From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
I suspect stories like this are going round all of the media:
The latest weather updates as heatwaves and flooding cause disruption across the globe. Europe is bracing for a new anticyclone dubbed Charon, a heat dome is hanging over the US, China has recorded its highest ever temperature and bodies have been pulled from a tunnel in South Korea.
They really are getting desperate now to push their climate agenda, which is increasingly becoming unpopular as people are starting to realise how much it is going to cost them.
Just one of several outright lies in this Sky article is this:
As we know, global food production keeps rising every year.
But Marsham gives the game away when he calls for the switch to renewables, and calls on the government “to act”. Does he not understand that our emissions are dwarfed by the rest of the world?
Meanwhile back in the real world, we can see that the world is not becoming an inferno, and that we have the usual mixed bag of weather, bringing warmer than normal in some places, and cooler in others.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Explore more information on Earth’s temperature at EverythingClimate.com
“They really are getting desperate now”
They? Sky News is the Murdoch channel.
Well there goes the meme. 😉
WRONG again
While it was founded by Murdoch, it is now owned by Comcast
Sky News, British satellite, broadcast, and streaming news service that is owned by the British media and telecommunications conglomerate Sky Group, a division of the multinational telecommunications company Comcast.
You’re right. I hadn’t caught up with that.
However, Comcast doesn’t seem like a corporation desperate to push a climate agenda either.
Poor Nick-pick. WRONG again. !
“USA Today Names Comcast NBCUniversal Among America’s Climate Leaders”
Part of NBC, …lol!
Climate Leaders !.. ie full on propaganda. !!
Heavily into “carbon reduction” and “ESG”
“Part of NBC”
No, NBC is one of the many entities owned by Comcast.
Yawn !
Thanks for showing that ComCast is a far-left oriented company.
Yet another failed Nick-pick.
Nick…
“Comcast NBCUniversal” was the formal corporate name for many years after the 2010 Comcast purchase. Many business people still use it.
Re: Your statement: “Comcast doesn’t seem like a corporation desperate to push a climate agenda…”
Two months ago, a senior V.P. at Comcast stated: “We have been working diligently to do our part for the planet by reducing our carbon footprint, increasing energy efficiency, and implementing sustainable practices for the future,” said Sara Cronenwett, Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy and Environmental Sustainability at Comcast.
There we go! That’s what we like: Adding a few facts to the debate! Thanks, Steve!
NBC is the most alarmist TV news org in the US. Owned by……Comcast
The Left media are desperate to distract from the continuous scandals wracking the current administration, as well as the continuing economic disaster. Wearing out people’s “give a damn” with endless crisis porn.
Not anymore, not for some time now. It is a real lefty operation with a Global Warming bias.
Mind you, even GBNews often plays the card now.
“Meanwhile back in the real world”
A better guide to the real world is the monthly average, for June, say. It was by quite a long way the warmest June in the record. And yes, there were some cool spots, but not many:
Nick, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And you’re talking about the warmest June on record. Where’s the perspective, where’s the sense of scale?
The time scale is basically determined by the unique circumstances of our changing the constitution of the atmosphere by mining and burning.
What a load of arrant anti-science nonsense. !
CO2 has nothing to do with warming.
Mining and engineering allow for the prosperity of modern society.
gonna be vastly MORE mining to produce VAST amounts of wind and solar energy
The “constitution” of the atmosphere has changed by precisely 0.014% (that’s 14 thousandths of 1 percent for the decimally challenged) in the last 170 years. Or has it? There are many reasons to question current data from just one location on the entire planet, an active volcano in the tropical Pacific (the largest natural source), with ice cores from another single location, in a continent surrounded by the coldest ocean (the largest natural sink). Sounds like a stacked deck to me.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/180CO2_summary.pdf
” data from just one location on the entire planet, an active volcano in the tropical Pacific“
RHS – Please educate yourself about how and where CO2 is measured, especially about Mauna Loa, and the many other stations. You do not help the skeptical argument by repeating uninformed comments.
Summary from a few years ago:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Current.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
Not one word in any of them about outgassing from the ocean.
Mankind’s estimated 4% of the total CO₂ annual contribution toward nick’s specious fireball Earth.
Climate falsehoods loudly announced repeatedly and apparently endlessly by bizarrely devoted alarmists.
No link eh Nicky?
OK, this should cover it – TempLS and GISS both. Here is the earlier TempLS.
GISS, the worst urban warming and aircraft sites, adjusted to show further warming
Try to find something that represents REALITY
As I said, Mo-who is probably one of the most propaganda-laden anti-fact sites there is in existence. From a twisted and manic AGW zealot, desperate for some relevance.
WTH is TempLS.. another random cult fabrication using unfit for purpose surface sites and random “adjustments” to give the required result.
I doubt it has even the remotest scientific validity. !
