Record World Cereal Outputs Forecast for 2023/24

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

What climate crisis?

Global corn production is forecast to sharply increase, driven primarily by a forecast of continued high production in Brazil and rebounds in the United States and Argentina. Supplies in Ukraine are forecast to fall as the ongoing war limits production. Trade is forecast to increase as ample supplies from major exporters Brazil, Argentina, and the United States lower prices and supports a rebound in global demand. Global consumption of corn for both feed and non-feed uses is forecast up. Ending stocks are also forecast to rise, primarily due to a strong surge in stocks in the United States.

 The global wheat outlook is for larger production and consumption with declining global trade and ending stocks. Production is projected to increase with larger crops in Argentina, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), India, and Turkey more than offsetting large declines for Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. Global trade will contract with lower imports for China. Declines in exports for Australia, India, Ukraine, and the United States will more than offset increases for Argentina, Canada, and the EU. Global consumption is forecast up on larger Food, Seed, and Industrial (FSI) use more than offsetting lower feed and residual use. Ending stocks are forecast down, with smaller stocks in the EU, Russia, and the United States.

 Global rice production is forecast at a record with larger production in Asia, especially on record crops in Bangladesh, India, and China along with a recovery in Pakistan. Global consumption is expected to rise to a new record, primarily from strong growth in India, Bangladesh, and Sub- Saharan Africa. Global trade is forecast virtually unchanged with India remaining the top exporter. Pakistan is expected to see significant growth in exports amidst a rebounding crop, while forecasts for Thailand and Vietnam – the next largest exporters – are down due to less demand from Indonesia. Global stocks continue a downward trend to a 6-year low.

https://netzerowatch.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=d891eb0d21&e=4961da7cb1

5 10 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
175 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spetzer86
May 25, 2023 2:09 am

I tripped over this YT yesterday. China is converting forests, and basically any farm area not growing grain crops into fields for grain. This includes steep forested slopes, active orchards, vegetables and anything else that doesn’t fit into the “grain” category. Doesn’t seem to matter how suitable or unsuitable the area is, the peasants are going to be planting grains.

Scissor
Reply to  spetzer86
May 25, 2023 4:40 am

It’s difficult to understand insanity.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  spetzer86
May 25, 2023 4:58 am

Excellent! Central Planning at its best. Failure is guaranteed!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  spetzer86
May 25, 2023 5:27 am

That YT video may not be accurate. I think China still wants more forest. Not to save the climate/planet but to reduce dust storms and watershed protection (to reduce floods). I did a google search on “China increasing forests” and found a lot of web site about China’s plan to greatly increase tree planting: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=china+increasing+forests#ip=1

It may be that some forest areas will be sacrificed for planting grains while still increasing tree planting. Of course we can never know what’s really going on in China. I just wouldn’t necessarily trust that YT video.

spetzer86
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 25, 2023 5:40 am

Never absolutely trust anything anymore. This just seemed like such a wild scheme with the videos of them tearing out fruit bearing trees and fields of vegetables.

Graham
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 25, 2023 4:24 pm

Yes Joseph you are correct .
China is planting more forests to grow some timber to replace some of their imports of logs mainly from New Zealand .
New Zealand exports $3 to $4 billion worth of logs to China each year .
At this moment the export prices for radiata pine logs have crashed ( for what ever reason ) .
Harvesting for export is slowing down and logging contractors are laying off staff .
Our New Zealand saw mills are working to supply the domestic market but the lower grade logs are a liability as after harvesting and cartage to the ports there is a bill.
I am not prepared to harvest at the moment even though local mills are paying well .
You need a return on the lower grades which has to be over $100 per tonne to cover costs and a small return .
There is going to be a lot of pain for the contract loggers and transporters unless export prices lift soon .

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Graham
May 26, 2023 4:41 am

Graham, are you in the wood industry or a landowner with a forest? Those lower grade logs should be able to be used in a biomass power plant- but the greens hate this. Yes, woody biomass is NOT a green idea. They don’t like it because of the “carbon pollution”- yet, managed forests will recapture that carbon.

What I’ve read about Chinese tree planting is that they don’t do a great job of it- thinking they can plant any tree anywhere. Some of the plantations will succeed out of luck but many will fail.

Graham
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 26, 2023 3:40 pm

Hi Joseph,
I am an long time farmer with two blocks of pruned Radiata pine that are now ready to harvest .
Fonterra our largest Dairy Cooperative have said that they will use waste wood with coal to dry milk powder in their factories .
Our government is dominated by the Greens but they might not be in power after October .
We might get a little common sense from a new government who can work out solutions for using this wood.
Forestry slash left behind is a real problem on our steep country as it was washed into the rivers in the Hawks Bay in February lodging against bridge piles, lifting the flood level causing the stop banks to breach .
The problem with Greens and their followers is that they cannot see that burning wood is a closed cycle just the same as enteric methane from farmed livestock is a closed cycle .
Not one molecule of CO2 is added to the atmosphere over the life time of the trees and their combustion .
Exactly the same as methane from farmed livestock ,not one atom or molecule of CO2 or CH4 is added to the atmosphere because all fodder consumed has absorbed CO2 from the air with the methane emitted breaking down in 10 years into CO2 and water vapour.

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Graham
May 28, 2023 2:27 pm

A good summary of the cycle Graham.

In Switzerland forestry waste or slash is burned in Waste to Energy (WTE) plants to produce electricity along with unsorted household waste which greatly reduces volumes going to landfill.

There are currently two plans for WTE plants in New Zealand, one on each island, but I’m not sure the transport distances in NZ will make forestry waste consumption viable here. Assuming of course that the radical Greens let the plants be built…

Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 2:35 am

So much sugar production, eh Peta? Must be Peak Sugar! Oh the erosion! The deserts! The mind fog! The um uh …what was I saying?

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 3:18 am

No its not Peak Sugar – that is the very problem.
The addicts have got to have their fix and will do anything to get it: As We See

try this Good News the other way round:

More arable land = more tillage = lower Earth albedo = higher tempsMore arable (annual plants) means shorter growing season = less CO2 absorption = rising CO2 even in face of static emissionsMore arable = more ploughing/poisoning means lower soil organics = more CO2Less soil organics = less soil water = higher tempsDrier soils mean dust storms and flash floods.More sugar – more Obesity and diabetes, Types 2 and 3More arable chaff, stubble and straw means more wildfires (We just read that about Alberta, Canada)More sugar = more fatty livers and cardio vascular diseaseGreater sugar consumption/metabolising leads to greater attractiveness to biting, sucking and stinging critters = ticks, mozzies and the rest = Malaria etc etcMore wheat gluten = more auto immune disease. e.g AsthmaMore sugar means less trace elements = more ‘ill health’ e.g. Covids and autismsMore sugar means less Vitamins esp Vit C…..esp e.g. If you have wonky gappy teeth, fillings, bleeding/receding gums – You Are Borderline ScurvyLess Vitamin B12 (coming from less soil bacteria) = more Alzheimer’sMore wheat & rice means more Cadmium poisoning (what else do those plants suck up?)More rice esp means more Vitamin A deficiencies (blindness)More rice means more Rice Paddies mean more CO2 (and Methane if that concerns you)
See the Keeling Curve = Earth now has a growing-season of 3 months.
Take it that:
Land at less than 30° latitude (23% of Earth’s area at that latitude) should have a 12 month growing season
Land between 30° and 60° (30% of Earth’s area at that latitude) should have a 6 month growing season

Now go figure how Earth, in toto, now only has 3 months per year when it is actively growing and thus pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere

If that doesn’t scream ‘desert’ what does?

Be careful what you wish for and (prematurely) celebrate
You may just get it – as listed above.

Last edited 7 days ago by Peta of Newark
Rich Davis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 25, 2023 3:35 am

You’re just adorable, Peta.

What’s for lunch today? Lard and vitamin C capsules?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 25, 2023 4:05 am

See the Keeling Curve = Earth now has a growing-season of 3 months.”

Where does this come from? I thought the Keeling Curve was about CO2 levels, not growing seasons.

search for: “U.S. Agro-Climate in 20th Century: Growing Degree Days, First and Last Frost, Growing Season Length, and Impacts on Crop Yields”
Their conclusion was that the Growing Degree Day value for the continental US has increased, not decreased.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 5:25 am

The United States has had very good rain coverage over the last few months, so the crops have a good start this year.

I swear my lawn is growing twice as fast as it used to grow. I mow it, and two days later it looks like it needs mowing again!

It’s that wonderful CO2 doing that, I’ll bet.

PCman999
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 25, 2023 7:52 am

You just pointed out the only real downside to higher CO2 levels.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PCman999
May 25, 2023 9:06 am

Maybe we could add weeds to the list.

PCman999
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 7:51 am

I think Peta is pointing out that period in the co2 curve between ~May to Oct where CO2 levels drop by about 2ppm. But you’re right, that doesn’t mean that is the growing season, just the period where plant growth is outstripping decay/animals breathing and industry.

