“Solar wind despite high sunspot number remains weak.”
No big coronal holes…
bdgwx
July 12, 2023 2:36 pm
For those that want to put skin in the game you can place your climate bets at Kalshi. The market is predicting a 67% chance that 2023 will be the warmest in the GISTEMP dataset. My model is saying there is about a 75% chance. BEST says there’s an 81% chance in their dataset.
Participants are not wagering on whether GISTEMP is fit for a purpose or meaningful. They are wagering on whether GISS will report the 2023 value as >= 1.03 C or not.
So it’s a question of what is in the minds of the data mannipulators?
That “warmer” 1.03C number is based on 2016 being 1.02C? The 1.02C number is supposedly the warmest temperature since 1850, which occurred in 2016.
My guess is the data mannipulators will make every effort to make 2023 look like the “hottest year evah!”. If the temperatures get within a few tenths of a degree of a “new record”, then I think the data mannipulators will manage to get it over the top. They did a pretty good job of this since 1998, declaring something like ten of the years between 1998 and 2016 as being the “hottest year evah!”, so I assume they can continue with this practice.
If you look at the UAH satellite chart, there are NO “hottest year evah!’s” between 1998 and 2016, 1998 being statistically tied with 2016 as the warmest year in the satellite era (1979 to present) and none of the years between them are warmer than 1998.
That’s why the data mannipulators don’t like the UAH chart. They can’t scream “hottest year evah!” using it.
For your information, the hot years of 1998 and 2016 were years when global SO2 aerosol levels were reduced by man-made global “Clean Air”efforts.
NASA/GEOS produces global satellite SO2 “re-analysis” aerosol images which are archived, so that it is possible to view global SO2 aerosol levels for any day since 1980.(I am told that the “re-analysis” images are more accurate than the daily images).
My guess is the data mannipulators will make every effort to make 2023 look like the “hottest year evah!”.
You should put your money where your mouth is then. If you think the odds are 100% then you can profit.
If the temperatures get within a few tenths of a degree of a “new record”, then I think the data mannipulators will manage to get it over the top.
If they did then I along with everyone else will know about it since there are many of us that run GISTEMP on our own machines.
TheImpaler
July 12, 2023 5:25 pm
Sometimes the stupid becomes too much. Saw a story this weekend saying that apparently acetaminophen and ibuprofen are made from petroleum. Now some smart greenperson has figured out how to make them from turpentine made from pine trees. The story closed with “This will lower carbon emissions’ (like every story in the MSM). Head scratching. I don’t believe the petroleum is burned in the manufacturing process so no CO2 is released at least from the ingredient standpoint and your solution is to cut down trees that eat carbon dioxide? No, you’re increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Another non-problem made worse by the warmologists. And how much you want to bet the replacement products don’t work as well as the regular ones?
Recently it was announced that marijuana was also found in the White House.
“No one was arrested in these incidents, because the weight of the marijuana …”
No where do they state that they didn’t know who had the marijuana. Eventually someone with a little intelligence will recognize that the statement was intended as a form of distraction and ask the follow up question … “Who was given a pass because of the amount found?”
The answer will be that it is a private matter and it will remain so.
I ran across this in the latest issue of Astronomy magazine:
At the end of an article (page 43, July 2023) was this about the author of the article:
“Ashley Spindler (she/they) is a lecturer in astronomy and data science at the University of Hertfordshire in the UK. She spends her time studying the evolution of barred galaxies with the help of AI.”
Several things:
I’m wondering where the (she/they) came from? I checked, and I didn’t see any of the other authors in this issue declaring their pronouns. I assume this must have been a request from the author, or maybe she attaches that to every signature of hers now?
As to the “they”: In what circumstance is this to be used in relation to this person? What’s the rule? What’s the alternative? So many questions!
The most important chart in climate science. There are enough clues there to deduce that Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation temperatures are an inverse response to solar wind strength, with very little lag, rather than a direct and lagged response to changes in solar irradiance.
That AMO anomalies remain locked to solar cycles through each AMO envelope, and are always colder around solar cycle minimum during a cold AMO phase, and never colder around solar cycle minimum during a warm AMO phase.
That the very long term mean AMO frequency has to be 55 years, as every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum. The last two AMO cycles of 60 and 70 years are due to the previous centennial solar minimum being 130 years before the current centennial minimum.
The stratospheric polar vortex in the south is not as stable as it seems. Ozone blockages also occur there.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/17/1000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-225.89,-65.49,281
The blockage begins in the upper stratosphere in the Southwest Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly area.