“OK, this should cover it”
Says Nick, linking to a rabid AGW cult blog…
And here I was thinking he said blog sites are inadmissible. 😉
Where do those “numbers” for the South Atlantic come from, Stokes?
ERSST V5. Here is the current distribution of ARGO floats:
Then there are the drifter buoys, and shipping.
ARGO started 2005. (or thereabouts)
Nothing from 1951-1980 ( the global cooling scare period.)
Don’t pretend you didn’t know that.
Why choose to be a disingenuous, LYING shill !
GHCN, the most mal-adjusted urban and airport data available.
NOTHING is real about it. !
All that ocean .. really. !! before 2005 only a small fraction of the oceans was measured.
Even Phil Jones admitted the SH data was “mostly made up”
And why are they using the COLDEST period since the warm 1940’s as their reference period
And no, June was not the warmest month on record, even in the last 45 years.
In UAH there are at least 21 months with a higher anomaly.
It is also far below most of the last 10,000 years.
This chart is even more deceitful and dishonest than your usual pitiful efforts. !!
“GHCN, the most mal-adjusted”
The result shown uses unadjusted GHCN – ie straight from the thermometer (or AWS).
Rubbish.
What GHCN calls “unadjusted” has already been massively tainted by urban warming, aircraft sites, and a then they make “adjustments” as they fabricate their numbers to get the outcome they want..
“Even Phil Jones admitted the SH data was “mostly made up””
Then Phil Jones decided to just make it up himself. That way he could cool the past by including bogus sea surface temperatures.
The official temperature record before 1979, is all a Big Scam, created to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative by taking periods in the past that were equally warm to the present.and making them look cooler than they really were in order to make today’s temperatures look unprecedented.
The Alarmist temperature data mannipulators ought to go to jail, considering the damage their lies and distortions about the temperature record have caused to humanity.
Stokes is a big fan of fraudulent data practices like these, and when confronted about them, he always pulls out the “it doesn’t changes the results” line.
In my book he is just another cog in the Jones-Mann machine.
You’ve got a lot of red on there. Nowhere on UAH had a 3 or 4 degree (plus) anomaly for June. Sure you didn’t slip a decimal ?
UAH is up there. TempLS is down here.
TempLS = temp BS. !
An agenda-driven concoction by a twisted and rabid AGW cultist.
Absolutely nothing real. !
If the surface is warming, as Stokes asserts, why is the troposphere not warming as well?
Where’s that Hotspot?!
CO2 continues to increase, but no Hotspot.
It’s almost as though CO2 does not trigger a positive feedback from water vapor. If there is no positive feedback from water vapor, then that means CO2 is not doing what Climate Alarmists claim it is doing. Climate Alarmists are Wrong!
Maybe Nick has a chart with a Hotspot on it.
“has a chart with a Hotspot on it.“
Several cultists have tried to “manufacture” one..
Always caught out with there lies.
This analysis of balloon data shows it cannot possibly occur.
https://youtu.be/XfRBr7PEawY?t=1476
It is. All the satellite lower troposphere data sets show statistically significant warming over their period of record, including UAH. RSS shows faster lower troposphere warming than any of the global surface data sets since 1979.
It’s just that no one here likes to talk about RSS anymore.
RSS now uses “climate models” to manufacture its fabrication.
The “adjustments” from RSSv3 are manic !
It has become a JOKE.
It has made itself meaningless, just like the surface urban/airport mal-adjusted fabrications.
UAH data shows warming ONLY at the two major El Ninos, and basically zero trend before, between and after.
There is absolutely zero evidence of any warming by enhanced CO2 in the only reliable satellite data.
….slip a decimal….
https://temperature.global/ didn’t vary more than .15 degree the whole month and it takes tens of thousands of ground station readings. How do you explain that ?
Nick we’ve told you over and over again about how bad the surface data is. After we tell you, you just disappear and proceed to come to new post to spread the same misleading content. Why are you like this?
Pretty sure he’s paid to be like this.
It’s his job and his religion. Deacon Nitpick of the Climate Congregation.
And the earth would look even more scorchio if you cherry-picked the LIA as your base point
Nobody is doing that, though, so…?
“Pre-industrial” is the LIA, twerp !!
And no Nick-pick is choosing the coldest period since the 1940s peak…
The period of the “New Ice Age scare.
And you of course, buy into the anti-science.
I don’t see why 1 measly degree above normal is already rated an orange colour and OMG 2° gets fire engine red – what kind of bs brainwashing propaganda is this? Most of the people here has science and tech degrees – we can read a graph and think for ourselves – so colouring a graph all orange and red is not going to fool anyone here.
That is a very scary picture, indeed it does look like the planet is on fire.
It’s pure propaganda.
The base period 1951 – 1980 was only fractionally warmer than the end of the LIA (‘The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals … about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850’ — Wiki) and has warmed only about 0.6C in the forty years since .
The LIA was about as cold as the planet has been during this inter-glacial period, so far.
The basic reality is that for much of the planet- much of the time- the weather sucks- that’s normal- we’re used to it here in New England. People just CRAVE nice weather- I do too- but I’m a realist. It’s not reality. It’s the same craving to get “saved” as in most religions. But since so many people are now atheists- they now want to save the planet- so we’ll have nice weather everywhere. Salvation at last! All we gotta do is get clean and green energy!
Summertime and the Climatelying is easy!
Nick the map is Hogwarts.
I looked at dear OZ and those so called warm/hotter areas are still COLD for the date presented
Alice Springs was is still colder and what I see of the daily temperature about normal for this time of the year.
Me on the Spence Gulf its below normal, i.e. COLD.
The other this that map indicates is 12752 stations. Unless I m wrong more than 60+% are in the northern hemisphere. Averaging that out is statically biased.
Add to that any so-called temperature in OZ suffers for the delightful concept of temperature harmonization, which the BOM is well apt at. Meaning raw data in garbage out.
Notice that Stokes ALWAYS uses anomalies and not temperatures. Looks scarier like that.
ALWAYS check Nick’s base periods. Tends to be what he needs to show what he wants.
Suggest a prime base period Tom and we’ll stick to that. Has to be 30 years (WMO rules apply).
I suggest a much longer period, like the Holocene.
It was much warmer than now for nearly all of the 10,000 years.
Yes, there has been some slight and highly beneficial warming since the LIA,
That is absolutely a good thing.
So don’t be scared..
And don’t run around like a chicken-little with its head removed, as is your current behaviour.
It really doesn’t matter which base line you choose, but EVERYONE should use the same base line EVERY TIME.
Every scientific institute that publishes global temperature data uses anomalies, including Spencer and Christy at UAH.
Does that give you pause for thought? It doesn’t, does it?
Pause.?
39 years out of 45 years of decent atmospheric data.
That’s a LOT of zero trend
There is no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data.!
If everyone were jumping off a cliff would you follow? This is nothing more than the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Authority – “but everyone is doing it!”.
Anomalies are not fit for the purpose they are being used for unless each time an anomaly is stated it is accompanied by a uncertainty interval. Since the measurement uncertainty of the base data is at least +/- 1C there is no way anomalies calculated from averages of that base data can have uncertainties in the thousandths digit. Averaging does *not* increase resolution and it does *NOT* decrease uncertainty.
Remember, anomalies are calculated from absolute temperatures. The variance of those absolute temps control the uncertainty and variance of anomalies. Anomalies are NOT temperatures, they are a conglomeration of ΔT’s from a conglomeration of stations. You should refer to anomalies properly.
Your base period is different, you show 1951-1980. Nice cherry pick.
When he’s not picking nits, he’s picking cherries!
I choose for graphics the same base base period and color scheme as GISS, so they can be compared. Here is the comparison
You chose it to perpetuate your LIES and DISINFORMATION.
You know that.
Everybody knows that. !
“I’m melting!”
The graphics in the article you are commenting on used the based line 1979-2000. Why didn’t you use the same base line? No, you chose a base line that gives you the results you want to show.
Nick’s special specious sophistry and false color magical nonsense.
CO2 from industrial & transportation make up something like 1 one hundredth of 1 % of the atmosphere and you seriously believe that that tiny composition of the atmosphere controls the climate of the earth – what happened to your common sense – if you ever had any
So Nick, the question you keep avoiding: do you have yer battery car yet?
“anomaly base 1951-80”
Isn’t this the time frame of the media reporting of a coming ice age?
One would pick this ’51-’80 data only if the object was to – insert cliché here.
See above. I use for graphics the same base and color scheme as GISS, so they can be compared. GISS uses 1951-80 because it first came out in 1987.
So it is chosen to be the period of the global cooling scare.. OK
Disingenuous disinformation as always.
Good thing the planet warmed a bit, hey..
This graphic does not show temperature, only the variance/anomaly from a selected base period.
A change of the base period would change all of the colours, perhaps to the blue end of the scale but that would not be scary enough, would it?
The 1951-80 base in the graphic includes the lower temps in the 70’s when another ice age was a consensus so the anomalies shown are comparing to a low base.
I am in my seventies.
I am convinced that the outside air temperature is on average colder now than it was during my youth. Perhaps I am mistaken and my misperception is due to aging bones
I certainly do not feel that the present climate is an existential threat & I think that anyone who is under that illusion – has a few tools missing from the toolbox.
How any sane, rational person can believe that the earth is in a climate crisis – defies belief!
Common sense is not very common!
Something is odd with the climatereanalyzer Antarctic temperatures. If you look at it right now, most of Antarctica is into the blue, below the average. As typical for such an extreme environment, there is also extreme temperature variation. There are some places where temperatures are 24°C below the average, and others up to 18°C above the average. Either way, the cold exceeds the warm. Yet the site reports +0.24°C for current Antarctic temperature.
It’s all anomalies calculated from a made-up baseline. If your baseline is screwed up then the anomaly will be also. What’s the uncertainty in the baseline? +/- 0.5C? That overwhelms the +0.24C meaning no one knows if it is accurate or not! What *is* the uncertainty in that anomaly? It will be the sum of the uncertainty in the baseline and the uncertainty in the current temp. Physical scientists and engineers always specify measurements as “stated value +/- measurement uncertainty. What *IS* the measurement uncertainty of the +0.24C stated value? Why does no one in the CAGW cult ever give the second part of the measurement – the uncertainty?
Climate “Science” has absolutely nothing to do with real Physical Science, which is why its proponents are ignorant of basic Metrology such as uncertainty and error bars.
“Averaging cures all ills” — trendologists especially Stokes.
And it will until the idiots put an end to agricultural fuel and fertilizer and destroy the mostly private enterprise (with the help of a few trade restrictions) agriculture business.
@Prof. John Marsham.
If you want to tell the government what to do, you should have gone into politics.
Do your job. Report “the science” without your clear bias and alarmism.
On the WUWT thermometer, the world temperature is 14.15oC, which sounds pretty normal to me or maybe even below normal.
…. And not at all “warm”
People in the Midwest, Argentina, Kazakstan and south Australia will be scratching their heads and wonder what the hullabaloo is all about.
The people in the American Midwest already are scratching their heads.
Our biased National Weather Service (NWS) has been warning residents of the Midwest and West that temperatures are dangerously hot.
People who work outdoors every day are puzzled by such claims as the “dangerous temperatures” cited are perfectly normal weather for July.
Alarmist news services and government NWS appear to be desperate communicating their alarmist propaganda.
Propaganda recognized as false claims by most ordinary citizens.
The high temp here south of Topeka, KS on July, 18, 4PM has been 79F. Why in Pete’s name are people talking about dangerously hot temps? That’s actually long sleeve shirt weather!
“””:Europe is bracing for a new anticyclone dubbed Charon
Wrong: It is not an anticyclone – it is a cyclonic weather system
Even school children know which direction the hands on a clock rotate and that:
anticyclones are cool wet and windycyclones are hot dry and settled
“””a heat dome is hanging over the US,
Wrong: A large mass of warm air is doing no such thing as ‘hanging’
e.g. Take a bucket, fill it with dry sand and now dump it into a single pile on the floor
The pile on the floor is The Dome
In the case of The Heat Dome, replace the sand in your bucket with cold dry air and dump it from a height of 20,000+ feet.
As it falls it will heat via lapse-rate/Foehn Effect and if the ground it lands upon was already hot and dry, some quite spectacular high temperatures can be achieved.
Completely without the use of carbon dioxide or any GHGE
The cold dry air came from strong vertical convections occurring at places that are merely warm and wet.
e.g. Large lakes, forests, perennial grasslands and oceans
The warm & wet air at such places has much greater buoyancy than hot dry air and always will have as long as moisture is present .
What goes up must come down and so that vertical circulatory system, once started, becomes ‘locked’
“””China has recorded its highest ever temperature
So what.
The only constant inside weather and climate is = Change.
If it stopped changing we really would be in some trouble
“”” and bodies have been pulled from a tunnel in South Korea.
As per the above comment, the only constant is change
What changed in S Korea was that a large thunderstorm system (many small storms) developed and dropped a lot of rain.
The rain obeyed the strictures of Gravity and flowed downhill in streams and rivers.
One of those rivers had had its banks artificially strengthened, the river deepened and also would have had structures (bridges and piers) obstructing the flow.
As with any and all man-made devices, there was nothing else to happen except = Failure
The man-made (artificial) river collapsed, the water escaped and continued downhill into another man-made structure (the tunnel) – which also failed but in a different manner
Hence The Bodies.
The river was supposed to contain water – it didn’t
The tunnel was supposed to exclude water – it didn’t
Again, no influence from CO₂
And as explained for the Heat Dome, the S Korea storms could only have happened if warm wet air lofted skyward had had somewhere where it could return to earth
iow: A dry place
Dry places include deserts, cities and farmland growing annual (vs perennial) crops.
It was all entirely man-made and CO₂ had completely nothing to do with it
edit: Realisation
Where exactly in China was the record heat?
Because that place might have been where the warm wet air from Korea found as a route back down to the surface.
i.e. It was ‘China’, creating an Aridified Place (large cities, expanses of grain-growing farmland) that provided an escape route (exhaust) for the warm/wet air arising off Korea and its surrounding sea/ocean
It is interesting that they don’t even understand weather, let alone climate. We happen to have weather that is moving heat from N.Africa, the Sahara (where 50+C is normal) into Europe. That is not climate at all! The UK has a low nearby so is not receiving any of this heat and is uncharacteristically cold for July. There is zero understanding or balance left in the MSM. The BBC are probably worse today, although one forecaster yesterday did make some concession to weather, he is probably out of a job now. The same in Arizona in the USA, the BBC featured down and outs, who were black and shouldn’t suffer as much as Europeans, claiming to be suffering heat stroke. Do persons in Africa (where it is usually at least as hot for parts of the day) suffer heat stroke? Very rarely! Arizona is largely desert and very hot always. Death valley claimed 53C too, but it is the hottest place on Earth, almost always.
Every global surface temperature producer that has reported so far, NASA/GISS, NOAA, Japanese Met (JMA, shown below) and Berkeley Earth is showing June 2023 as the warmest June on record by a considerable margin. Two of those producers’ records start in 1850. None of this was reported by Paul Homewood, naturally.
Even in the lower troposphere (TLT), which has a slower temperature response to El Niño than the surface, June 2023 was the second warmest June on record, according to both UAH and RSS, but when TLT does fully respond to El Niño forcing, it tends to be even stronger than on the surface.
The thing is, the current El Niño is still only in its early stage. It has yet to reach the threshold to be formally called an El Niño with either NOAA or BoM. We are likely to see high global temperatures and associated disruption for months. It’s going to be fun to see what methods Paul Homewood (et al.) devise for misdirecting from it for so long.
“We are likely to see high global temperatures and associated disruption for months.”
It happens every summer.
Global surface temperature records in June (and probably July also) don’t fall every summer…
They haven’t fallen this June either.
21 months in the last 45 years had higher anomalies.
And the global temperature is still way below most of the last 10,000 years.
I said “Global surface temperature records in June…”
This was the warmest June on record for all 4 surface data producers that have so far reported.
The fact that other months (i.e. not June) have higher anomalies is irrelevant to the June record.
Surface sites are by a large percentage, TOTALLY UNFIT for climate work or comparison over time.
The fabrications from them are basically just nonsense, and totally un-scientific.
Every month is relevant… or is it only the ones you want to choose?
The ultimate cherry pick.
What do you not get about each month having its on different average temperature?
The problem is that when you begin to drill down to local/regional temps, you start to lose the total. Remember, global includes both summer and winter temps. All of a sudden it becomes hard to find temps far above the average that offset a lack in the temps below the average.
Most importantly, you are looking at a mean value of a distribution of random variables. That distribution MUST have a variance.
Question 1:
What is the variance of the anomaly?
Question 2
How was the variance of the anomaly calculated?
When two random variables are added OR subtracted, THE VARIANCES OF EACH RANDOM VARIABLE ADD! That means the variance of the monthly average AND the variance in the baseline. Remember, temps in winter and summer in the SH & NH will have a pretty big variance.
These aren’t local regional temps. They are global averages.
What is the uncertainty interval for those average monthly temperatures? Any idea at all?
Look up the NOAA site. They always publish the uncertainties. HadCRUT likewise
UAH don’t, by the way (and uncertainties in the satellite data are much larger in the surface data). Do you ever demand uncertainty intervals form UAH?
It doesn’t matter what I demand of who. The bare fact is that you didn’t answer. You didn’t give any facts or any links. So you are making an unsupported claim. If *YOU* don’t know what the uncertainty interval is then how can YOU claim they are accurate?
“on different average temperature?”
Oh dear.. the clueless one exposes itself yet again
Doesn’t understand anomalies.
Ignorance displayed in his every post.
You should take a rest.
Your friends will thank you.
So , still unable to argue with any rational facts or science…
Why is that, FN ? you poor little child !
I see you have failed to answer the questions I posted to you earlier. If you can not answer these questions then you have no business telling folks what is right or wrong. I’ll repeat the questions again!
=======================
Most importantly, you are looking at a mean value of a distribution of random variables. That distribution MUST have a variance.
Question 1:
What is the variance of the anomaly?
Question 2
How was the variance of the anomaly calculated?
When two random variables are added OR subtracted, THE VARIANCES OF EACH RANDOM VARIABLE ADD! That means the variance of the monthly average AND the variance in the baseline.
Did you see all the COLD records within just the last year or so.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/17/john-kerry-devastated-at-house-hearing-on-climate-by-scott-perry/#comment-3750917
Or do I have to post them here as well !
Here are the first 3, just for you. More if required.
Record-breaking cold hits half of the US | Popular Science (popsci.com)
Coldest start to winter in decades for eastern Australia with power grid under strain | Australia news | The Guardian
China: Northern city of Mohe reports coldest temperature – BBC News
Yet, even according to UAH, the US was +0.22C warmer than the 1991-2020 average in 2022.
So I guess these cold records were offset somewhat by overall warmer temperatures.
WOW…. 0.22C
Run screaming in panic.!
Or seek mental help !
Here’s some more… from all over the world…
Record-setting cold snap hits Europe, France – The Washington Post
South Pole Hits Record Cold November Temperatures – The Daily Sceptic
An Awful Chilly Global Warming in the Southern Hemisphere – ClimateRealism
Just pointing out that all your cold records didn’t stop the US having a warmer than average year in 2020.
SO WHAT !
Tell me at 15C do you wear shorts and a T-shirt?
If the temperature climbs to 17C in your house, do you turn on your air-conditioner to cool it back down to 15C?
You totally lack any grasp of reality.
15C is rather on the cool side,..
.. no wonder there are 10 to 20 times as many deaths from cold as from heat !
Year-to-date anomaly for 2023 in the US is -0.14C
Oh look, that’s COLDER than average.
We’re talking about global warming, so global temperatures, right? Not about a tiny fraction of global surface area.
You were the one mentioned UAH US…
… or do you have the memory span of a squashed gnat ?
Global temperature is still very much on the COOL side compared to the last 10,000 years
So stop your idiotic chicken-little panic. !
Wait a minute! Are you claiming the occupied percentage of the globe is changing at a rate different from the rest of the globe?
TFN, you’re continuing to be brainwashed by red crayon colored maps. Take a step outside, you might find reality to be a little more invigorating and healthier to one’s psyche.
FAKE mal-adjusted temperature series from urban and airport sites
Totally unfit for time-related climate purposes
The chart is not remotely representative of global temperatures.
Why are you still praying for an El Nino?
Shows that you know the warming is not from CO2.
Great to see you are still as GULLIBLE as always.
Utter nonsense!
Paul needs only to publish the truth not specious claims and bogus hockey sticks.
The truth is that all the global surface temperature data producers have reported the warmest June on record. Paul tends not to report anything that is ‘off message’.
Yet you know that record is FAKE and MEANINGLESS..
So why would anyone with any sense publish it !
warmest June on record
How long is that record?
60 years? That is nothing – 0.5% of the Holocene. Not enough to establish anything.
‘Underground climate change’ is deforming the ground beneath buildings, study finds
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/17/world/underground-climate-change-deforming-ground-scn/index.html
“CNN — A phenomenon that scientists have called “underground climate change” is deforming the ground beneath cities, a study conducted in Chicago has found.”
So they have found more evidence for the existance of urban heat islands?
Let’s see:
Heatwaves usually do continue into August in the Northern Hemisphere.
The particular heatwave in the U.S. is not leading to crop losses as the high heat is mainly over the desert southwest, although it is drifting back to the East at the present time. Here in Oklahoma, the farmers and ranchers are hoping for a few dry days so they can harvest their hay crops. It’s been raining off and on throughout the summer here. it’s hot, but that isn’t stopping the crops from doing well. It is a lack of water that harms the crops, not heat.
Heatwaves do cause disruptions, and they do occur around the globe so I guess that statement is true. The implication that heatwaves are caused by CO2 is not true, or at least, has never been established as a fact.
A Heat Dome does not hang over the U.S., it is hanging over the U.S. southwest. It shuffles to the West for a while, and then shuffles back to the East. It’s what would be called a persistent high-pressure system. When it shuffles to the West, it allows the jet stream to bring rain into Oklahoma and the south-central U.S., and when it shuffles back to the East, it pushes the jet stream to the East and the rain is pushed away from Oklahoma.
I do wish authors would not put parts of their post in text that cannot be copied and pasted. They might get more replies if they didn’t make it so hard.
What is really amazing is that the Desert Southwest has become a major crop growing region, primarily utilizing Colorado River water for irrigation and hydrocarbon energy for cultivation, harvesting, processing and transportation.
Even just a hundred years ago, no one would have believed it. Even in the midst of the current heat dome, look at how green this golf course is just outside of Phoenix.
https://torreon.com/live-webcams/
Yes, lack of water is the main problem for crops. If they have enough water, plants can still thrive in the heat.
You ought to see my daughter’s garden. It is thriving, and the heat index here was 115 yesterday.
Tom Abbottt:
The irony is that those claiming that CO2 is causing temperatures to rise are the ones who are actually CAUSING present temperatures to rise (as they ARE), through their Net-Zero efforts.
CO2 has NO climatic effect. SO2 aerosols, on the other hand, are the control knob of Earth’s temperatures. Increase them, and it cools down. Decrease them (as is now being done), and it warms up.
You might want to read my article “Definitive proof that CO2 does not cause global warming”, and comment on it.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.1.1329
Salute!
I need help. I am trying to find the “goal” for the global temp versus the doggone anomaly stuff.
So using accepted international atmospheric values, are the warmists trying to shoot for about 16 or 17 deg C ?
In short, what is the goal?
Gums wonders…
NOAA estimate absolute monthly temperatures here. The ‘pre-industrial’ part of the record (usually defined as 1850-1900) annual average global temperature (land and sea surface) is ~13.7C. The hope is to avoid +1.5C above that, so under ~15.2C using the NOAA estimate.
There’s currently about +1.2C warming in the NOAA data from 1901 to 2022. Still ~0.3C to play with.
“Play with”??? Is this a technical term?
I just like to keep it light.
….. that explains your empty, meaningless comments.
Of course; so what explains yours?
yawn! are you 12 years old yet .. mentally ?
Stuck at about 14 actually. Otherwise I wouldn’t be commenting on this ludicrous site, I suppose.
You don’t make comments.. you make idiotic grunting noises.
Pertaining to nothing.
You are obviously still a mental toddler, that is for sure.
Why are you playing in the big boy’s pool before you have even learnt to dog paddle ?
The 1.5C was put out of someone nether regions. It is non-scientific and totally meaningless.
The planet has been far warmer than that for most of the last 10,000 years, as human civilisations developed.
1850 was at the end of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years…
Be very thankful for that small amount of highly beneficial warming.
Also be very thankful for fossil fuels, the increase in atmospheric CO2, engineering development and industrialisation… etc etc
They are what allows the world’s population to exist.
Even you are TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THEM.
It’s an arbitrary choice, of course. It is intended to be indicative.
It was arrant nonsense… just for gullible clowns like you.
Indicative of absolutely nothing.
That’d be it.
Yep.. Indicative of absolutely nothing.
A pointless, irrelevant number plucked out of mid-air or someone’s nether regions.
Wait, Nail……..
My atmosphere chart that is used across the globe for aviation and “science’ still shows about 15C for “standard” at sea level and such, then -55C at 35,000 feet
That table was developed around the beginning of the “pre-industrial” age.
So the goal is now related to an absolute temperature? Never heard of that. All I see are these anomaliy graphs and charts and “hottest day evah” stuff. Most are not based on the international atmosphere data from 1850 or when.
Thanks, Nail, but let’s keep bugging both alarmists and “deniers’ to use some basic standard….sheesh, the “c” and ‘f’ guys tried to establish a common reference, but the climate guys use charts and graphs with the axis based upon various groups or dates or whatever.
Gums sends…
Yup, there are variations among the different groups but they are fairly close. I believe the WMO uses an average of the main producers both for both the absolute temperature and the anomalies.
It’s the anomalies, or difference from average, that count; the actual value is always an approximation.
They are all based on sites that are totally corrupted by urban heat, aircraft runways and exhaust, air-conditioner outlets, surrounded by cement, and many other non-climate aspects..
The surface data is not in the least bit representative of real global temperature.
Come on! I worked at an airport with a reporting met site for over 30 years. They moved it 3 times in that period. Each time it ended up further away from the runway. It’s currently closer to a country road than it is to the airfield.
Next we’ll be saying ‘country road contamination’ is causing global warming.
DENIAL, as always.
It all FN has
The FACT is that a large proportion of surface sites are heavily contaminated by urban expansion, airport runways, parking areas, air-conditioners on shed..
They are totally unfit for any comparison of temperatures over time.
Have you actually looked at the siting rules for temperature stations? Do you know what constitutes a contaminated site and what doesn’t? I do strongly suggest you go and look it up.
What is the variance for the baseline and monthly average used to create the anomaly? If the actual value is an approximation that means it must have an uncertainty associated with it since it isn’t 100% accurate. That uncertainty carries over into any anomaly calculated from it.
So, do we actually know what the anomaly *is*? Or is it just an approximation as well? If it *is* an approximation then what is the interval around the approximation?
Uncertainties in monthly data are reported by NOAA and HadCRUT5 in every monthly update. UAH, not so much….
And you’ll never see anyone complaining about UAH not including uncertainties here. Funny that.
UAH does state its uncertainties… You just have to learn how to read.
NOAA/HadCrud5 uncertainties are a load of arrant anti-mathematic nonsense anyway.
The uncertainty of the UAH record has been discussed at length in several threads recently. Where in Pete’s name were you?
” to avoid +1.5C above “
I’ve been trying to find where this +1.5 number comes from. I read somewhere that it started out as “2” drawn from “out of the blue” — to use a polite cliché. At some point the 2 became 1.5.
A good explanation of this will be appreciated. Thanks.
I’m not sure exactly how it was formulated, but is the indicative value agreed in the Paris Agreement, 2015. 1.5C above pre-industrial does not mean ‘the end of the world’.
1.5C does not “mean” anything.
It is just a number to scare the witless. !
Holocene has been far warmer than that.
As I say, it is just a point of reference.
So, you agree it is totally meaningless..
At least that’s a start !
It appears to be a safety margin applied to runs of a modified version of Nordhaus’s DICE model, using revised discount rates.
The 1.5C was sort of “try to keep it under 2, but 1.5 would be better”.
Nordhaus originally came up with an optimum at around 3 degrees C. Optimum here doesn’t mean “best”, more “least worst”. It’s the level with the lowest combined cost of damage from warming plus the cost of actions to reduce the warming.
I don’t know whether similar exercises have been conducted recently.
Let’s see, that is about 57° F. That’s pretty cold.
It covers the whole globe, including the poles.
And most people choose to live “not at the poles.”
57F is cooler than most people like it.
Most people have a heater on if its 57F inside.
Nevertheless, if you are gong to estimate a global temperature then you need to encompass the globe, irrespective of where people live.
Urban areas are a small fraction of the planet, yet make up a large proportion of sites.
They are totally unrepresentative of the planet as a whole.
Try again. !
It’s area weighted. That’s exactly why. You’re just not getting this, bless you,
You still don’t comprehend that a nearly all the data comes from urban and airport site do you, mindless one.
That data is smeared across huge areas it doesn’t belong to.
Seems you read “area-weighted” somewhere… but are totally clueless what it means. !
What is the variance in the temp distributions. You can’t be scientific without adequately addressing the statistical parameters of the data being used. Go find a scientific paper in any other field that doesn’t quote complete statistics and show us.
Variance is a measure of uncertainty. Since the variance in global temps is so large it means any other statistical descriptor has a large uncertainty. Of course they aren’t going to provide the variance, it would undercut their entire argument about knowing what is happening to the global temp out to the hundredths digit!
“It covers the whole globe,”
WRONG again. !
It covers a very small part of the globe.. mostly urban and aircraft sites.
There are many large areas of the land where there is basically no surface data at all.
Before 2005 a there was a very low coverage of the oceans, basically none in the SH, and only along major ship routes in the NH.
Even now the surface sites are sparse, erratically place, heavily tainted by local effects, do not cover huge expanses of the surface in any adequate way, do not exist in many cold areas. (There are some in rapidly expanding Arctic towns like Barrow.)
The whole surface station system is totally inappropriate for working out a time-comparative global temperature, now, and most certainly in the past.
So you are saying the variance in the distribution of temperatures that are used to calculate the global temperature is large? Why don’t you quote what the variance in the absolute temps used to calculate the global temp is?
To do so might (will) interfere with his fear-mongering climate pr0n.
Gums:
No, their goal is to prevent temperatures from rising, but their actions are causing them to rise. (See above reply to Tom Abbott)
Less air pollution = more of sun’s radiation reaching the ground = more heating of the earth’s surface.
Ergo we need more pollution from burning fossil fuels in order to keep the earth cool.
Look at the 1940s through 1970s – we had a lot more air pollution and the earth cooled.
We got the Clean Air Act of 1970 and air pollution was reduced – all those ‘brown clouds’ in major cities are now gone.
Clean air = hotter earth
Which will come first?
The Oceans will boil or the Earth becomes an inferno?
Well, for the oceans to boil the earth would already have had to become an inferno, right?
So I would say A.
Neither are likely in our lifetimes though.
Neither will come until the Sun goes super nova or we get hit by a major comet or asteroid.
Certainly CO2 is not going to do it… ever.. It doesn’t warm anything.
The fact you even think it might ever happen shows just how “off-with-the-fairies” your little mind is.
Instead of blanketing desserts with mirrors and farmland with pinwheels, why not drop an H-bomb on an “extinct” volcano every decade or so to cool things down?
“The Year Without a Summer” was caused by a volcano.
“Crazy idea”? Sure. But it makes more sense than the current “solutions” to a non-problem.
In southern Manitoba, the first half of July is historically the hottest time of the year with normal highs of 26C=79F. Yet for the first 18 days of July this year, we have been below normal for 14, so where’s this inferno the alarmists are warning us about? Or maybe none exists in the first place,.
Hotter over here in Alberta but thems the breaks.
Mixed bag kind of year, hot early then cool, some poplars starting to drop leaves now, mostly drought I imagine
The weather forecaster said yesterday that our little piece of Heaven here in Oklahoma had 14 days of over 100F temperatures last year by this time in July, but this year we have had only two days over 100 at this time of year.
No unprecedented heat around here this year. So far, anyway. We still have about a month of heat to get through. 🙂
Salute!
Yeah, great summer up there normally if no floods from fast melt on the Red River. Flew over that lake up there many hours.
At Grand Forks on our military assignment, we planted tomatoes in the yard and with so many hours of daylight and not scorching heat we had more than we could handle. Another year would have had beans and squash and early peas but had to deploy.
Gums sends…
Spent 2 weeks in Central Europe in June, Skynews was one of the few English language channels I consistently found and it was way over the top every night.
How can people watch that crap.