Peta needs more sugar in his/her coffee ☕ so to be clearer in getting the thoughts down on the web.

doonman
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 25, 2023 10:33 am

What is dextrose 5% in water?Dextrose is a form of glucose (sugar). Dextrose 5% in water is injected into a vein through an IV to replace lost fluids and provide carbohydrates to the body.
Dextrose 5% in water is used to treat low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), insulin shock, or dehydration (fluid loss). Dextrose 5% in water is also given for nutritional support to patients who are unable to eat because of illness, injury, or other medical condition.
Dextrose 5% in water is sometimes used as a diluent (liquid) for preparing injectable medication in an IV bag. A diluent provides a large amount of fluid in which to dilute a small amount of medicine. The diluent helps carry the medicine into your bloodstream through the IV. This helps your caregivers inject the medicine slowly and more safely into your body.
Dextrose 5% in water may also be used for purposes not listed in this medication guide.
WarningsYou should not use this medication if you are allergic to dextrose.

SteveZ56
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 25, 2023 12:06 pm

Peta’s fuzzy math doesn’t add up. 23% at 12 months plus 30% at 6 months =
0.23 * 12 + 0.30 * 6 = 4.56 months average, not 3 months.

Also, growing season doesn’t abruptly change from 12 months to 6 months at exactly 30 degrees latitude, and it also depends on topography and altitude. For example, some parts of California’s Central Valley have year-round growth at up to 38 degrees latitude, while the Sahara desert has no growing season whatsoever due to lack of water.

If the earth is assumed to be a sphere, the area between 30 degrees south and 30 degrees north is 50% of the earth’s total surface area, not 23%. How this area is distributed between land and ocean is a more complex problem. But Peta’s 23% in the tropics and 30% between 30 and 60 degrees leaves 47% of the area in the polar areas above 60 degrees latitude. By geometry, these areas only contain about 13.4% of the earth’s total surface area.

Also, with respect to CO2 emissions, the oceans have their own “growing season”. CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water, so that oceans will emit CO2 during warm seasons and absorb CO2 during cold seasons. Phytoplankton can absorb CO2 as long as the surface is sunlit and ice-free, but their activity depends on solar radiation (which also depends on the presence or absence of clouds).

SteveG
May 25, 2023 2:52 am

-Feed The World-

World food consumption is expected to drive strong demand for milling wheat. Milling wheat has few substitutes and is used to produce staple food products such as bread, pasta and noodles. Over the outlook period,(23-24) food demand for wheat is forecast to increase in line with population growth, changing diets and rising incomes. – Source – Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry.

TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 2:54 am

Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease [medium confidence].

UN-IPCC (WGII, SPM, 2007, pg. 11)

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:02 am

Projections by the IPCC are meaningless because they are based on political ideology and fake models… rather than science.

Last edited 7 days ago by bnice2000
TheFinalNail
Reply to  bnice2000
May 25, 2023 3:03 am

Yet this one seems to be panning out…

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:05 am

Only the increase part.

But, of course, the actions IMPLEMENTED BY the climate agenda will highly likely cause future losses.

eg Sri Lanka, Netherlands etc.

Last edited 7 days ago by bnice2000
strativarius
Reply to  bnice2000
May 25, 2023 3:12 am

And now France and Ireland, too…

TheFinalNail
Reply to  bnice2000
May 25, 2023 4:28 am

Only the increase part is expected at this stage in warming.

R Taylor
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 6:12 am

And only the decrease part is expected by delusional warmistas.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 8:32 am

Funny how a few years ago, the decrease part was supposed to have already started.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2023 11:00 am

Just like the polar bears were supposed to be extinct, the Artic ice free, and New York/Miami were supposed to be underwater.

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 1:48 pm

at this stage in warming.”

So everything else is based on a fairy tales and computer games….. Ok. !

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 4:09 am

Panning out where?

Growth in the *average global temp” can be driven by minimum temps going up just as much as by maximum temps going up. Why doesn’t climate science ever recognize this fact. Higher minimum temps mean longer growing seasons and potentially higher harvests?

search for: “U.S. Agro-Climate in 20th Century: Growing Degree Days, First and Last Frost, Growing Season Length, and Impacts on Crop Yields”

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 4:31 am

Growth in the *average global temp” can be driven by minimum temps going up just as much as by maximum temps going up. Why doesn’t climate science ever recognize this fact. 

It does. My understanding is that minimum temperatures would be expected to rise faster than maximum temps with greenhouse warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 4:48 am

But max temps do *NOT* seem to be rising. Only minimum temps. The sun drives max temps, not CO2, and the sun doesn’t seem to be increasing its output. If max temps were going up we would be seeing a global increase in cooling degree-days but that doesn’t seem to be the case either.

If higher min temps increase food output and max temps aren’t going up then where is the IPCC forecasted catastrophe gong to come from?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 6:07 am

But max temps do *NOT* seem to be rising. Only minimum temps.”

Gorman keeps saying this and will ignore any evidence to the contrary. But for the record, USA maximum temperatures since 1970 are rising at a rate of 0.27°C / decade

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/ann/4/1970-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2023

Minimum temperatures are rising at an almost identical rate

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmin/ann/4/1970-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2023

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 6:54 am

.27 C / decade ? If you use data from remote locations (USCRN) you get a much lower number….indistinguishable from nada….

use “Monthly” and “all months”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0

Bellman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 25, 2023 7:09 am

There isn’t any USCRN data from the 70s, and the data we do have from USCRN shows similar levels of warming since 2005.

Of course it isn’t significantly different from “nada”, that’s just the nature of looking at trends in highly variable data over a short period. By the same argument it’s indistinguishable from a much faster warming rate.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 9:20 am

By the same argument it’s indistinguishable from a much slightly faster warming rate.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2023 10:50 am

If the trend is indistinguishable from zero, it’s also indistinguishable from a warming rate twice as fast.

So as the CRN data is warming at the rate of 0.5°F / decade, it could be less than zero or it could be more than 1.0°F / decade with the same level of confidence.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 6:54 pm

If the trend is indistinguishable from zero, it’s also indistinguishable from a warming rate twice as fast.

Absolutely wrong!

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2023 4:27 am

Care to expand on that assertion?

There may be ways of saying it’s more complicated than that, and it depends on what is meant by “indistiguishable from”. But I’m interested in what makes you think it is absolutely wrong.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 1:22 pm

So what is the true number? Would you perhaps call it uncertain?

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 25, 2023 1:31 pm

That’s the point. Nobody knows what the true number is because it’s uncertain.

The calculated trend is the best estimate of what the true value is, the confidence interval is the best estimate of the likely range the true value could be and give the same result.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 26, 2023 4:40 am

Have you heard of the term — cognitive dissonance? You should have felt it when you wrote this!

Nobody knows what the true number is because it’s uncertain.

The calculated trend is the best estimate of what the true value is

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 26, 2023 6:23 am

Heard it, understand it, have fun seeing examples of it.

But rather than using it as an insult, it would help if you explained exactly what part of my statement you disagreed with. I fail to see any contradiction between saying we don’t know what the true value is but can make best estimate of it.

Maybe that’s because I suffering from some cognitive blind spot, or maybe you don’t understand the point. Just hurling insults at each other won’t help us to find out which.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 26, 2023 8:50 am

Not an insult.

If the value is contained within an uncertainty interval, then even an estimated calculation within the uncertainty interval is no more CERTAIN than any other value!

You have no clue what an uncertainty interval depicts do you?

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 26, 2023 4:17 pm

Not an insult.” … “You have no clue what an uncertainty interval depicts do you?

The uncertainty interval does not have to be equally “CERTAIN” throughout. In this case we are talking about a confidence interval, it tends to a normal distribution, and middle values have a greater likelihood than extreme values.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 26, 2023 6:37 pm

LOL.

Show some backup for your statement!

“The uncertainty interval does not have to be equally “CERTAIN” throughout. In this case we are talking about a confidence interval, it tends to a normal distribution”!

You have not even shown that the measurement distribution is normal.

From the GUM.

2.2.3

uncertainty (of measurement)
parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand

I have not seen one temperature distribution that meets the definition of normal. Not daily, monthly, or annual. Show some that are.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 27, 2023 5:11 pm

Show some backup for your statement!

What statement? All I’ve said is that the uncertainty is not the same throughout the “uncertainty interval” and that the calculated trend can be considered the best estimate of the actual trend.

I doubt any backup would satisfy you as you keep demonstrating you just don’t understand any of the sources you use.

You have not even shown that the measurement distribution is normal.

The temperature measurements do not need to be normal. What you may be thinking of is that the maximum likelihood estimate for a trend usually assumes that the errors are normal, and this is the justification for saying the best fit provided by an OLS regression is the best estimate, in the sense of the maximum likelihood. But that doesn’t justify any of your claims about the uncertainty interval being uniform.

Are the CRN monthly residuals normal? To my non-expert eye, I’d say not. It does, barely pass the Shapiro-Wilk tests (p-value 0.055), but that doesn’t prove they are normal.

It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the MLE for the trend, but I doubt it would make much difference. (I don’t have the time or the expertise to try it myself at this point.) But none of this changes the fact that the uncertainty is not constant throughout the interval.

Incidentally, the residuals for UAH monthly data over the new pause period fail the test Shapiro test, with a p-value of 0.025. Maybe you can mention it to Monckton next time he posts, or does you own cognitive bias only allow you to see a problem when you don’t like the result.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 28, 2023 1:14 pm

What statement? All I’ve said is that the uncertainty is not the same throughout the “uncertainty interval” and that the calculated trend can be considered the best estimate of the actual trend.”

I’ve been too busy to keep up with the thread but I can’t let this one go.

Uncertainty is just that – uncertainty. It means unknown and unknowable.