Solar wind despite high sunspot number remains weak.
“Solar wind despite high sunspot number remains weak.”
No big coronal holes…
For those that want to put skin in the game you can place your climate bets at Kalshi. The market is predicting a 67% chance that 2023 will be the warmest in the GISTEMP dataset. My model is saying there is about a 75% chance. BEST says there’s an 81% chance in their dataset.
I don’t gamble myself, but if I did I wouldn’t bet on RainMann.
So in both “totally unfit for purpose” surface data fabrication… so what !… they are meaningless
On a year-to-date basis UAH has 2023 in 6th place.
Participants are not wagering on whether GISTEMP is fit for a purpose or meaningful. They are wagering on whether GISS will report the 2023 value as >= 1.03 C or not.
So it’s a question of what is in the minds of the data mannipulators?
That “warmer” 1.03C number is based on 2016 being 1.02C? The 1.02C number is supposedly the warmest temperature since 1850, which occurred in 2016.
My guess is the data mannipulators will make every effort to make 2023 look like the “hottest year evah!”. If the temperatures get within a few tenths of a degree of a “new record”, then I think the data mannipulators will manage to get it over the top. They did a pretty good job of this since 1998, declaring something like ten of the years between 1998 and 2016 as being the “hottest year evah!”, so I assume they can continue with this practice.
If you look at the UAH satellite chart, there are NO “hottest year evah!’s” between 1998 and 2016, 1998 being statistically tied with 2016 as the warmest year in the satellite era (1979 to present) and none of the years between them are warmer than 1998.
That’s why the data mannipulators don’t like the UAH chart. They can’t scream “hottest year evah!” using it.
Tom Abbott:
For your information, the hot years of 1998 and 2016 were years when global SO2 aerosol levels were reduced by man-made global “Clean Air”efforts.
NASA/GEOS produces global satellite SO2 “re-analysis” aerosol images which are archived, so that it is possible to view global SO2 aerosol levels for any day since 1980.(I am told that the “re-analysis” images are more accurate than the daily images).
See my earlier post, above.
It is a question of what the output of this source code is.
You should put your money where your mouth is then. If you think the odds are 100% then you can profit.
If they did then I along with everyone else will know about it since there are many of us that run GISTEMP on our own machines.
Sometimes the stupid becomes too much. Saw a story this weekend saying that apparently acetaminophen and ibuprofen are made from petroleum. Now some smart greenperson has figured out how to make them from turpentine made from pine trees. The story closed with “This will lower carbon emissions’ (like every story in the MSM). Head scratching. I don’t believe the petroleum is burned in the manufacturing process so no CO2 is released at least from the ingredient standpoint and your solution is to cut down trees that eat carbon dioxide? No, you’re increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Another non-problem made worse by the warmologists. And how much you want to bet the replacement products don’t work as well as the regular ones?
Recently it was announced that marijuana was also found in the White House.
“No one was arrested in these incidents, because the weight of the marijuana …”
No where do they state that they didn’t know who had the marijuana. Eventually someone with a little intelligence will recognize that the statement was intended as a form of distraction and ask the follow up question … “Who was given a pass because of the amount found?”
The answer will be that it is a private matter and it will remain so.
I ran across this in the latest issue of Astronomy magazine:
At the end of an article (page 43, July 2023) was this about the author of the article:
“Ashley Spindler (she/they) is a lecturer in astronomy and data science at the University of Hertfordshire in the UK. She spends her time studying the evolution of barred galaxies with the help of AI.”
Several things:
I’m wondering where the (she/they) came from? I checked, and I didn’t see any of the other authors in this issue declaring their pronouns. I assume this must have been a request from the author, or maybe she attaches that to every signature of hers now?
As to the “they”: In what circumstance is this to be used in relation to this person? What’s the rule? What’s the alternative? So many questions!
The most important chart in climate science. There are enough clues there to deduce that Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation temperatures are an inverse response to solar wind strength, with very little lag, rather than a direct and lagged response to changes in solar irradiance.
That AMO anomalies remain locked to solar cycles through each AMO envelope, and are always colder around solar cycle minimum during a cold AMO phase, and never colder around solar cycle minimum during a warm AMO phase.
That the very long term mean AMO frequency has to be 55 years, as every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum. The last two AMO cycles of 60 and 70 years are due to the previous centennial solar minimum being 130 years before the current centennial minimum.
U
Solar wind temperature and pressure: