencap below.
Note the search features. You can choose topic, person who made the prediction, and year to filter by. Once you do that, it will give you the result.
Most importantly, each entry comes with an “outcome” section. See below for an example.
Try it out, https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/ and please be sure to let us know in comments what you think, and if we missed anything.
Here is an Australian summary of failed predictions by Saltbush Club.Geoff S
https://mailchi.mp/093a98a205a8/happy-earth-day-4j6imn4q1z-195551?e=b4fa0c6183
There is no global temperature.
Jeff A,
Every object has a temperature.
It reflects its atomic composition.
You are quibbling about how a given object is defined.
So long as those who are using ‘climate change’ and ‘global temperature’ to influence your future and mine, we have a duty to argue about their terms.
I dislike the global temperature concept, the anomaly concept, the disregard for UAH, I hate invalid predictions and projections and I will continue to rubbish the poor standard of science that is used for political manipulation.
Geoff S
“So long as those who are using ‘climate change’ and ‘global temperature’ to influence your future and mine, we have a duty to argue about their terms”
—Yes, yes and yes…If it’s all about the temperature of a planet — then give them the REAL temperature of the planet… And keep doing it. Year after year after year…
I’m not quibbling. No amount of temperature readings from all over the planet, averaged in some way, will tell us anything meaningful. Period.
But it is possible, and useful, to take an average and note the trend.
It depends what is being averaged
Temperatures, not so much.
No, because it gives the false impression that all temperatures on Earth are moving in unison.
With respect, no. Averaging shows only what the highest or lowest numbers tell us. Shows us nothing about the middle, or that some places have cooled or remained static over the instrumental record.
You are right that calculating an ‘average’ doesn’t give the true average temperature of the air mass. What one gets is the average of the station readings, which is a first-order approximation.
Excellent on both counts! I have long wondered why most arguing against the climate change cult have not been referring to Temperature.Global, as this is a pretty darn good rendering of actual surface temps and the trends against a 30 year average.
And the failed prediction list is also great!
May I suggest another “list” for the brainwashed masses to contemplate: Do a list of all the products and materials that are generated from hydrocarbons/fossil fuels. I think the list starts at some 6,000 but is likely more.
The hard core cultists you are never going to influence, but the average person, who is caught up in the propaganda trap, might think twice about the “solutions” to the fake climate change hoax when they realize how much of their everyday lives will be negatively affected if even a small percentage of this kind of list is banned, or priced out of reach.
Am I correct in assuming that these temperature readings have not been “adjusted” and are, therefore, “facts” and not “estimates”?
I see the Global Temperature on the sidebar but I don’t see the Failed Predictions.
Is it supposed to be there?
(I’m on a Desktop.)
If anyone else couldn’t find it, CTM told me it’s not on the right sidebar but under the “Reference Pages” on the top bar.
If I may make a suggestion, the Failed Predictions Widget needs a “running total at the top”, so that the impacts an be intuitively assessed.
Another suggestion is to have a “Successful Predictions Widget. It also would need a running total for the same reason.
Great additions!
I have always been bothered by the way temperature data is treated. I suppose am biased by my training (Ph.D. Econometrician)
The land temperature data station by station is a terrific panel data set. Aggregating after homogenizing makes no sense to answer the question at hand: is the “climate” a stationary process? Given the data, we are really asking about the properties of temperature time series at each individual station. For all kinds of reasons, there is no reason to assume that the processes driving temperature are the same across stations.
Yes, there are reasons that particular station data needs attention due to discontinuities of various types. Data changes should be documented station by station and all primary data saved so the “changed” data can be properly audited.
Here is how I would begin my analysis. I would deseasonalize the station data (taking the 12th difference of monthly data.) Yes, you lose 12 months of data, but you never have to deal with a sliding averaging window, which is a really silly way of dealing with seasonality. With the seasonally adjusted data in hand, I would test for a simple time trend in each station data set. Why aggregate?
I have done this with the CA station data in the CRN. There are 7 stations in CA in the CRN (when I last checked, which was a year or so ago) None of the 7 stations have a significant time trend. Hmmmmm. Why do we continually hear Gov Newsome claim CA temperatures are rising dangerously?
My guess is that very few stations in the CRN have a significantly positive time trend in temperatures. Are there regional differences? Why not test in a cross-sectional times model to see whether CO2 has explanatory power through time on station temperature after accounting for all the station-specific variables (Latitude, longitude, elevation, air pressure humindity, etc) There are lots of tools that are more appropriate for analyzing the raw data than the current procedures used in much of climate “science”
Oh boy, have you hit the nail!
It only takes a few stations with no warming around the globe to show something is eeriely wrong with the less than rigorous treatment of temperature data.
You can’t conclude what is causing changing data until time trends are stationary.
Stations that have changes should have their current records stopped and a new record started. There is no guarantee that new instruments will have the systematic or random uncertainty quantitative values and changes over time.
This will destroy the ability to have “long records” but to me data value is conserved and so-called “corrections and homogenization” will not be needed.
It is a shame that more statistics people that are familiar with the physical science have not spoken up on some of these issues.
Nelson wrote “For all kinds of reasons, there is no reason to assume that the processes driving temperature are the same across stations.”
Yes.
The official Australian temperature data sets have some material for the comparison of stations placed close to each other. Less than 10 km separation, it is not unusual to find raw differences of 0.3-0.6 deg C on average, though there are also cases of good agreement.
While those temperatures seem small, they are not far from the warming claimed to be global as in climate change existential crisis, as in about 1 deg C per century.
The the first question is, how can you tell which readings to use?
The second question is, is it valid to adjust station temperatures based on other neaby stations, uo to 1500 km away?
The problem is an official reluctance to face these questions and give an answer. Ignorance is bliss.
Geoff S
.
The timeline doesn’t seem to be in strict chronological order.
You have indeed been busy
this is great
Not sure if it could be done, but it would be amusing to see the predictions appear on the home page as they came to pass. Or at least when they were supposed to come to pass!
The failed predictions page is a much needed resource that can be used and understood by people from all walks of life.
In a similar, but simpler vein, I have often wondered about a list of “years to save the planet” to illustrate how this kind of stuff is always ongoing, and always wrong.
Thanks Anthony and others! A great addition.
There is another category that I would like– Economic Costs and Benefits— the real cost of “green” and “warming” for the total effort to date, and against each major mandate–In a way that is understandable to laypersons.
Many of the articles showing the missing costs have been in WUWT already.
For example:
EV costs including all the CO2 credits sold/bought, rebates, etc..against the effect of EVs on global temperature!
The cost of wind and solar with all the storage,running natural gas supplemental , etc for reliable, 24/7 generation…equal to reliability on “non-green” generation.
The cost of urban/suburban/rural “electrification” again against world CO2 temperature change.
The cost of new mines, roadways, transmission and distribution lines, and for “green” generation and various mandates again against world CO2 temperature change.
The lost opportunities of expanded manufacturing and employment.
The cost and lost land use of massive disposal of replaced cars, refrigerators, gas furnaces and stoves.
The goal should be “Understandable at a glance” (for non-scientists/engineers..)
I particularly like the global temperature change shown on a human scale…say the change over time between the top of head and bottom of feet, with normal day to night ranges.
I think we can add the policy cost impacts to include today’s inflation costs, at least in part if not total.
The “economic cost and benefit” category could also include the cost of mandates that do NOT having fulltime replacement generation (‘green with full makeup and fuel supplies, O&M, etc on site) BEFORE shutting down of coal and nuclear facilities. Maintaining 24/7 electric service with historic reserve/reliability margins.
Failed Prediction Timeline/ Hansen prediction is unclear about units, F or C/K. The “outcome” refers to F when UAH is C/K, pretty sure HadCRU is C/K as well. Also, baseline reference period should be specified. (e.g. 1981-2010).
The point remains correct, despite the unfortunate errors and omissions
Anthony, bad news…
On my iPad browser, what you call the “right sidebar” is actually at the end of the loaded page, about a dozen scrolls down, where most people will have their attention diverted to an article before they ever see it….I think it’s good enough to be in the header bar…..I also think the degrees C font should be the same size as the degrees F font as a gesture of universal thermometric brotherhood. (/s:-)
The dates in the titles of items for the one titled “New Ice Age Will Cause Droughts and Affect Grain-exporting Countries 2023-04-28” onwards are all future dates. It’s not clear from the texts what those dates refer to.
SWEET!
Add a check box to turn on a line for the ENSO Index on the Global Temperature chart.
Story tip.
Speaking of Earth Day, I see that Peter Singer wants everyone to cut their consumption of meat in half to save the climate. I also see that he will be traveling from Princeton, N.J. to New York, Washington, California, London, and Australia between May 26 and July 23 to peddle his smugness and hypocrisy.
My research shows that his share of CO2 emissions from the transportation will be 15,000 pounds, and that a pound of steak “emits” 36 pounds of CO2. I do love my steak, but I don’t think I’ll be eating 417 pounds of it in two months.
Think any of his enraptured audiences will notice his tiresome hypocrisy? LOL
Here is a not-quite-climate one from Australia’s peak science body, the CSIRO….
https://www.smh.com.au/national/petrol-could-cost-8-a-litre-by-2018-20080711-3dc1.html
For reference, the average price in 2008 was $1.424, so they were predicting a more than 500% increase. In fact the price in 2018 was $1.443, so a 1.3% increase
Close, but no cigar
KW,
Ask CSIRO to express petrol pump prices in anomaly form, by subtracting the average price 1991-2020.
Then recommend that consumers pay the anomaly price.
Geoff S
You must add the word “Anomaly” where you have the text:
Global Temperature:March 2023 | 0.20°C (0.36°F)
As you know, 0.2 degrees C is 32.23 F, not the 0.36 you appear to be claiming. The text on the UAH page that you take the link from uses the word Anomaly further down and is unambiguous. However, by not also including that word in your page, you create an easy ‘gotcha’ to let your work be unfairly ridiculed.
Nice!!
The failed prediction timeline is phenonmenol – very useful. Thanks!
The world temp, on the other hand, is both pretty great and misleading. Maybe re-label as what it is? (averaged surface station reported temps) – to do this for real you’d need five satelites hanging about 120K out to measure radiated energy over decades and until someone does that any “world temp” number is just a guess; and not a particularly good one at that.
Bravo Anthony!
How about a one page selection of comments from the UN (and others) explaining why they want to make man-made CO2 the scapegoat and that it has nothing to do with climate change.
All they want is to (gently – frogs in slowly warming water) destroy capitalism.