The assumption that the distribution across an uncertainty interval approaches normal is the old canard you always fall back on: “all uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels”. That way you don’t have to worry about actually addressing uncertainty and how it adds as you combine measurements of different things using different measuring devices.

Uncertainty does *NOT* have to tend toward normal. In fact, with any measurement device that has hysteresis, the uncertainty interval is probably *not* even symmetric at all. It can have different uncertainty intervals depending on conditions prior to taking the measurements. For example, falling temperatures can produce an uncertainty interval on the plus side that is larger than that on the negative side. Something like +0.3C/-0.2C. Or vice versa for rising temperatures. All due to the thermal inertia of the measuring device.

Why so many in climate science want to simplify things by making unfounded assumptions for uncertainty is beyond me. It is a tell that they have never been associated with a physical project where their personal liability is directly tied to their judgements concerning uncertainty.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 28, 2023 5:28 pm

I would be a lot more useful if you answered the questions about your own CDD trends.

Uncertainty is just that – uncertainty. It means unknown and unknowable.

Uncertainty does not just mean unknowable. It’s about figuring out how much uncertainty there is in a measurement – “parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand”

The measurement is the best estimate of the true value, and the uncertainty interval tells you how certain that estimate is. You don’t know what the measurand is, but you do know how likely it is that your interval contains the correct value.

The assumption that the distribution across an uncertainty interval approaches normal is the old canard you always fall back on”

In this case the measurement is the slope of a linear regression and the uncertainty interval is the confidence interval of the best fit. That does tend towards a normal distribution, by virtue of the CLT.

If you don’t think it’s approaching normal, what do you think the distribution is?

all uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels

Nonsense.

That way you don’t have to worry about actually addressing uncertainty

I’m the one trying to address uncertainty here. You kept insisting there was no uncertainty in a linear regression, you never worry about the uncertainty of the pause, or your claim that GDD’s are declining in the US, or your own CDD trends. I specifically saying there is a lot of uncertainty in the trend using USCRN given the large variability in the monthly values, and the short period of time it’s been in operation.

Uncertainty does *NOT* have to tend toward normal.

I’ve never said it does. I keep addressing the possibility that individual measurements might have non-normal error distributions. What I’ve said is that when, what you are measuring is a mean, or a slope, the CLT says that the uncertainty should tend towards a normal distribution, regardless of the distribution of the population, or of individual measurement errors.

and how it adds as you combine measurements of different things using different measuring devices.

I’ve addressed this numerous times, and we’ve had endless pointless arguments over it. The fact you don’t understand how uncertainty propagates when taking an average of different measurements is not my problem. I’ve also tried to explain, with equal futility, that when looking at samples, whether to find the mean or a slope, any measurement errors are largely insignificant compared to the random nature of the sampling. The large uncertainty in the USCRN trend has nothing to do with any uncertainty in the individual stations, it’s entirely based on the fact that month to month variability in the US is large, and we only have about 18 years of data.

…Something like +0.3C/-0.2C. Or vice versa for rising temperatures. All due to the thermal inertia of the measuring device.

If you have a problem with the reliability of the CRN stations, take it up with those who insist it is the only data we should be using. I’m merely pointing out what it actually shows to those who claim they show no warming.

Following that you might want to consider how reliable all your CDD and GDD estimates are, and why you are happy to talk about trends for them with no uncertainty.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 29, 2023 6:30 am

“””””The measurement is the best estimate of the true value, and the uncertainty interval tells you how certain that estimate is. “””””

This is only true when you are measuring a single thing, multiple times, with a single device. Only then can random errors cancel if they are normally distributed!

Measuring multiple things, one time each, does not generate a distribution surrounding each measurement that can be used to reduce measurement uncertainty of any single measurement.

“””””If you don’t think it’s approaching normal, what do you think the distribution is?”””””

It is uncertain. The fact that one standard deviation encompasses 68% of the possible values doesn’t inform you which of those values is the correct one!

If the distribution of uncertainty is normal, guess what? All uncertainty would cancel. The mean would not only be the true value, but it would also be 100% accurate! I am sure that is what you believe.

“”””” I keep addressing the possibility that individual measurements might have non-normal error distributions.””””””

There is no possible chance that “individual measurements ” can have any distribution. That requires MULTIPLE measurements of the dpsame measurand.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 29, 2023 3:08 pm

If the distribution of uncertainty is normal, guess what? All uncertainty would cancel.

I have no idea why you would think that, or what you even think it means. In this case we are talking about the uncertainty in the slope of a linear regression, so I’ve no idea how you think that would cancel.

The mean would not only be the true value, but it would also be 100% accurate!

A tautology, and I’ve still no idea what you are talking about here. Do you?

The very fact that we are talking about a confidence interval is because we know the slope is not 100% accurate.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 29, 2023 3:23 pm

This is only true when you are measuring a single thing, multiple times, with a single device.

You are saying that if you only have one measurement, it isn’t the best estimate of the thing you are measuring?

Did you actually read the part of the GUM you were quoting?

“NOTE 3 It is understood that the result of the measurement is the best estimate of the value of the measurand, and
that all components of uncertainty, including those arising from systematic effects, such as components associated with
corrections and reference standards, contribute to the dispersion.”

Measuring multiple things, one time each, does not generate a distribution surrounding each measurement that can be used to reduce measurement uncertainty of any single measurement.

You still don’t get this. You don’t need a measured distribution around each object to know there is uncertainty in each measurement. I can’t imagine there are many circumstances where it’s possible or desirable to measure everything dozens of times, just in order to tell you how uncertain you are about a single measurement. Why do you think the GUM puts so much effort into describing type B uncertainties?

And secondly, when you are measuring different things, in order to work out a statistical parameter such as a mean or a trend, the differences in the objects themselves, are what generates a distribution. It’s that distribution that determines the uncertainty in your estimate. And this will normally have little to do with the measurement uncertainty, which is hopefully small compared with the differences you are measuring.

The uncertainty in the rate of warming in the CRN data, is not because I’m assuming all the stations are very inaccurate, it’s because month to month temperatures in the US vary so much.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 29, 2023 3:48 pm

Oh brother! Do you ever read anything with understanding?

From the GUM section you quoted:

“””””uncertainty (of measurement) parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand”””””

NOTE TWO
“””””statistical distribution of the results of series of measurements “””””

Notice the words “series of measurements” and “dispersion of values” ! Do you really think one single measurement fits with this?

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 29, 2023 4:15 pm

Read the whole thing.

Uncertainty of measurement comprises, in general, many components. Some of these components may be evaluated from the statistical distribution of the results of series of measurements and can be characterized by experimental standard deviations. The other components, which also can be characterized by standard deviations, are evaluated from assumed probability distributions based on experience or other information.

Notice the words “may be”, “some of” and “assumed probability distributions”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 29, 2023 4:20 pm

The other components, which also can be characterized by standard deviations”

How do you get a standard deviation from one data point?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 29, 2023 5:26 pm

Read all the sentence – “… from assumed probability distributions based on experience or other information”.

Key words for you – “assumed”, “experience”, “other information”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 30, 2023 3:41 am

And exactly what experience do you have in the discipline of metrology that you can “assume” a Gaussian distribution of uncertainty around a single measurement of any property?

We’ve been through this before. When you have one measurement, based on my past experience with measurements of all kinds, *I* assume the distribution is an impulse function. One value has a probability of 1 of being the true value and all the others have a zero probability of being the true value. The issue is that you DO NOT KNOW which value has the probability of 1. That’s why it is called UNCERTAINTY! This encompasses both random AND systematic uncertainty associated with the measurement while assuming a Gaussian distribution requires the additional assumption that there is no systematic uncertainty associated with the measurement.

That is also why, when you combine single measurements of different things you have to add their uncertainties. You can’t simply “average” the uncertainties of those single measurements away.

The average of those measurements is their sum divided by a constant. The uncertainty of the sum is the sum of their uncertainties. The uncertainty of the constant is zero. The total uncertainty of the average is the uncertainty of the sum, not the uncertainty of the sum divided by the constant. The uncertainty of the average is *NOT* the average uncertainty which is what you get when you divide the sum of the uncertainties by a constant.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 30, 2023 7:32 am

And exactly what experience do you have in the discipline of metrology that you can “assume” a Gaussian distribution of uncertainty around a single measurement of any property?

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point?

I’m not making any assumptions. I’m simply pointing out you are wrong to claim you can’t use an assumed distribution.

My point was, and is, that there is a distribution in the uncertainty of a trend slope, and that the distribution is roughly normal. This isn’t an assumption, it’s a mathematical theorem, itself based on different assumptions.

So I’m really not sure what your point is. I’ve looked at the assumption of normally distributed errors below. I’ve said that I don’t think they are normally distributed and I’ve looked at quantille regression as a way of showing it makes no significant difference to the trend.

When you have one measurement, based on my past experience with measurements of all kinds, *I* assume the distribution is an impulse function.

You’re getting confused about different distributions here. The distribution being discussed is the uncertainty in the measurement, not the distribution of the measurand. The true value is not a random variable, it just is what it is always – if you like an impulse function. But the measurement you take is a random variable with a distribution. If it wasn’t there would be no uncertainty in the measurement.

…while assuming a Gaussian distribution requires the additional assumption that there is no systematic uncertainty associated with the measurement.

It does not. Any error distribution, Gaussian or not, can have a mean that is non-zero. That mean is the systematic error.

That is also why, when you combine single measurements of different things you have to add their uncertainties.

And the usual nonsense follows. Nothing to do with the question under discussion, and demonstrably wrong. As we’ve been doing the last 2 or so years. No point in going over all this again at this stage in the discussion.

Last edited 2 days ago by Bellman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 30, 2023 9:26 am

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point?”

It’s obvious that you do not. One data point does not make a distribution. You assume a Gaussian distribution of possible values around that one data point so you can assume the stated value is 100% accurate – i.e. all uncertainty cancels.

I’m not making any assumptions. I’m simply pointing out you are wrong to claim you can’t use an assumed distribution.”

How do you assume a distribution of uncertainty when you have no idea what the measurement represents? You don’t know if there is any systematic uncertainty. You don’t know if there is any hysteresis effects engendered from the measurement device design. You don’t even know what the resolution of the device is!

Uncertainty is uncertainty. It is an unknown. When you assume a distribution then you are saying that the uncertainty is KNOWN. If you can’t recognize the cognitive dissonance in that then you are simply too dense to ever understand uncertainty.

My point was, and is, that there is a distribution in the uncertainty of a trend slope,”

You keep trying to equate the residuals of the stated values against the assumed trend line is the uncertainty of the trend slope. IT IS NOT! The uncertainty of the trend slope depends solely on the uncertainty associated with the stated values. As usual, you just pretend the stated values are 100% accurate since all uncertainty is Gaussian and cancels. You just can’t seem to get away from it. It’s the box you live in. No matter how many times you can be shown the uncertainty in the stated values as a shadow surrounding the stated values, and therefore the trend line can be anywhere in that shadowed area, you simply can’t seem to grasp the significance of that. Especially with temperatures, the trend line could be positive, negative, or zero – and all be within the uncertainty interval. Yet you cling stubbornly to the belief that the trend line with the smallest residuals to stated values defines the TRUE VALUE.

Until you can abandon the concept that the stated values are 100% accurate you’ll never understand uncertainty.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 30, 2023 12:52 pm

Exactly!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 30, 2023 4:47 pm

One data point does not make a distribution.

Again, it can be an assumed distribution. It isn’t something that only exists once you have generated an infinite number of data points.

Pretty much everything else you rant on about are things you know are not things I’ve said. They are just the strawmen who live in your own head.

An uncertainty distribution may or may not be Gaussian. Being Gaussian does not mean all errors cancel. Random errors will tend to cancel regardless of the distribution.

“Uncertainty is uncertainty. It is an unknown. When you assume a distribution then you are saying that the uncertainty is KNOWN.”

Again, if uncertainty can never be known there is no point studying it, and there is no point in describing it. You keep confusing uncertainty with knowing the true value, when it means the opposite. Saying something is uncertain means you do not know the true value. Uncertainty in sense it’s used here is a known (or at least estimated) interval which describes what you do know about the measurement.

Uncertainty: parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand

That is not saying “you know nothing”, it’s describing what we do know about the uncertainty of a measurement.

When you assume a distribution then you are saying that the uncertainty is KNOWN. If you can’t recognize the cognitive dissonance in that then you are simply too dense to ever understand uncertainty.

Take it up with the GUM.

The proper use of the pool of available information for a Type B evaluation of standard uncertainty calls for insight based on experience and general knowledge, and is a skill that can be learned with practice. It should be recognized that a Type B evaluation of standard uncertainty can be as reliable as a Type A evaluation, especially in a measurement situation where a Type A evaluation is based on a comparatively small number of statistically independent observations

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 31, 2023 7:00 am

Again, it can be an assumed distribution. It isn’t something that only exists once you have generated an infinite number of data points.”

A single data point does not define a distribution. The true value of that data point may be in question because of the uncertainty interval but THERE CAN STILL BE ONLY ONE VALUE! The uncertainty interval doesn’t provide for multiple values for that single data point.

You are so confused about uncertainty at this point that you are basically back where you started from – Ground Zero.

“An uncertainty distribution may or may not be Gaussian. Being Gaussian does not mean all errors cancel. Random errors will tend to cancel regardless of the distribution.”

If a Gaussian distribution is not symmetric then it is not a Gaussian distribution. If it is not Gaussian then none of the common statistical descriptors apply, not the standard deviation, not mean, and not the variance, none of them describe the distribution properly.

And I note your attempt to dissemble here. “random” is meaningless by itself. Field measurements, especially in unattended locations, are seldom “random”. They *always* contain some systematic bias. Statistical analysis simply cannot identify these systematic biases and therefore they cannot be “cancelled” using averaging. An “average” value of 12″ is useless if the measurement has a systematic bias of 1″. You have been given quotes MULTIPLE TIMES from three different experts in the field of metrology that affirm this.

Yet you always want to fall back on the assumption that everything associated with measurements, including temperature”, is RANDOM. You just can’t seem to get out of that box.

A trend line based on stated values that have systematic bias may have zero residuals, meaning the trend line fits the stated values perfectly! *YOU* would say that the uncertainty of that trend line is zero, it is highly accurate. And yet it may not describe reality at all!

“Again, if uncertainty can never be known there is no point studying it”

Malarky! You ALLOW for the uncertainty, you don’t ignore it. It’s going to be there whether you study it or not!

“and there is no point in describing it”

Says the man who has never once in his life ever done anything with measurements that carries with it personal liability, both criminal and civil.

” Saying something is uncertain means you do not know the true value. Uncertainty in sense it’s used here is a known (or at least estimated) interval which describes what you do know about the measurement.”

You speak the words but you never apply them! If I am building a bridge and come up 1″ short from reaching the end piling then I didn’t allow for the uncertainties associated with the measurements of the components in that bridge. You simply cannot assume that the AVERAGE value of the measurements has less uncertainty and will result in a perfect design. And I use the word “you” advisedly because *you* would do just that!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 31, 2023 4:34 pm

So much nonsense, just to demonstrate how little you understand, but you you still won’t explain your own trend lines. No mention of the uncertainty there, it’s only CRN data you find suspect. I can’t think why.

“”A single data point” does not define a distribution.”

Who ever says it does. The point, you keep avoiding seeing, is that if you can estimate an uncertainty distribution – a type B uncertainty to use the GUM’s jargon – you do not need multiple data points to define it. It’s already defined.

By the same token, two data points do not define a distribution, nor 3 or 4. In fact the only way to completely define a distribution from data is to have an infinity of data points. Anything less is an approximations, and then only if you accept the statistical arguments you keep trashing.

As the GUM says, and I’ve already quoted to you, a type B uncertainty distribution based on expert assessment can be more reliable than one based on a small number of data points.

If a Gaussian distribution is not symmetric then it is not a Gaussian distribution.

Correct – but I’ve no idea why you needed to state it. It’s got nothing to do with what I said.

If it is not Gaussian then none of the common statistical descriptors apply, not the standard deviation, not mean, and not the variance, none of them describe the distribution properly.

Absolutely incorrect. Please do yourself a favour and actually read up on the subject rather than relying on your own misconceptions.

Half the time I’m being attacked for not stating a variance every time I mention an average, and now you insist that the variance is meaningless.

The mean, standard deviation and variance are statistical parameters that apply to any distribution.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 30, 2023 5:11 pm

You keep trying to equate the residuals of the stated values against the assumed trend line is the uncertainty of the trend slope.

Complete nonsense. Incomprehensible nonsense at that. The uncertainty of the slope depends on the variance of the residuals, the sample size. And I do not claim that is the end of the matter. The standard estimate depends on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true. Especially that of independence, which is usually not the case in a temperature time series.

The uncertainty of the trend slope depends solely on the uncertainty associated with the stated values.

Please, do yourself a favour and actually read up on the subject.

If you consider the CRN data we are talking about, the uncertainty is claimed to be tiny, but the variation in the stated values is large. What do you think has a bigger impact on the uncertainty of the trend?

As usual, you just pretend the stated values are 100% accurate since all uncertainty is Gaussian and cancels.

You’re really giving that strawman a beating.

No matter how many times you can be shown the uncertainty in the stated values as a shadow surrounding the stated values, and therefore the trend line can be anywhere in that shadowed area, you simply can’t seem to grasp the significance of that.

The only significance is it demonstrates you don’t know what you are talking about.

Especially with temperatures, the trend line could be positive, negative, or zero – and all be within the uncertainty interval.

Which is what I said at the start. The true trend could be anywhere within the uncertainty interval, with a small chance it could be out side it.

Yet you cling stubbornly to the belief that the trend line with the smallest residuals to stated values defines the TRUE VALUE.

Wow, even by your standards that’s a poor strawman. Given that this entire thread started with me saying:

That’s the point. Nobody knows what the true number is because it’s uncertain.

The calculated trend is the best estimate of what the true value is, the confidence interval is the best estimate of the likely range the true value could be and give the same result.

And yet you will still pretend I’m claiming the calculated trend line is the true value.

Until you can abandon the concept that the stated values are 100% accurate you’ll never understand uncertainty.

I do not think any stated value is ever going to be 100% accurate. That’s why I say they are uncertain.

Now. Are you going to explain what your trends for CDD mean? What is the rate of change? Are you measuring it in CDD per decade, year, day or minute? Is the number the total annual CDD’s or the average in day or what? Oh, and what’s your uncertainty int he trend?

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 27, 2023 7:12 pm

This is all new to me, so take the following under advisement, but an alternative way of calculating trends which should not depend on normality, is quantile regression, which fits to the median (or any other quantile) of the data, rather than the mean.

https://data.library.virginia.edu/getting-started-with-quantile-regression/

Using the quantreg for R, and default settings, I find that for the US CRN monthly data, the trend for the median value is slightly larger than using standard liner regression. With a trend of

0.74°F / decade, that is 0.41°C / decade.

This graph shows the OLS regression in blue and the median regression in red.

Overall, the difference between the two isn’t significant, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason to reject the OLS trend. It’s just that this is a short period and the trend may be influenced by the few outliers.

20230527wuwt2.png
Last edited 4 days ago by Bellman
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 8:20 pm

CRN from 2005 is close to 2 decades, so by your numbers should show 1/2 degree warming, but it doesn’t…did you even look at the link ?

Bellman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 26, 2023 6:34 pm

Yes, I’ve used the data from that very page. The problem is that it’s very difficult to see any actual trend just by looking at the highly variable monthly data. It’s difficult enough with he annual data. You have to actually do the calculations.

Based on the monthly data I make the trend 0.52°F / decade, with a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.49. This is just about significant, but I’m not correct for any auto-correlation. If I did, it would certainly not be significant.

The total warming is about 1°F over the last 19 years – or 0.56°C. But look at the scale of the graph. Each line is 4°F. The total warming only goes up a quarter of one of those gaps. It’s impossible to see just be looking at the monthly data without actually drawing the line.

20230526wuwt1.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 7:25 am

I keep providing you the proof but you can’t remember it for more than 24hours!

I just pulled Cooling Degree-Day data for four randomly chosen locations in the US going back to 2000. Here are the trend line equations for the four.

pine grove, wv +.0000515 + 1.14 (F)
air force academy – .0000047 + 2.2 (F)
fort dodge, ia .00002 + 1.9 (F)
olathe, ks  – 0.000018 + 4.8 (F)

If maximum temps were going up globally you would expect to see at least one of these four showing cooling degree-day values going up as well. The US is *not* isolated from the rest of the world.

The three that show an increase are out in the hundred thousandths digit – far beyond the ability to measure accurately using today’s field measurement devices. The one that shows a decrease in CDD has the same issue. In essence, all you can say is that the CDD value for all four locations show pretty much stagnation in maximum temps.

I pulled the heating degree-day data for pine grove and olathe. They show

pine grove, wv 0.00001 + 18 (F)
olathe, ks .000036 + 12 (F)

Once again, an insignificant increase over the twenty years. The first signficant digit is far beyond the ability of today’s measuring infrastructure to accurately measure.

I’ve given you data in the past that shows that here in the central plains, including Iowa, we are seeing fewer 100F days, not more. Others like Tom Abbott have given you the same data. So we are *not* seeing “global” increases in max temps.

HDD and CDD values are *FAR* better measures of climate than trying to trend averages of daily mid-range temperatures. It’s why climate science needs to get out of the 19th century and into the 21st century with its data analysis. It would be even better if they were to move to using enthalpy but that isn’t going to happen in my lifetime. Our climate is *NOT* changing significantly, at least here in the US. If it was we would see evidence of it and we aren’t. We *are* seeing weather but weather is not climate.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 10:02 am

I keep providing you the proof but you can’t remember it for more than 24hours!

I may well be getting senile as I don’t remember you presenting this particular “proof” before – could you provide a link to the last time you made the argument?

I just pulled Cooling Degree-Day data for four randomly chosen locations in the US going back to 2000.

You were claiming maximum temperatures were not rising. But no you pivot to CDD. And my data was from 1970, you are only starting in 2000. And I was showing the data for the whole USA, you are just using 4 “random” locations – with no link tot he actual data. How much certainty do you have in a random sample of 4 stations?

Here are the trend line equations for the four.

Could you actually say what those trends actually mean? You’ve made a habit of this for years, quoting a figure with no reference to the units.

“+.0000515 + 1.14 (F)”

Is +0.0000515 the trend or the intercept? What is your starting date, and what time units are you using? And is this for an annual total of degree days, or what?

If maximum temps were going up globally you would expect to see at least one of these four showing cooling degree-day values going up as well.

You are showing 2 going up.

The three that show an increase are out in the hundred thousandths digit – far beyond the ability to measure accurately using today’s field measurement devices.

So now you are claiming three are rising.

Don’t blame me if your data doesn’t show anything useful. Look for better data is you need to prove that maximum temperatures are not rising.

HDD and CDD values are *FAR* better measures of climate than trying to trend averages of daily mid-range temperatures

I was showing you maximum and minimum trends. That’s what you were claiming – no increase in maximum temperature.

Here’s NOAA’s chart for CDD since 1970

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/cdd/ann/10/1970-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2023

An increase of 65°Df / decade.

You’ll reject this of course, as you donl;t like the way they calculate CDD (i.e. the same way they calculate GDD in the paper you keep going on about.)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 10:57 am

I may well be getting senile”

No “may” about it.

“could you provide a link to the last time you made the argument?”

No! I am not going to waste my time trying to find posts well in the past that showed EXACTLY THE SAME THING. At least one post had cities from each of the continents.

“But no you pivot to CDD.”

RISING TEMPS WOULD CAUSE CDD TO GO UP! CDD is how much time the temperature spends above a break point. We’ve been over and over and over this in the past. And you never figured it out!

All you are doing now is whining!

“Could you actually say what those trends actually mean?”

You are getting so senile you can’t even remember what I said in the post you are replying to!

“The three that show an increase are out in the hundred thousandths digit – far beyond the ability to measure accurately using today’s field measurement devices.”

YOU STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND UNCERTAINTY. After two years of trying to teach you it just doesn’t pay to try and educate you any longer. Temp measurements in the units or tenths digit simply can’t provide resolution out to 5 decimal places! That’s called UNCERTAINTY!

“Is +0.0000515 the trend or the intercept?”

And now we are back to you being the troll!

“So now you are claiming three are rising.”

NO! THAT IS *NOT* WHAT I SAID! Can’t you read at all?

Don’t blame me if your data doesn’t show anything useful.”

The data is plenty useful if you would only try and use your brain. There is no useful trend that can be established because the slope lies within the uncertainty interval for over twenty years!

Here’s NOAA’s chart for CDD since 1970″

This is one more AVERAGE from NOAA using data that is corrupted by not propagating uncertainty. Do you see an uncertainty associated with that graph ANYWHERE? How do you judge if this data is useful at all?

The paper uses the data that was available beginning in 1900 and then follows that method to be consistent. It totally contradicts what NOAA is posting – which is EXACTLY what I would expect to happen knowing how the temperature data gets fudged.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 1:14 pm

No! I am not going to waste my time trying to find posts well in the past that showed EXACTLY THE SAME THING.”

As I thought. Maybe your own memory is playing tricks. I do remember that time when you were making some point about maximum temperatures in one site not warming, and refused to accept that your data was obviously wrong. And then when you finally, after I’d had to download your own spreadsheet to show you were wrong, you tried to correct it and resulted in even worse errors, which left the warming rate at around 1°C / decade.

You were also at that point claiming that you could turn a positive trend into a negative one, simply by converting from Fahrenheit to Kelvin – again based upon a simple failure to check your own data.

I bring this up to explain why I don’t immediately assume your claimed trends this time are beyond reproach.

RISING TEMPS WOULD CAUSE CDD TO GO UP!

Not necessarily. And you were accepting that temperatures are rising, just not maximum temperatures. And, again, your argument isn’t any more persuasive by being written in all-caps.

We’ve been over and over and over this in the past. And you never figured it out!

And I’ve never suggested it was anything else than how much and how long it is over a base value. For some reason you have to believe you have a superior understanding of this.

All you are doing now is whining!

At least I’m not shouting.

You are getting so senile you can’t even remember what I said in the post you are replying to!

Rather than resorting to more ad hominems. You could have tried answering my questions. In particular what units are your trends meant to represent?

And now we are back to you being the troll!

Try answering the question.

“So now you are claiming three are rising.”
NO! THAT IS *NOT* WHAT I SAID! Can’t you read at all?

Your exact words were

The three that show an increase …”

If that doesn’t mean that three are showing an increase, what does it mean?

There is no useful trend that can be established because the slope lies within the uncertainty interval for over twenty years!

Which just shows there isn’t much use in looking at just 20 years of individual stations. You’re the one claiming maximum temperatures are not rising, and now that CDD’s are not rising globally. If your method of showing this is to use data that couldn’t possibly show any rise, then your method is not very useful.

Do you see an uncertainty associated with that graph ANYWHERE? How do you judge if this data is useful at all?

There was no uncertainty given for your data, but you claimed it was meaningful.

There’s no uncertainty quoted in the agricultural paper you think is meaningful.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 9:16 am

This appears to be evidence against the theory of GHGs being responsible for increasing global average temperatures. The claim has always been that the proposed mechanism would result in nighttime and Winter temperatures increasing faster than daytime and Summer temperatures.

Thank you.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2023 10:10 am

This appears to be evidence against the theory of GHGs being responsible for increasing global average temperatures

Could be. It could also be evidence against the warming being caused by UHI. I just point out what the data shows.

I should say that whilst daytime maximum temps seem to be warming at around the same rate as minimum temps, there is more of a difference between cold and hot seasons.

E.g. for the same NOAA data the US winter months (Dec – Feb) since 1970, show minimum temps warming at 0.34°C / decade, whereas summer maximums only increased at the rate of 0.21°C / decade.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2023 11:05 am

Daytime temps are driven by the sun, not CO2. CO2 is not a heat source. It’s pretty simple.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 4:36 pm

I doubt it’s quite as simple as that. CO2 does affect day time temperatures, a) because it still works as a green house gas during the day, and b) because warmer nights will also tend to lead to warmer days.

I think you would be correct to say if there was only warming at night and none during the day it would indicate that this was unlikely to be caused by the sun, but that doesn’t mean warming during the day can only be caused by the sun.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 4:52 pm

“but that doesn’t mean warming during the day can only be caused by the sun.”

Warming can ONLY be done by the sun’s energy. The atmosphere is not on fire nor can it generate energy on its own. Without the sun’s energy, the earth would be an ice ball.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 25, 2023 5:35 pm

You know full well what I meant. Warming in the context of days and nights getting warmer over time.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 7:09 pm

The point is, with no input of energy at night, the only process of interest is a slower cooling rate.

During the daytime, the forcing contributed by a slower cooling rate is down in the noise level compared to the heating created by the sun. Put more formally, the uncertainties of the solar ‘constant,’ the contribution to albedo from highly variable clouds, annual and seasonal variations in aerosols, and transient contributions from ENSO, all combine to create an uncertainty envelope much larger than the nighttime forcing, and we can’t assume the day and night rates are the same because clouds and humidity are different at night from what they are in the daytime.

bnice2000
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 1:52 pm

Before “adjustments™”, was much warmer in the 1940s.

usa hot days.png
bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 1:50 pm

rise faster than maximum temps with greenhouse warming.”

So absolutely and totally BENEFICIAL.

Thanks… now stop your moronic caterwauling !

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 5:30 am

the first part with a slight increase in temperature, yes- but we aren’t past that yet and so we can’t see a decrease- let us know when we get there 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 8:31 am

If it were true, it would be a first for them.

PCman999
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 8:35 am

He’s talking about the prediction that food production will drop after we hit that magic 3°C – which is BS: if the world on average increased by a total of 3°C, so say an extra 1.5°C from now, and equatorial temps aren’t expected to increase significantly but mostly in the areas towards the poles – then most of the world will have better growing conditions not worse. IPCC is a propaganda outfit not a scientific organization.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PCman999
May 25, 2023 9:22 am

A warming world — whatever the cause — will open up potential arable land to the north that is rich in organics.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  PCman999
May 25, 2023 11:03 am

You nailed it. Grains like corn and wheat don’t do well in +100F temperatures. The climate alarmists say we are going to see more +100F temperatures in the future. Yet we aren’t. Just like we aren’t seeing polar bears die, New York/Miami underwater, and the Artic ice free.

old cocky
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 2:58 pm

Grains like corn and wheat don’t do well in +100F temperatures.

In Australia, cereals (wheat, barley, oats) are sown in late autumn or early winter, depending on when it rains. They grow during winter and spring, and are harvested in late spring or early summer.
Late frosts during head filling are far more of a problem than a couple of early hot days during ripening.

I guess it’s quite different in those benighted places where it snows.

wilpost
Reply to  bnice2000
May 25, 2023 4:06 am

The increased CO2 in the atmosphere and feeding CO2 into greenhouses, has created about 30% more flora all over the world, according to about 50 years of NASA satellite data.

There are many areas where there would be much more flora, such as in forest areas, but mankind has been busy destroying them, to make room for 8 billion people and their products and services

Some warming to promote growth has been helpful as well

People were freezing their n… of, in the dark, with little heat and food and clothing and no insulation and leaky, drafty houses, co-habitating with farm animals for warmth, during the LITTLE ICE AGE, not so long ago.

Thank the good Lord, we found all these fossil fuels.
We would waaaaay up s… creek without them

Last edited 7 days ago by wilpost
Rich Davis
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:04 am

Oh well, now that you’ve quoted Scripture, chapter and verse, Rusty, what can any of us climate deniers say?

It is of course absurd to think that a longer growing season across the vast Canadian and Russian tundra would result in more agricultural output.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 3:08 am

Not absurd. A projected outcome of 1-3°C warming (IPCC, 2007).

Last edited 7 days ago by TheFinalNail
strativarius
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:14 am

The IPCC is political and their [modelled] projections are worth diddly squat.

Rich Davis
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:22 am

You parody yourself Rus. 1-3?We’re ALREADY at 1.3 and have not yet seen anything but ever-increasing output. The expanded areas of farmland haven’t materialized as yet. Still you expect us to agree that things will improve only for at most another 1.7 degrees and then the ravages of say, two crops a year in Kansas, will really start to eat into the benefits of new fields in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Is that your story? Oh I forget. You are just blindly following your scripture readings. The IPCC has MEDIUM confidence. That’s all I need to hear.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 4:13 am

TFN, like most climate scientists, don’t recognize that the average global temp can go up from increasing minimum temps just as much as it can go up from increasing maximum temps.

Of course, increasing minimum temps lead to greater harvests, not less. And it really doesn’t matter how high the minimum temps go. Higher nighttime temps mean more growth at night!

The religious dogma that corn is going to burn up in the heat of the Iowa summers is just a farce. It isn’t happening and it isn’t going to happen.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 4:37 am

TFN, like most climate scientists, don’t recognize that the average global temp can go up from increasing minimum temps just as much as it can go up from increasing maximum temps.

“Most climate scientists” already acknowledge that. Minimum temperatures are expected to rise faster than maximum temps in a greenhouse warming scenario.

slowroll
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 8:13 am

Key word there is “expected”. That means it’s a conjecture–again.

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 1:56 pm

” expected to rise faster than maximum temps”

So crops are EXPECTED to keep increasing.. OK.

Try to think for a change , instead of regurgitating gormless IPCC crap.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 4:35 am

We’re ALREADY at 1.3 and have not yet seen anything but ever-increasing output.

That’s what it says. Food production is set to increase with temperature rise up to +3.0C above pre-industrial. As you say, we’re currently only about ~+1.3C; so further increases in food production can be expected.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 7:15 am

UIH

SteveG
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 5:11 am

What is the IPCC’s definition of the terms “medium” and “confidence”? Was medium the winner from a vote, a “consensus” if you will.

— All those in favour of medium say aye, those against? — I think the aye’s have it, the aye’s have it. – Division required?

Last edited 7 days ago by SteveG
Tom Abbott
Reply to  SteveG
May 25, 2023 5:32 am

That should be: “CONfidence”.

CONfidence levels are not established science, it’s guessing.

Last edited 7 days ago by Tom Abbott
Rich Davis
Reply to  SteveG
May 25, 2023 4:13 pm

It’s quite a complicated process actually. It requires advanced haruspicy and fourth generation augery combined with virtualized Tarot, as I understand it based on a TikTok video.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2023 7:24 am

“The IPCC has MEDIUM confidence.”

Never had any confidence in mediums !!

Disputin
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 4:31 am

You say an IPCC projection is not absurd???

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Disputin
May 25, 2023 4:50 am

With regard to surface temperature projections at least, they’re doing pretty well, despite what you may read here.

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 1:58 pm

That rubbish comes from sites that are TOTALLY UNFIT FOR CLIMATE PURPOSES.

Massive urban and airport tainting.

Massive agenda driven “adjustments” in an attempt to match their silly little computer games.

Its not worth even printing on toilet paper.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  bnice2000
May 26, 2023 7:15 am

You can always download the model data yourself and compare it with the published observations.

By the way, as has been pointed out here several times by several posters, the ‘pristine’ sites in CRN show a slightly faster rate of warming than the adjusted nClimDiv sites in the US over their common period of measurement (since 2005).

old cocky
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 6:55 pm

Is that Scenario B/RCP 4.5?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  old cocky
May 26, 2023 7:17 am

There are a range of model runs going back to CMIP3, available here.

old cocky
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 26, 2023 3:33 pm

I was asking about Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate post you linked to

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:08 am

Any warming would occur in the higher latitudes, and would open up vast tracts of currently unusable land.

Cooling, and the actions of the anti-nitrogen agenda are going to be the real problem.

Last edited 7 days ago by bnice2000
TheFinalNail
Reply to  bnice2000
May 25, 2023 4:45 am

Yes, if you read into the SPM linked to, the greatest expansion in food production during the early stages of warming is likely to be in northern regions. Areas like southern and eastern Australia are projected to see agricultural output decline by ~2030.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 10:11 am

Are these “projected” outputs of the same quality as the claims about sea level rise, children not knowing what snow is, and hurricane frequency?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2023 7:24 am

The IPCC did not make that comment about snow (it was an off-the-cuff comment by a single British scientist to a magazine journalist with no specific time period given).

Sea level rise is within the projected range.

Hurricane frequency increase is not projected, according to the 2019 IPCC report; just that in future a greater number are expected to reach level 4-5 status.

So the quality of this accurate projection re food production isn’t affected by the other things you mention.

doonman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 11:21 am

I love it when people believe they can tell the future. The only thing missing is the crystal ball.

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 2:01 pm

Why would anyone with a sane mind take any notice of POLITICAL predictions.

They are total and complete NONSENSE, not based on anything of any scientific rationality.. (so just what you would cite)

Australia hasn’t “warmed ” for 23 + years

UAH Australia 23 years.png
old cocky
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:28 pm

Areas like southern and eastern Australia are projected to see agricultural output decline by ~2030.

Is that due to temperature increases, or from increased variability of rainfall?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  old cocky
May 26, 2023 7:25 am

There’s a link to the SPM above.

old cocky
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 26, 2023 3:53 pm

They think winters might get colder in the south, and a smidge drier.
No bloody clue about eastern and northern Aus.

So, neither hotter nor more variable.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  bnice2000
May 25, 2023 9:05 pm

Gates is getting all his farmland ready for the locust harvesting… but what is going to “attract” them?

strativarius
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 3:11 am

The real “Vulnerability” is believing any old nonsense the UN churns out.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  strativarius
May 25, 2023 4:41 am

Or dismissing it out of hand.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 8:35 am

When wrong, time and time again, what is absurd is not dismissing them out of hand.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2023 7:26 am

But in this case (and many others) they’re not wrong.

doonman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 11:25 am

Did the Himalayan glaciers all start melting yet?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  doonman
May 26, 2023 7:27 am
Bill Toland
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 4:40 am

TheFinalNail,

You have supplied an IPCC quotation which has “medium confidence”. You seem to be under the impression that “medium confidence” from the IPCC means likely. In fact, climate alarmists use “medium confidence” as meaning quite possible, as this Climategate email shows. I regard it as quite possible that I will win the lottery next week.

 From: Stephen H Schneider <redacted>

To: <redacted>

Subject: Re: THC collapse

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT)

Cc: <redacted>

Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK–but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better–but then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve

Climategate Email 0967041809.txt

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 25, 2023 4:57 am

Whatever the confidence level, the 2007 IPCC agriculture projection is on course. As is its projected warming (~ +0.2C per decade for the next 2 decades, following 2007).

See 2007 WG1 SPM (pg. 12):

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

All the data sets, surface and satellite, including UAH, show ~+0.3°C warming per decade since 2007.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 4:59 am

This is for the AVERAGE global temperature. What does the AVERAGE global temp actually tell you about the impact on agriculture which depends on the maximum and minimum temperatures and not the average temperature?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 10:43 am

I just went back and read a submission I made about 8 years ago, analyzing the BEST temperature series.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/

I, unfortunately, didn’t have an opportunity to respond to any of the comments before the ‘shelf life’ expired.

What struck me was a claim by Mosher that Sea Surface Temperatures and Marine Air Temperatures were not actually temperatures, but were viewed by those working in the field as indexes.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/#comment-1583602

As I understand it, those marine ‘indexes’ are averaged with land air temperatures to provide a global average temperature. In what sane world does one average a unitless index with a temperature measurement in degrees Celsius and end up with a composite with units of degrees C?

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 2:04 pm

Again, belief in the total FAKERY of a SPM.

These are NOT SCIENCE, they are made up political garbage.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 8:29 am

Don’t ya love how the warmunists put the opinions of politicians over the facts of scientists.
BTW, climate scientists have never been scientists, no matter how much the activists cry otherwise.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2023 9:08 pm

The exact same thing happened during covid.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2023 10:11 am

Predicting that a long-term trend will continue for a while has no merit. Predicting that a long-term trend is going to change and saying when does have merit if the prediction turns out to be correct.

strativarius
May 25, 2023 3:08 am

And then, there is the narrative…. You could say it’s a leap of faith

“The climate breakdown is already threatening many of our favorite foods. In Asia, rice fields are being flooded with saltwater; cyclones have wiped out vanilla crops in Madagascar; in Central America higher temperatures ripen coffee too quickly; drought in sub–Saharan Africa is withering chickpea crops; and rising ocean acidity is killing oysters and scallops in American waters.

All our food systems – agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture – are buckling under the stress of rising temperatures, wildfires, droughts, and floods. 

Even in the best-case scenario, global heating is expected to make the earth less suitable for the crops that provide most of our calories. If no action is taken to curtail the climate crisis, crop losses will be devastating. “

https://www.theguardian.com/food/ng-interactive/2022/apr/14/climate-crisis-food-systems-not-ready-biodiversity

You can see why there’s so much climate anxiety about. Totally detached from reality.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  strativarius
May 25, 2023 4:14 am

Esp. since it is *MINIMUM* temps that are driving up the global average, not higher temps.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 6:16 am

Any evidence to support that?

I keep pointing to BEST data which has global land data for max and min, and it shows is anything maximum temperature since the 70s have been warming slightly faster than minimum temperatures.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 7:20 am

BEST data unequal to best data – or it’s an oxymoron.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 7:24 am

If you would read the referenced ag studies you might understand.

“Hence, the actual crop yield impacts that different cropping regions have experienced would be dictated by a complicated balance between the lengthening of CGS and the decrease in heat accumulation. ”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25212-2

Heat accumulation is based upon daytime temperatures including maximum temps. Increasing temperatures will cause an increase in heat accumulation during Climatological Growing Season (CGS). That hasn’t been seen over the last century in the U.S.

While not “global”, the U.S. is a large landmass and to say it is not representative of the “globe” would be would need proof.

The increase in days between Last Spring Frost (LSF) and First Frost Freeze (FFF) can only be attributed to increasing nighttime temperatures.

Climate science studies are not the only source of climate information. Broaden your horizons for finding resources other than temperature averages.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 25, 2023 9:38 am

If you would read the referenced ag studies you might understand.

How does that tell you anything about warming in maximum verses minimum temperatures? It’s talking about GDD, based on average daily temperatures.

Heat accumulation is based upon daytime temperatures including maximum temps.”

And night time temperatures, including minimum. Note in this case GDD is (TMax + TMin) – Base. What matters is how many days are below the base temperature, not whether min or max is rising faster. This is much more to do with seasonal differences than max and min. For most crops the table shows a warming rate for most of the year, but cooling during the months of July – October, especially i”n September and October.

While not “global”, the U.S. is a large landmass and to say it is not representative of the “globe” would be would need proof.

If trends in US temperatures in one data set are different thna global trends, it could be the proof you need that US trends are not identical to the global trend, or it could mean your data set is wrong.

But, as always you want to believe the data that proves your point is correct, and that it immediately disproves all data you don’t like.

The increase in days between Last Spring Frost (LSF) and First Frost Freeze (FFF) can only be attributed to increasing nighttime temperatures.

Or increasing cold season temperatures in general. You’re the one who keeps pointing out how maximum and minimum temperatures are strongly correlated. You never seem to consider what that implies.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 10:43 am

How does that tell you anything about warming in maximum verses minimum temperatures?”

If you would bother to read JG’s post rather than just spouting off you would know. Or better, READ THE STUDY!

What matters is how many days are below the base temperature, not whether min or max is rising faster.”

READ THE STUDY FOR MEANING!

“The occurrence of first fall frost (FFF) and last spring frost (LSF) in terms of day of the year for the CONUS is presented in Figs 5a,b, respectively. “

A rise in max temps will *NOT* cause FFF and LSF to shift. Those are based on MINIMUM temps!

For FFF, the majority of the nation has positive trends that scale up to 20 days century−1, which implies that FFF has occurred up to 20 days later over the century”

For FFF to occur LATER minimum temps have to remain higher longer.

“On the other hand, LSF occurrence is shown to be earlier for the most part of the nation (by up to −19 days century−1)”

Meaning above freezing minimum temps are happening EARLIER, i.e. minimum temps are going up.

“the majority of the CONUS experienced trends towards lengthening of the climatological growing season by about 25 days century−”

This doesn’t happen because of rising max temps or decreasing min temps!

It’s just one more prediction by the climate alarmists that has *NOT* come true – along with polar bears going extinct, the Arctic being ice free, and New York/Miami being underwater. All based on max temps going up and the earth turning into a cinder!

Like a puppy, you won’t learn till you get your face rubbed in it. Unfreakingbelivable!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 12:51 pm

READ THE STUDY FOR MEANING!

Another one of these sacred texts who’s meaning can only be obtained by the truly enlightened. It must be true as it’s written in block capitals.

A rise in max temps will *NOT* cause FFF and LSF to shift. Those are based on MINIMUM temps!

Now read what I said for meaning. Knowing that minimum temperatures have risen does not mean that maximum have not also risen.

Meaning above freezing minimum temps are happening EARLIER, i.e. minimum temps are going up.

It’s almost as if the US is getting warmer.

This doesn’t happen because of rising max temps or decreasing min temps!

But it doesn’t preclude both maximum and minimum temperatures increasing at the same time, or even maximum temperatures warming faster. If only we had data sets that could tell what the case is. It would be a lot easier than trying to guess just from the timing of the first and last frosts.

It’s just one more prediction by the climate alarmists that has *NOT* come true…

What? Climate alarmists predicted that minimum temperatures wouldn’t increase?

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 8:36 am

And others keep pointing out the many problems with the BEST data.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2023 10:17 am

“Problems” meaning it doesn’t give you the result you wanted?

I used BEST because it’s the only data set I know giving global max and min values. If you don;t want to use that data, be my guest – tell me what data you use to show that maximum temperatures are no increasing globally.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 11:24 am

Problems in that their methods are invalid.
You use it because it matches what you want to believe.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2023 12:38 pm

As I said, I used it because it’s the only global data set that gives max and min. If you have other data that shows no warming in max temperatures, tell us.

Why do you think it’s what I want to believe? My general assumption would have been that max was warming at a slower rate than min.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 9:20 pm

I suggest that your ‘quoting’ of “global data” is an error in judgement. The PREMISE is wrong. There is no such thing as “global data”. There might be Local Data, or Regional Data that ‘suggest’ what MAY or MAY NOT influence a thought. There has never been a way to arrive at global data, imo.

Bellman
Reply to  sturmudgeon
May 26, 2023 3:40 pm

I was replying to Tim Gorman’s claim that “… it is *MINIMUM* temps that are driving up the global average, not higher temps.”

How do you test a claim about “the global average” without relying on global data?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 10:28 am

Berkeley Earth? You must be joking! The database that shows the uncertainty of measurements taken in the 1800’s with +/- 0.01C?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 10:42 am

As always, feel free to link to your data that shows there has been no increase in global maximum temperatures.

The database that shows the uncertainty of measurements taken in the 1800’s with +/- 0.01C?

Wrong and irrelevant.

Irrelevant as I was only looking at the trend since 1970.

And wrong because they actually show an annual uncertainty of around ±1°C for the 1850s. Even the most recent data (up to July 2022), shows annual uncertainty of around ±0.07°C.

https://berkeley-earth-temperature.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Global/Complete_TMAX_complete.txt

bnice2000
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 2:08 pm

” uncertainty of around ±0.07°C”

Which is total nonsense , especially considering the manic adjustments and infilling, and other baseless changes they make to the worst data available. Massively urban tainted and airport data that is totally unfit for anything but propaganda.

Last edited 7 days ago by bnice2000
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 25, 2023 4:52 pm

For all I know there may be many problems with the BEST max and min values.

Here’s a study based on data from NCEP Reanalysis between 1983 – 2017. It’s looking a regional variation, and says that rather more of the earth is experiencing faster warming nights than days, though overall the graph doesn’t suggest much difference.

Note the USA is one part of the world that has faster daytime warming. And a lot of this seems to be down to cloud cover.

gcb15336-fig-0001-m.png
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 11:11 am

… it shows is anything maximum temperature since the 70s have been warming slightly faster than minimum temperatures.

That was true up until at least 2014, when I last looked at this issue in detail. See figure 1 in the following link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/

However, that does not support the paradigm of anthropogenic global warming, and suggests that we need to look for reasons other than CO2 for the current warming trend that is causing hysterics. In fact, figure 2 suggests a plateauing of Tmax and a possible decline in Tmin around 2010. We know from Monckton’s monthly postings that the global average has shown no warming since June 2014. Maybe things are changing. We’ll have to wait and see how things play out with the much anticipated El Niño.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2023 1:26 pm

I’m not trying to support any paradigm, I’m just trying to argue what the data says.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 7:12 pm

I don’t think the data says what you think it says.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2023 4:17 am

So what do you think, I think the data says? Because as far as I’m concerned the only thing I think the data is saying is it’s wrong to claim there is no evidence that maximum temperatures are warming.

bnice2000
Reply to  Bellman
May 25, 2023 2:06 pm

Best uses all the WORST surface sites available,..

then “creates/fabricates” whatever temperature graph they want to match.

2hotel9
May 25, 2023 3:09 am

Increased agricultural production IS the crisis. How can leftards starve several billion people to death if those people keep growing food, ya idiots! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

strativarius
Reply to  2hotel9
May 25, 2023 3:18 am

Even worse for the believers…

Oatly, Nestlé and Innocent Drinks are among those pulling products from shelves as figures show even Veganuary backfired”
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/may/20/has-the-vegan-bubble-burst-sales-stagnate-in-uk-as-brands-withdraw-plant-based-products

There was a major advertising blitz for everything vegetarian and vegan a couple of months back. It was the future and then reality bit them.

Does anybody know why vegetarians emulate meat products with roasts, sausages etc?

2hotel9
Reply to  strativarius
May 25, 2023 3:35 am

I AM a vegan, nearly everything I eat ate grass and grains before I ate them, ergo, I am a vegan! That line really pisses leftards off.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  strativarius
May 25, 2023 11:14 am

Does anybody know why vegetarians emulate meat products with roasts, sausages etc?

If you can’t afford a Ferrari or Lamborghini, you buy a fiberglass kit car and an old VW frame.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2023 7:49 am

I believe an outfit in the UK,called Retrofit Electrics, will fit an electric motor to an old VW Beetle for around £25,000. More modern vehicles £47,000. I imagine the queue is…….

c1ue
Reply to  2hotel9
May 25, 2023 4:15 am

I recommend reading the 2 writeups Zoltan Pozsar published at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023, respectively.
What he wrote about is how “commodities encumbrance” is going to be the Doom of the West; between sanctions and geopolitical maneuvers, the West is cutting itself away from all manner of commodities including food, metals, energy and more (basically the entire periodic table) even as China and others are making long term claims to the same (the encumbering).
The outcome will be persistent higher inflation = expensive food and energy in the West even as food and energy is on a structurally lower level in China. This is one major reason why almost no nation outside the G7 is agreeing to Ukraine sanctions regimes.

2hotel9
Reply to  c1ue
May 25, 2023 5:14 am

Get no argument from me, anyone with a functioning brain, which entirely excludes leftards, greentards and climatards, knows this has been going on since the early ’90s. Leftist political agenda has been reduction of global human population to a level they can manage as slaves. Us humans are being less than cooperative, no matter how many wars leftists instigate, no matter how many genocides they create the human population continues to grow and we are not simply going to sit down and starve to death because leftards want us to.

Bruce P
May 25, 2023 3:12 am

Somewhat related story tip Brazil Builds Carbon-Spewers to Simulate ‘Climate Change’ Killing the Amazon – PJ Media

The article uses flawed language, calling carbon dioxide “carbon” throughout. But are these idiots actually duplicating the greenhouse conditions that are used to cultivate plants as an experiment in the rain forest? If so, the failure will be epic.

I suspect there is more to the story, but if they really make huge towers to spread carbon dioxide in the Amazon they are in for a big surprise.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bruce P
May 25, 2023 5:16 am

Yep, the rainforest will out grow their silly towers rather quickly. Plants loves them some plant food!

Mike Maguire
May 25, 2023 5:06 am

The law of photosynthesis hasn’t been repealed!

We rescued the planet from unusually low levels of beneficial CO2.

Atmospheric CO2 is still only half the optimal level for most plants and crops.

Kit P
May 25, 2023 8:14 am

The USDA graphed a projection like it is a fact.

Are the away that the 3rd and 5th exporter of wheat are having an artillery dual?

This good news for US farmers and bad news for places like China.

JC
May 25, 2023 8:49 am

Great news…. let the grain and natural gas flow! Time to celebrate and give thanks! Regardless of the insane Malthusian eugenically motivated dystopia of the climate change propagandists,…. human civilization will flourish!

Shoki
May 25, 2023 9:32 am

For the warmists, the only real crisis is that Earth’s climate continues to improve, undermining their lies and bid for absolute power.

SteveZ56
May 25, 2023 12:09 pm

I wonder if the higher CO2 levels in recent years are increasing plant growth rates and grain harvests. Sure, there are other human-caused disruptions such as the war in Ukraine, but do we really need to cut CO2 emissions and starve ourselves?

bnice2000
Reply to  SteveZ56
May 25, 2023 2:11 pm

but do we really need to cut CO2 emissions and starve ourselves?”

CO2 and nitrogen, are both on the anti-human anti-food-production climate-cult radar.

Their specific aim is to cut world wide food production.

Mike Maguire
May 25, 2023 5:34 pm

We’ve been hearing/reading for 3 decades that eventually the climate crisis will cause food production to be reduced. The authentic science says the complete opposite……..all the way to the end of this century!

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming

2000 – 2100
The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants.
There is an interesting consequence of this global green up: as vegetation consumes some of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide it also performs evapotranspiration—a function similar to human sweating—which can have a cooling effect on the air. Scientists say that global greening since the early 1980s may have reduced global warming by as much as 0.2° to 0.25° Celsius (0.36° to 0.45° Fahrenheit). In other words, the world would be even warmer than it is if not for the surge in plant growth.
“It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth,” said co-author Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, “which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming.”
According to climate models, the future looks even greener. The second map shows what the green-up might look like in the future based on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) climate model, under a scenario in which increases in greenhouse gases lead to almost 5° Celsius (9° Fahrenheit) of warming by the end of the 21st century. Specifically, it shows the predicted change in the growing season’s “leaf area index” from 2081-2100 relative to 1981-2000. The chart below the map shows the predicted changes by latitude. Notice that high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere are still expected to change the most.

greening_cmip_2081-2100.png
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
May 25, 2023 5:45 pm

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming

Again, this paper was based on very comprehensive AUTHENTIC plant science.

2000 – 2100
The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants.

Screenshot 2023-05-25 at 19-39-41 Fake beer crisis_Death by GREENING! - MarketForum.png
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
May 25, 2023 5:58 pm

Increasing CO2 makes plants/crops MUCH more water efficient/drought tolerant.

CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use EfficiencyBy Craig D. Idso — May 20, 2022

Dr. Idso is an elite authority on plants, with an expertise on the impact from rising CO2 and climate change.

https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/co2-increased-water-use-efficiency/

You can find much more of his comprehensive research results here:

http://www.co2science.org/
]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

Screenshot 2023-05-25 at 19-51-19 CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use Efficiency - Master Resource.png
Edward Katz
May 25, 2023 6:22 pm

This is no surprise since the UN’s own numbers have shown that agricultural production worldwide has been steadily increasing during the past half-century. This is a main reason for steadily increasing populations and life expectancies. All this despite the so-called climate “crisis”.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights