Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
A recent WUWT article addresses the failure by climate alarmist media and scientists to utilize NOAA’s July through August summer maximum temperature data resulting in their false “hottest summer ever” headlines for the year 2023 with this summer characterized in the Times article as having been a “record breaker”.
The L A Times alarmist article referenced in this WUWT post was not based on measured global August average temperatures but instead was built upon the use of global average temperature anomaly measurements (Times article statement shown below).
“August was about 2.7 degrees warmer than preindustrial averages.”
The global August average temperature anomaly value represents the statistical temperature difference determined between the year 2023 global August average temperature outcome compared to the global August average temperatures compiled since 1895.
The global August temperature anomaly measure tells us nothing about August average temperature outcomes at any specific location on the globe nor does it tell us anything about August average temperature anomaly measurements at any specific global region.
The world’s oceans comprise about 70% of the earth’s surface with the land surfaces representing the remaining 30% that are spread out across the far flung 7 continents with the huge distance separations between these continents making the use of global average outcomes to characterize these regions completely invalid.
Additionally, the Times and other climate alarmist news media falsely characterize the global August average temperature anomaly as representing the “hottest summer ever” when such claims require the use of August maximum temperature measurement data at specific global locations. Likewise, use of summer July through August 2023 maximum temperature data would be required to make “hottest ever” claims regarding the summer of 2023 as noted in WUWT article.
Another WUWT article shown below followed up on the prior article by addressing NOAA’s recent contiguous U.S. year 2023 September average temperature anomaly and absolute temperature data updates.
The first NOAA graph in this article shows the monthly contiguous U.S. data that include both August 2023 (August proclaimed as the hottest August ever) and September 2023 average temperature anomaly values since 2005 using NOAA’s most accurate USCRN set of measurement stations across the U.S. that are sited away from temperature altering artificial heat sources which plague the majority of USHCN temperature measurement stations.
NOAA’s monthly temperature anomaly outcome is calculated based on using monthly average temperature values defined as (Tmax + Tmin)/2 = Tavg with the average temperature value compared to prior year averages over a defined long-term period to determine time dependent differences.
The scale on the right-hand side of NOAA’s graph shows degrees F (the scale on the left is degrees C) with this value determined by taking each monthly Tavg compared to the average Tavg of all like months over a specifically defined period of years. The September 2023 temperature anomaly outcome is +1.93F with this anomaly value exceeded by 4 prior years going back to 2015.
The anomaly data shows that neither the August nor September 2023 average temperature anomaly outcomes across the contiguous U.S. are trending significantly from prior values with these results clearly not supporting alarmists claims that there is a global “climate emergency”.
The second NOAA graph in the prior article (shown below) indicates the monthly maximum temperature measurements (Tmax temperature values) for the summer months from July through September of year 2023 (in 2023 being 85.36 degrees F) compared to that same summer measurement period for all yearly July through September summer month intervals going back to 1895.
The graph clearly shows that the July through September summer of 2023 was clearly not the “hottest summer ever”.
NOAA’s July through September yearly summer temperature data on their website is available for maximum, average and minimum temperatures as shown below with NOAA’s data establishing that the increasing trend of Tavg (orange graph with this value being (Tmax+ Tmin)/2 as described above) is clearly driven by the significantly increasing trend of Tmin (blue graph) versus Tmax (red graph).
Shown below is NOAA data for the period from June through August which is considered the “meteorological” summer period versus the “calendar” summer from July through September shown above.
Again, the June through August summer month period was not the “hottest summer ever” as the Tmax data clearly shows. The outcome of Tmin (blue graph) driving increasing Tavg (orange graph) is also clearly present.
The climate alarmist news media and climate activist scientists have been misleading the public with false claims of the “hottest summer ever” based on using summer average temperature anomaly values derived from Tavg while ignoring summer maximum temperatures (Tmax) with the maximum temperature data clearly showing the U.S. has not seen a “hottest summer ever” outcome in year 2023.
The sharply increasing minimum temperatures are significantly driven by Urban Heat Island impacts (UHI) as described in a recent significant study (shown below) at this WUWT link by Dr. Roy Spencer whose study evaluated how increasing population density around cites over the last 100 years have resulted in artificial heat sources (buildings, roads, airports, vegetation, traffic, air-condition vents, etc.) impacting temperature measurements at stations in these areas across the U.S.
These artificial heat sources significantly impact measurement of minimum temperatures as the stored heat in these artificial sources contribute to increasing temperatures after the sun has set as reflected by the NOAA graphs above that clearly show increasing minimum temperatures (blue graphs) have been climbing since about the mid 1970s and are driving up average temperature measurements as addressed in Dr. Spencer’s important and comprehensive study.
The key conclusion from Dr. Spencer’s study is as follows:
“But for the average “suburban” (100-1,000 persons per sq. km) station, UHI is 52% of the calculated temperature trend, and 67% of the urban station trend (>1,000 persons per sq. km). This means warming has been exaggerated by at least a factor of 2 (100%).”
The failure of climate alarmists to use NOAA summer maximum temperature measurements and instead rely on temperature anomaly related analysis using summer average temperatures in making flawed “hottest summer ever” claims is a major error. This error is applicable at global, regional, national, state, county, and city levels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Increasing T-min is a clear sign of an Urban Heat Island effect, not the dread Global Warming
Tmax is the one to use if we are talking about “hottest year evah!” claims.
The Tmax charts show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
The Tmax charts show we have nothing to worry about from CO2, because it is no warmer today than in the recent past, yet there is more CO2 in the air now than there was then, but it is no warmer today than then.
So, CO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperatures.
Larry,
F is on the left and C on the right on all the graphs.
Yes that is correct. Thanks.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/10/saturdays-chill-ends-record-run-of-15-plus-temperatures/
”Saturday was the first day since May 17 that the temperature dipped below 15° in the De Bilt weather station near Utrecht, ending a record run of 149 days, weather bureau Weerplaza said. The previous record of 148 days was set in 1982.”
1982
So NO global warming for 40 years it seems to me. The Urban Heat Island Effect around Utrecht should be much bigger than just one day in those 40 years.
On average, the temperature falls below 15 degrees for the first time in De Bilt on September 20. In 1949 and 1921 this did not happen until October 22. That day is noted as the latest date.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2494091-recordperiode-voorbij-voor-het-eerst-sinds-mei-niet-warmer-dan-15-graden-in-de-bilt
“Increasing T-min is a clear sign of an Urban Heat Island effect, not the dread Global Warming”
Or it could be because of 15% more of the most powerful greenhouse gas, (H2O) injected into the stratosphere less than 2 years ago.
Wait – wasn’t the earth supposed to be uninhabitable if the temperature went up above 2 degrees? Guess not since we’re all still here
I doesn’t happen right away. Just wait – in 100 years we’ll all be dead. 😁
At some point the media needs to be held accountable. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom to lie.
They are doing what they are paid to do.
They are doing what they have always done. They’re just more blatant about it now.
An editor at a newspaper (many years ago now) stated that it is not the job of the media to tell the truth, but to report liars, accurately.
Who gets to decide when the media is lying, and punish them?
That’s a dangerous power to give government?
Who gets to decide if I am lying? There is no reason that we shouldn’t expect the truth from our media. They are given a lot of latitude, the least they can do is be truthful.
What is this latitude of which you speak?
Are you saying that the government is being merciful to companies that fail to print what you regard as the truth?
It should be the public – if a media outlet isn’t a good one, people will stop watching or buying their product and that media outlet will fail. Unless it’s the BBC and then they just carry on with impunity.
The public already has the power to ignore any form of media that fails to live up to the public’s expectations.
The myth that some other professional category only accept saints.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah I agree my writing there.makes not much sense on later reading- I think the point was that expecting scientists or journalists to be more honest than used car salesmen or grocery clerks seems optimistic.
Where is it written that lying in print is not allowed?
Nowhere. But get caught lying in print and that’s a different matter.
But get caught lying in print and that’s a different matter.
Only if you’re held to account.
I think freedom of the press does mean freedom to lie- but it also means we have a right to challenge the press, especially policy makers.
Libel laws used to be a good defense against being lied about in the press.
Then the courts invented the public person defense against libel. In other words, if you are a person who is in the public eye, then the press if free to lie about you.
That was bad enough, however the courts and the press have expanded the definition of a public person to be pretty much anyone who gets mentioned in the news.
In other words, the very act of lying about someone in the press, means that the person has been mentioned in the press, therefore they are now a public person and can be lied about with impunity.
I’m no lawyer but- I think there’s a difference between a lie and libel/slander.
They also made it just about impossible to prove defamation—a person has to be able to demonstrate some tangible damage, for one.
Unfortunately, yes it does. They are not only free to lie, but also to suppress the truth. ”The debate is over, the science is settled”
Manns inverted “hide the decline” 😀
I have lived in Vermont starting in 1986
The NOAA records of Vermont’s four measurement stations show an increase in the MAXIMUM temperatures of 1.4 F, and an increase in the MINIMUM temperatures of 4 F over 40 years.
Everyone in Vermont agrees winters have been getting warmer, but summers have been a bout the same
The captive Media in Vermont conducts interviews with scare-mongering state bureaucrats and “environmental-science” types, to stay up to date regarding the latest global warming talking points.
Vermont winter plus 10f equals a nicer place to live.
All people who work outdoors, like forest workers, farmers, construction are 100% in agreement!
Pre-industrial times, before 1850, were the last Little Ice Age. Few people would like to endure that cold again.
The ever shriller climate alarms aren’t working. The basic problem is that the facts, as here, are otherwise. The secondary problem is that the proposed solutions—renewables, net zero—don’t work at scale in the real world. It took almost 40 years to get where we are. (Hansen 1988, UNFCCC 1992) My guess is the collapse of climate alarm will be a lot faster than the next 40 years.
The irony of a major oil exporter hosting the next COP is but one collapse example.
So whats the next crisis? Has to be something.
If it get’s colder they’ll likely shift back to “the ice age is upon us” or somesuch.
Then they’ll demand that we burn more coal! 🙂
An admitance by the governments that we are being visited by aliens from another planet? 🙂
Salute!
One more reason to use actual temperature that best sensors could provide.
I’ll guarantee that average folks would look at the degrees or tenths of a degree changes and move on.
I have lived long enuf to see the anomalies and they are in my personal noise level. I cannot feel the difference between 0.2 deg anomaly and 0.12 deg…you pick scale.
Gums sends…
Yes, but climate anxiety levels are at a record…..what if….what if climate warming causes the earth’s axis to tilt more?….and …..and….what if climate warming causes the earth’s orbit to become more eccentric? What then? What to do? Could we be doomed?
What if too much CO2 causes the sun to go out?
Mr. W: That’s just silly! The science is settled, and CO2 would clearly cause warming. On the sun. (That’s my AlanJ imitation).
What if CO2 causes the moon to move away from the earth faster than normal and the tides fail and we all die from the tsunami caused by the oceans sloshing to a standstill?
Sounds like a good idea for a movie!
A year or two ago, I saw a documentary titled something like “What if there was no Moon”. From the description it looked like it would be a study on how the Earth might have developed had there never been a Moon. I thought that might be interesting so I queued it up to watch.
The opening clip had the Moon disappearing from the night sky, then they started to talk about the disaster that would be caused as the tidal bulges collapsed. I gave up on the show at that time, and moved on to the next thing on my list.
I can’t watch anything about nature or climate anymore, and even shows on astrophysics often manage to sneak a global warming reference in from time to time.
even shows on astrophysics often manage to sneak a global warming reference
Not that it never does, but “How the Universe Works” is generally pretty good about it. Most of their “climate change” references are geologically historical and/or about other planets.
But they tend to get obsessed about specific subjects.
Another silly Hamlin article where he can’t get it into his head that the high temperatures in summer 2023 that people are talking about are global, not CONUS. CONUS, for some reason, was not exceptionally warm, except in the SW and S.
So it’s no use fussing with anomaly vs non-anomaly series of CONUS. Wrong place. But then there is this:
“using NOAA’s most accurate USCRN set of measurement stations across the U.S. that are sited away from temperature altering artificial heat sources which plague the majority of USHCN temperature measurement stations.”
showing a graph where that plagued ClimDiv (Hamlin lives in Heller’s world, where USHCN stayed on as a ghost the last 9 years) has been blotted out. But if you don’t rub out Climdivl, you get
So despite whatever is supposed to have plagued ClimDiv, it gives almost exactly the same result (and a lower trend).
What is it about Nick and his absolute refusal to ever actually read an article that he seeks to criticize.
The article is quite clearly referencing a LA Times article about US temperatures.
The first screen shot is of, an article from the LA Times referencing US temperatures.
The second screen shot is of a social media post talking about NOAA dataset covering the “continental US”.
One of these days Nick will manage to not beclown himself. Alas, today is not going to be that day.
CDS – Climate Derangement Syndrome will do that. Please be more compassionate to the little boy in the man’s body.
NS doesn’t like the article or it’s subject, so changes the topic from CONUS to global. How typical. And how utterly futile to those of us who can both read and comprehend.
“The article is quite clearly referencing a LA Times article about US temperatures.”
This article article is shamelessly repeating a falsehood in the image headline, debunked in the first comment on that thread. The LA Times article was not about US temperatures. Hamlin made that up. No one else is talking about US tempertaures either. That is a Hamlin diversion. The topic is global or NH temperature 2023 seasonal averages.
When the first lie doesn’t work, just get more brazen.
Yes, that is what is happening.
Yep, your lies do get more brazen, Nick-pick.
Why do you continue to try all your petty little deceitful tricks to support an agenda that wants to bring down western society.
What is in it for you ?
He is misleading with a misdirection which I think is deliberate thus a lie overall.
I agree that is what is happening, which is why I pointed it out.
Now you are LYING like hell since this is what the LA TIMES wrote:
Which was false as Hamlin then showed using the NOAA database that it wasn’t the hottest on record at all and it was from 1895-2022 Summer temperature data.
You might have serious ocular delusions that you need addressed.
“But in Britain and the United States, global records go back to the mid-1800s…”
“global records go back to the mid-1800s…””
Except that they don’t. !
Very few countries have any significant data back to the mid 1800s.
Basically UK and USA + a few bits and pieces.
Nick once declared that since the records we have are all that are available, we have to use them.
An actual scientist would say that since the only available records are inadequate, there is nothing to learn from them, and go on to either find some other records, or find something else to do with his life.
“But in Britain and the United States, global records go back to the mid-1800s…”
Can you explain how that works? Pretty sure Britain and US are not the entire globe.
They are talking about Hadcrut and GHCN
You know that for a fact or are you just getting that desperate?
The actual articles say that they are using NOAA and USCRN data.
Admittedly, the sentence is a bit confusing. However the rest of the article, as well as the articles headline make it quite clear that they are talking US and Britain records, not global records. You really have to stretch credulity past the breaking point to come up with the interpretation you are peddling.
The US is 9.75% of the Northern Hemisphere land mass. It has the best temperature reporting network there is. It shows no significant warming. It can’t be handwaved away as “not being global.”
We’re now at the tiresome stage when people pretend not to understand simple concepts of variability. Here is an equal area map of temperatures in August 2023. Notice that some areas are bright red, some not, some even blue? That happens, with monthly temperature, trend, anything. With or without CO2. You see it all the time. In this map/month Eastern US is cooler than most of the world. That is enough to ensure that CONUS did not have record warmth. But it doesn’t do much for the global average, which was a record warm August.
Where do the numbers for the South Indian Ocean come from?
The LA Times article concerns the Northern Hemisphere temperatures. The headline reads “This is the hottest summer ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, scientists say”The actual article is at:
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-09-06/summer-hottest-recorded-northern-hemisphere
And it is quite possible for the average temperature of the northern hemisphere to be
increasing while the USA’s temperature remains constant.
“it is quite possible for the average temperature of the northern hemisphere to be
increasing while the USA’s temperature remains constant.”
You would expect nothing else if you measure all the temperatures at urbanised sites and airports…
.. and if you then make cooling adjustments to the past of many of those sites.
Raw data shows most of the less urban affected NH sites having 1930s,40s similar to the early 2000s
That COULD be true. It could also not be true.
Izaak: “And it is quite possible for the average temperature of the northern hemisphere to be increasing while the USA’s temperature remains constant.”
Nick: “CONUS, for some reason, was not exceptionally warm”
Izaak, could you explain to Nick, and the rest of us, how that happens? Is there less CO2 over the United States?
CONUS *is* a significant part of the NH landscape. If the CONUS didn’t see higher temps then the temps in the rest of the NH had to go up significantly in order to make the anomaly go up to a record level. We would have seen crop failures out the wazoo over the rest of the NH – but we didn’t (Ukraine excepted).
Something isn’t right in Nick’s assertion.
So Nick is lying when he claims that both articles are about global records?
You poor naive little man.
Haven’t you realised yet that USCRN is controlling the ClimDiv manipulations..
They would look pretty stupid if they made it keep warming while USCRN does basically nothing.
The slight calculated trend, is of course, because of the position of the 2015/16 and 2020 El Ninos in the time series, causing a slight bulge around that time.
“Haven’t you realised yet that USCRN is controlling the ClimDiv manipulations.”
The same tired old conspiracy theory, naturally with no evidence whatever. There is no such control, and in fact it would be quite impossible, since all data is posted within minutes of being read.
Deny all you like.. Makes zero difference to reality !
Climdiv is a compilation made from many unfit for purpose surface sites… .
what is so hard for you to understand about that.
And yet it has a lower warming trend than USRN….
How laughable does this get?
Pure luck of the adjustments.
Yes, we are all laughing at your clown-like comments. !
Are you DENYING that a large proportion of surface sites in the USA are unfit for climate work?
WOW !!
You really need to start paying some attention at the back of the class, rather than daydreaming all the time. !
Just pointing out that the ones you say are ‘pristine’ are running warmer than the whole set. Not sure what is making your ‘pristine’ sites so warm. Are you?
The difference is insignificant, and ClimDiv is adjusted to be somewhere near USCRN.
What don’t you comprehend ?
It gets crazier and crazier.
You’re now claiming that NOAA are weighting ClimDiv up to match the extent of the warming seen in USCRN?
You’re saying that the poorly-sited stations have to be adjusted upwards in order to keep pace with the warming reported by the ‘pristine’ sites?
That’s a bit of a back-to-front argument for a warming ‘skeptic’, isn’t it?
I told you that you had basically zero understanding..
You have just confirmed that fact. !
What’s been happening is that ClimDiv anomaly started a bit higher than USCRN in 2005…
.. and they have been gradually calculating it to be closer to USCRN.
Is that too difficult for you to grasp ?
Then that would involve increasing ClimDiv temps in order to keep up with the warming seen in USCRN over the same period.
Again the total lack of comprehension.
Sorry if your tiny little brain can’t understand anything even that simple.
Obviously WAY too difficult for you to grasp.
Probably best to stop proving yourself to be a moronic idiot !
Pointing out that one data set is pure crapola means that you are proclaiming that all other datasets are pristine?
Different databases, different methods of cooking the data.
“where USHCN stayed on as a ghost the last 9 years”
Do you mean this USHCN ?? dated 2023-10-16
Index of /data/us-historical-climatology-network/2.5/archive (noaa.gov)
The heading, and URL, says archive.
NOAA has not published a USHCN average since March 2014. That is when it switched to ClimDiv, with many more stations.
And yet people can calculate changes from raw data right through to 2020.
Recent USHCN Final v Raw Temperature differences • Watts Up With That?
Andy May there isn’t calculating an average anomaly. Or even an average temperature.
YAWN, Denying USCHN 2.5 exists, when it is right in front of you.
So funny !
He is a continual liar as he in the past repeatedly stated it was “Obsolete” yet as you showed the NOAA is still running the program and paying the bills with data updated every single day which means it isn’t obsolete and they have updated the program code which cost money and time.
It is Nick who is obsolete.
He is slime.
USHCN is so obsolete that the notices about the replacement have now been dropped. Here is a very explicit one on the WayBack:
“NCDC builds its current operational contiguous U.S. (CONUS) temperature from a divisional dataset based on 5-km resolution gridded temperature data. This dataset, called nClimDiv, replaced the previous operational dataset, the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), in March 2014.“
It was just a renaming, because USHCN had such a bad reputation for bias and inventive infilling , data creation, horrendously bad sites etc etc.
USCHN 2.5 data still goes up to “now”
The H stood for “hi-quality”… which it certain WAS NOT !
Nor was it fit for measuring “climate” changes of any sort.
Nevertheless, it still comprises most of the pre-2014 US data in the farcical NOAA urban/airport fabrication you keep posting.
“The H stood for “hi-quality”… which it certain WAS NOT !”
You never get anything right. The H stood for historical.
USHCN was down to under 900 active stations in 2014. ClimDiv has over 10000.
“ClimDiv has over 10000″
Nearly all of them urban affected.
“The H stood for historical.”
There should be an “A” in front..
for Adjusted Historical.
As they are, they are definitely NOT historical, but a total bastardisation of the meaning.
I guess you are well aware of that.
Glad you realise they ARE NOT high-quality of any sort.
Love how easy it is to get you to admit they were not hi-quality.
How many of your feet can you fit in your yapping gob at once, Nick 😉
It seems the wordpress editor strips the wayback prefix. Hope this works. Otherwise you can find it yourself on Wayback
https://web.archive.org/web/20220411040002/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-introduces-national-temperature-index-page
Why would anyone care.
You know it makes up most of the farcical NOAA data before 2014 at least.
A name change, and adding a whole heap of urban and airport sites.. whoopie-doo !
Since the “maximum temperatures” presented by NOAA, and used in this article, are not what thermometers measure, why should we believe their USCRN site is any better?
After adjustment, the data better matches what the models say should have happened.
That proves that the adjustments must be correct. /sarc
So it’s climate when it suits and weather when it doesn’t?
It’s weather plus climate, as always.
Nope.. not climate…..
… the data doesn’t exist in any un-tainted form to say anything about climate.
“are global, not CONUS”
I LOVE IT.
To Nick, CONUS isn’t part of the globe! I wonder where he thinks CONUS *is*? On Mars maybe?
Even Izaak can’t support Nick’s lie that the data is global.
Just a reminder about what the real topic of concern is. Here is NOAA’s plot of global monthly anomalies since 1850. September, at 1.44°C, is by far the hottest month in the record. Next was Mar 2016 at 1.35°C.
Thereby providing further evidence that there is no correlation between global monthly anomalies and carbon dioxide levels. Well done nitwit.
No, the correlation is pretty good.
As long as you ignore the data, the correlation is pretty good.
As long as you limit the data to the small part of the record where there is some correlation and ignore the rest of the data, the correlation is pretty good.
No here is the global data and I-dunno… it looks pretty good to me. What do you think Mark?
Berkeley uses some of the worst data available.
And some of the most ludicrous “adjustment” routines.
They can fabricate whatever end product they want.
As soon as you see the word “forcing” you KNOW it is a propaganda con job.
Which, of course, simpletons fall for every time. !
When you have been here a few more years, maybe you can be assigned your own personal troll.
As long as the well cooked data matches what Simon wants to see, it is good.
Yep, the correlation is darn good…
No it isn’t.
The hot weather anomalies are equally as good as the cold weather anomalies in showing that something other than CO2 is responsible for the variations in temperature we’ve seen since before the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period.
Sucks Nick doesn’t it when one half of your cognitive dissonance is getting paid? It’s tough out there these days, but I’m sure you can suck it in and cash the checks anyway.
The correlation looks pretty good to me.
A fake model, pretending to represent science, containing baseless assumptions of CO2 warming.
Hilarious.
It’s all the climate alarmists have. Without bogus Hockey Stick charts, they would have to shut up.
This is the “evidence” they always present and that is because it is the only “evidence” they have. A bastardized temperature profile is all they have.
All the written, historical, unmodified temperature charts from around the world show a completely different, benign temperaure profile, where it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and these regional charts put the lie to the bogus instrument-era “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick charts.
The Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as it is today, globally, going by the written historical record.
So any chart you look at that doesn’t show the Early Twetieth Century to be as warm as today is a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick charts.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart is the BIG LIE of alarmist climate science. It’s the only thing the climate alarmists have to use to sell the notion that CO2 is overheating the world and it’s all a BIG LIE created in a computer. A deliberate BIG LIE created to promote Human-caused Climate Change.
And we see the results today: Western civilization crashing to the ground trying to regulate and control CO2, for no good reason, based on a BIG LIE.
Mr. Stokes: Thank you for that, so I see CO2 spiked up in mid 30s, spiked down in early forties, danced up and down for about thirty years, and then, when AGW theory took over, the graph follows CO2. Sort of, still dancing up and down some, but you guys have certainly debunked that whole “well-mixed gas” meme. Have you called the folks at Manua Loa?
It really is sad how Nick remains convinced that we can accurately measure the temperature of the planet to a hundredth of a degree.
Created from surface sites that are highly urbanised, and from an increasing % of airport sites.
Then mal-manipulated to force that spurious local warming onto all other sites.
On top of that there are manic agenda-driven “adjustments” designed to get rid of the 1940’s peak
There is absolutely ZERO PROBABILITY that it can give anything remotely realistic as a global temperature over time.
Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values • Watts Up With That?
We can only imagine how much of the global data is totally fictitious !!
Another dumb article posted two years after USHCN was replaced by ClimDiv, with no apparent awareness of the fact.
USHCN is still operational and updated every day by the NOAA, it is YOU who keeps denying that fact.
You are a shameless liar!
See if you can find any published average since 2014 clacluted by NOAA.
Are we using averages or not? You say a global average anomaly is not calculated, then deliver a global anomaly. How does one get there without averaging?
OK, from the context – can you find any USHCN average since 2014 calculated by NOAA?
Climate science has a cloudy crystal ball they stole from a carnival fortune teller in Hutchinson, Kansas. They use it to “divine” the global average temperature.
USCHN is in all the data of your graph up to at least 2014.
Seems you have no awareness of your own graph.
Ignorance… or deliberate LIE… or 100% of both !
No error bars or uncertainty zone.
False precision on stilts, no-one knows what the global temperature to half a degree C was in January 1950 let alone in Jan 1850.
The graph is ridiculous.
The tired old knee jerk. The head post has 11 NOAA plota without error bars or uncertainty zone. It’s how they come. The WUWT front page features four plots without them. But when I post one (1), that is terrible.
You know GISS data is a total farce.
That is why you use it. !
I love how poor Nick whines about being picked on.
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.
No, its, the basic kneejerk. NOAA plts don’t have error bars; I can’t add them. So you say that Hamlin, WUWT etc can post them freely, but I can’t. I wonder why you like that rule?
All supposed global temperature records from 1850 to 1979 that do not include error bars or uncertainty shadings are scarcely credible, I don’t care where they originate or who posts them.
You seem to be defending the indefensible by pointing to others that are just as bad.
“I don’t care where they originate or who posts them.”
OK, it seems you can have that one to yourself alone.
The irony is that NOAA actually does include uncertainty in their global average temperature dataset.
Would you please include the column headers? When I click, I don’t get them.
Here is the readme file.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/noaa-global-surface-temperature/v5/access/timeseries/00_Readme_timeseries.txt
Thanks for the spoon feed.
Printing misleading data, just because someone else did it first, is not what a scientist would do.
How we needed you during Lord M’s recent “No warming in ***** months series!
Where were you back then?
roflmao.. There is still a non-positive trend back to June 2015.
Error bars would be equal either side of data.
Is there anything you DO understand..
… or is your comprehension basically zero on everything !
I was just wondering why error margins are suddenly a big thing, when they were roundly ignored during Lord M’s latest “no warming since…” series (which has, predictably, vanished).
I’ve just given you the result of “no warming since”….
Your lack of comprehension is hilarious. 🙂
He was there. Completely forgettable, bumbling over basic concepts and getting roundly jeered for the tomfoolery but he was there.
Is there a justifiable reason you were absent from all of the other WUWT articles without error bars or uncertainty zones? Do they all get a free pass? Does Larry Hamlin get a free pass?
HA HA HA HA HA, it is the data sets who doesn’t provide the uncertainty bars.
Which makes it all the more egregious since NOAA, GISS, BEST, HadCRUT, etc. provide the uncertainty. Do you think Larry Hamlin, Chris Hanley, etc. get a free pass here?
How can anyone even believe in those numbers before about 1960?
A style note: When you use the words “The Times”, without a qualifier, to refer to a newspaper, you are referring to The Times of London, England, UK. Founded in 1785 under the title The Daily Universal Register, it adopted its current name on 1 January 1788. It is the platonic form of a newspaper to which all of the many Timeses of the world aspire. All other newspapers with Times in their name ought to be qualified geographically: e.g. NY Times, LA Times, Straits Times, Times of India.
How horrible. It’s warmer than it was but a bit. We better revamp the entire society. SIGNED – Leftist prigs everywhere.
Millions of Canadians Russians still hope, standing in snow banks Hoping Australia keeps selling coal to China.
The contiguous United States comprises less than 2% of the global surface area, and thus trends in the CONUS are only a small component of the global trend. It’s a little difficult for me to believe that WUWT readership is genuinely unable to comprehend this fact.
Yet it is the only place with a temperature site network that is anywhere near pristine enough for measuring global temperature changes over time.
The global surface network is totally meaningless for “climate” purposes.
UAH matches USCRN over the US pretty closely except for the extra response to El Ninos.
Couple of questions:
I don’t understand why this site is pushing USCRN when it is running warmer than ClimDiv? It’s bizarre. But there’s a lot I don’t understand about this site.
Sorry you don’t understand simple concepts like sample validation
There is a lot you don’t understand.. period !!
Like basically everything. !
And you have proven you just don’t want to understand, that is the truly idiotic stance you have chosen to take.
It is your problem to overcome.
You haven’t addressed either question, have you?
You can’t, can you?
I have in the past.
You are incapable of comprehending.
Not my problem… yours
So we’re just left to wonder why it is that the ‘pristine’ US data set is warming faster than the one with sites contaminated by urban heat island effect, etc.
Why is NOAA adjusting its ‘contaminated’ data sets downwards; making them cooler than the pristine ones?
The conspiracy theory says they should be doing the opposite, right?
OMG. Think for yourself, moron.
I am not here to spoon feed you, little chld.
ClimDiv anomaly started above that of USCRN….
They have now brought them closer together… adjusting to make them a better match.
Is that too difficult for you to grasp…
… or are you going to continue being a complete imbecile. !
“I have in the past.”
That is so funny. So here, you don’t want to repeat information that backs up what you say, but at times on WUWT you have been nothing more than a photocopier repeating the same lines over and over. “Trees under ice blah blah blah…..”
Trees under ice.
You still haven’t explained… why is that?
You really are very simple, aren’t you.
It is not my problem if you have the memory span of a dead goldfish.
“You still haven’t explained… why is that?”
Haha, brilliant.
Actually, in 2005 and early in the data period, ClimDiv was warmer than USCRN…
… the difference is now less.
Obviously, adjustment to match USCRN have improved.
So UAH matches USCRN matches USHCN. Where’s the big scam, exactly? UAH isn’t doing you any favors this year, either.
What a stupid comment..
UAH has always reacted more to El Nino events… they add energy to the atmosphere. D’OH
ClimDiv is being adjusted to match USCRN. ( USHCN.. Nick says doesn’t exist 😉 )
So warming in UAH isn’t real it’s all just El Niños all the way down, and warming in ClimDiv isn’t real it’s all fraudulent adjustment (even though the adjustments are… bringing the ClimDiv trend down?). And what about warming in USCRN? Is that El Niño too? Even though USCRN doesn’t respond as strongly to El Niño yet shows a larger trend than UAH?
Does it ever get tiring having to work so hard to deny reality? You really keep yourself busy in these threads so I imagine you must find the pursuit of self delusion invigorating.
“it’s all just El Niños all the way down”
WOW.. Finally you figured it out !
Was it really that hard for you to get passed your cult brain-washing, and face REALITY
“And what about warming in USCRN? Is that El Niño too? “
Yes... You can see the bulge in the USCRN data through the 2015/16 and 2020 El Nino… The location in the time series is what gives the slight positive trend.
As you say.. the response is not the same as the atmosphere, but it is still definitely there.
Up until the 2015 El Nino there was basically zero trend in USCRN.
Try not to be blind !
Well, according to you, UAH has a stronger El Nino expression. So why is the more muted El Nino response in the USCRN producing almost the same trend (even a little higher)?
You’re saying the warming is all El Niño, so the series with the strongest El Niño signal should show the most warming, no?
“Does it ever get tiring having to work so hard to deny reality?”
Look in the mirror, and ASK YOURSELF !
Be nasty has a simple strategy. If the data backs up his preconceived thinking, it’s real and to be relied on…. if it doesn’t, its FAKE!!!!!!!!!!
Easy world to live in. Oh and by the way, did you know there are trees under the ice?
They are indeed truly stupid people because as you correctly state it measures far more of the air above the surface than ground-based stations do thus sees a lot more air profile that El-Nino’s charges upward.
UAH over the USA is a very good trend match to USCRN.. always has been.
This year is no difference.
But it is the sort of erratic monthly match one would expect from two different sources.
Unlike ClimDiv which is very tiny amounts either side of USCRN, obviously being controlled by USCRN.
“So UAH matches USCRN matches USHCN. Where’s the big scam, exactly? UAH isn’t doing you any favors this year, either.”
In my opinion, arguing over a few tenths of a degree difference in the current-day data sets is a distraction from the real issue, which is that the temperature data mannipulators eliminated previous warm periods in the recent past to make it appear that today is the hottest time in human history, when, in fact, it is not the hottest time in human history, and arguing over a few tenths of a degree, while valid for its limited purposes, is missing the BIG PICTURE, which is the entire global temperature record from 1850 to 1979, does not represent reality because it has been bastardized to the point it is unrecognizable.
The truth is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. Just as warm then with less CO2 in the air. Not any warmer today, with more CO2 in the air. Where is a demonstrable CO2 effect? There is none. That’s the BIG PICTURE.
The original Global Temperature Data Mannipulators are the Villains here. Their lies have caused our societies to waste TRILLIONS of dollars tryng to reduce CO2, when there is no evidence CO2 needs to be reduced going by the unmodified, global temperature records which show it is no warmer now with more CO2 in the air, than it was in the recent past with less CO2 in the air.
CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. The bogus Hockey Stick charts of the world are the only thing that says differently, and they are all a BIG LIE.
We should be talking more about Michael Mann and Phil Jones and their cronies and the damage they have done to the world with their lies about the global temperature profile.
Tom, as I’ve told you countless times the net effect of all adjustments in the global average temperature from your favorite dataset GISTEMP actually REDUCES the overall warming trend relative to raw data. Think about it and play it out in your head Tom. What happens when those adjustments are removed? Will the dataset show more or less warming? It is not a trick question.
Confessions of a data fraudster…
“Tom, as I’ve told you countless times the net effect of all adjustments in the global average temperature from your favorite dataset GISTEMP actually REDUCES the overall warming trend relative to raw data. “
That’s true but to be ignored here.
And this is a total LIE, because it compares faked previous data against FAKED adjusted data.
Neither fabrication is remotely based on RAW data.
Only a completely naive imbecile continues to far for that sort of scam time and time again..
That would be YOU. !
“adjustments” are the problem.
The Early twentieth Century Warming has been “adjusted” out of existence in the official record.
Raw regional Tmax charts from all around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
The chart on the left below is the U.S. regional chart and it’s temperature profile, which shows it was just as warm in the 1930’s in the U.S., as it is today and is representative of the other unmodified, regional temperature charts from around the globe.
Then we have the bogus, bastardized “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart profile on the right which shows it has bee n getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, and the current day is the hottest in human history.
The regional charts show CO2 is not a problem because although there is more CO2 in the air today, it is no warmer today than in the recent past, so more CO2 does not equal warmer temperatures than in the past.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart shows relentless, alarming warming.
So, how does one get the Hockey Stick profile on the right out of data derived from the regional chart on the left? How does a benign temperature profile like the one on the left turn into a scary profile like the one on the right? Answer: Fraud and data mannipulation.
Would you like to share an unbastardized version on which you are basing the claim that it was warmer in the early 20th century?
I share them all the time. They are called regional surface temperature charts. They look nothing like a bogus Hockey Stick chart profile.
Try these 600 regional charts from around the world on for size. See any that have a Hockey Stick profile?
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
What does it look like when you combine all those regional temperature charts into one? It should, according to you, look like the early 20th century was warmer than today.
How about NOT combining regional temperature series into one? The idea that the Earth has a “temperature” is fatuous physical nonsense.
If the Hokey Schtick were real, it would be reflected in most or all of the regional temperature charts – it isn’t.
The CAGW crowd that AJ is defending hasn’t got a single predication that I know of correct in 30 years. From polar bear extinction to global food shortages, from New York City/Miami being underwater by now to 24/7/365 hurricanes everywhere, and on and on and on and ….
I have seen this warmist/alarmist argument at least 500 times now, I am sure many here have seen it too, but you didn’t make a point over it since America temperature data is REGIONAL thus highly likely to be more accurate than a single global temperature you swoon over.
Don’t you people think logically?
Thanks for your comment. I’m tired of threads where Nick Stokes and The Final Nail come and hijack them with their idiocy. I just start skimming through the comments by either of them or those responding to them. A complete waste of time.
I had to laugh when TFN claimed the Luton garage fire was caused by a plain diesel vehicle. It’s obvious that the fire was not burning diesel. If it was, there would be lots of thick, black smoke. Instead, it was very clean, bright, and under the driver’s seat–where the battery is for those diesel hybrids. Lithium battery fires burn clean because they make their own oxygen. It’s similar to magnesium brake fires–you can’t use water because burning magnesium steals oxygen from water molecules and burns hotter. It appears they will have to develop fire suppression technologies for lithium battery fires. Someone used a nearby fire extinguisher which didn’t work obviously.
Another sign that the fire was from a lithium battery is the colour of the flame -carmine red, characteristic of the lithium ion.
A government official said it was a diesel fire, therefore it was a diesel fire. One must never argue with a government official after all. Unless that government official is to the right of Mao, then they are never right and must always be ignored.
The claim is that it was the hottest summer in the northern hemisphere and the whole globe. The US doesn’t cover most of the northern hemisphere, much less the whole globe. Even if we suppose the US has the best data on offer, we still can’t point to it as being representative of the entire planet.
When will you come to the realization that:
1) Anomalies are not temperature, they are the derivative of a temperature function, i.e., ΔT, “temperature/time”.
2) Averaging ΔT’s from different functions is not a good practice for creating a new function.
3) Looking at local and regional anomalies, they provide a counter-example to the efficacy of averaging ΔT anomalies into a global metric.
4) It is not up to others to prove averaging ΔT values of different functions works to give a ΔT of a new function, that is up to YOU.
Think about averaging an arctic ΔT that has little insolation with a tropical location ΔT that has a lot of insolation. They obviously have a different temperature function using the S/B equation. Do you think a bias might be introduced?
Remember, lots of folks average insolation over the entire global surface so that every square meter gets the same insolation, but that is not reality.
The argument is that 2% does not equal 100% and that what happens in the 2% is not necessarily representative of what happens in the other 98%. Do you challenge this argument?
Here is the rest of my post you ignored as it explains it logically which you amazingly missed completely.:
I ignored it because it is irrelevant. It’s not a question of accuracy. It is a question of whether the 2% can adequately represent the remaining 98%.
Then you are on record as thinking that a 2% REGIONAL USA temperature is less accurate than the 98% global temperature that has near zero temperature coverage in the Southern Hemisphere from 1850 to 1900 in it.
Have you been drinking recently?
I didn’t say anything remotely close to that. That is your argument and yours alone. Don’t expect me to defend your arguments especially when they are absurd.
What I did say is that the argument is that 2% does not equal 100% and that what happens in the 2% is not necessarily representative of what happens in the other 98%.
And I’ll ask again…are you challenging that?
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. Climate science uses two samples from those seconds to describe the temperature for the day. That’s .002% of the total temperature curve (approximately).
Using your logic what happens in those 2 temperature readings is not necessarily representative of what happens in the other 99.998%.
Are you challenging that?
I hate to tell you that the sun’s insolation is averaged to the same amount over every square meter of the entire globe. CO2 forcing is the same everywhere since it is well mixed. Why wouldn’t a sample be the same as the whole globe? Maybe averaging everything into a single number isn’t a good practice?
He won’t answer a “contrarian” (whatever this is).
“The contiguous United States comprises less than 2% of the global surface area, and thus trends in the CONUS are only a small component of the global trend. It’s a little difficult for me to believe that WUWT readership is genuinely unable to comprehend this fact.”
What you don’t apparently comprehend is that regional charts from all over the world have a similar temperature profile to the profile of the United States.
So if you have all these regions showing the same temperatue profile, one that shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, then how do you put that data into a computer and come out with a temperature profile that erases the Early Twentieth Century Warming (the blip) and produces a scary, “hotter and hotter” temperature profile where it looks like temperature s have been rising for decade after decade and are now at the hottest times in human history. How do they get that temperature profile out of a different temperature profile?
Here is about 600 regional charts from around the world that have no scary Hockey Stick profile:
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
So how does one get a scary Hockey Stick temperature profile out of data that has no Hockey Stick profile? Answer: One cheats and fraudulently mannipulates the temperature data and gets rid of “the blip” that is a fly in the ointment of the climate change alarmists.
Well, you wouldn’t. If all the regions of the world show they were warmer in the early 20th century, the combination of those regions should show that it was globally warmer in the 20th century. I’ll eagerly await you providing that global temperature profile showing unequivocally that it was warmer in the early 20th century.
This is some Frankenstein monster stitching together of cherry picking and Gish galloping. I’m greatly looking forward to seeing your global chart summarizing all of these findings into a cohesive picture.
Mr. J: “Frankenstein monster stitched together.” But your Frankenstein-monster-stitched together global average, that’s science. Sure.
“Well, you wouldn’t. If all the regions of the world show they were warmer in the early 20th century, the combination of those regions should show that it was globally warmer in the 20th century.”
We’re making progress here! 🙂
You have drawn the logical conclusion.
So, why don’t other smart people draw this same conclusion? Are they just not logical thinkers? Or is it something else? I don’t know the answer to that.
Ok so… show it. Combine all of the regions in the world and show that the globe was warmer earlier in the 20th century. Show us how the other guys have gotten it wrong when they produced global temperature estimates.
You cannot show it was NOT.
All you have is a whole heap of totally unfit-for-purpose urban and airport site….
… combined by rabid activists, using scientifically idiotic processes.
Your whole AGW farce is based on absolutely NOTHING. !
I show these all the time. I’m surprised you haven’t seen them.
Here’s a Tmax chart from Australia. A nation that is on the other side of the Earth from the United States an in a different hemisphere, yet this Tmax chart shows that Australia was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, just like what the U.S. chart shows.
Is that global enough for you? Opposite side of the planet, and different hemisphere, yet the Tmax chart shows it is the same as the United States. No Hockey Sticks anywhere to be seen.
You need to describe your data source in more detail, because it is completely inconsistent with the official record from the BOM:
But aside rom that, no, that isn’t good enough. You need to show a comprehensive global view that is comprised of all of your individual regional charts. Show an average, or show a map like this one from NASA:
Something that shows how those individual regional charts represent a worldwide change.
“You need to describe your data source in more detail, because it is completely inconsistent with the official record from the BOM:”
And that surprises you?
“You need to show a comprehensive global view that is comprised of all of your individual regional charts.”
Why? Your NASA map is made up of numerous regions. I can use GIMP to extract a picture of Australia and a picture of North America and show them separately. Does that make the extracts incorrect? Does it change them so they don’t show the same thing as the overall map?
Your requirement that all the records be stitched together into one graphic is just ludicrous. It’s a logical fallacy assuming that the probability of the whole is less than the probability of the parts.
If Part A is hot and Part B is hot then the whole made up of Parts A and B is probably hot. Extend that to all the parts Tom has in his list. If all the parts are hot then the whole is probably hot.
You want to argue otherwise, that even if all the parts are hot the whole might not be! A logical fallacy.
Claim: I have data from regions around the globe proving that it was as hot or hotter in the 1930s than the present day:
Reality: Maybe my map missed a few spots:
You can’t just cherry pick regions showing the trend you want to show while ignoring all the rest. That’s why I’m looking forward to Tom proving that he isn’t engaging in cherry picking by showing us a truly global picture supporting the claim he’s making.
Maybe you should do that in reverse. Break down the global into regions and show that they match official temperature records.
Do that and show us your results.
The map already breaks down the global into regions. The map is comprised of official temperature records for the regions mapped.
Really? What is the density of the ocean-based measuring stations in the ocean between the southern part of Africa and the western coast of Australia?
The map is showing area-weighted gridded anomalies, so all regions of the globe have appropriate representation.
Not with raw data, only adjusted data.
Whether you like it or not high temperature records provide a window into what it was like. The dust bowl did occur and not just in the U.S. Have you ever read Grapes of Wrath? It isn’t science fiction you know.
Read this. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/
As you should note, just single records are not the only indicator. If you paid attention to this site, another indicator is days over 100° F.
As I have tried to tell you, averaging ΔT’s has its own set of biases. If you can’t or won’t recognize them, you are not doing a complete job of analysis.
Go look at state temperature records for the U.S. and see how they match your graphic.
Your graphic indicates that all high temperature records in the U.S. should be occurring RIGHT NOW.
Tell us why that isn’t the case.
Then tell us how your data is messed up!
Where do the numbers of the South Indian Ocean come from?
Unless there are parts C D E F G H I J K L M N O P that you aren’t showing that maybe change the picture. If you pick the parts that show what you want and ignore the parts that show what you don’t want, you will indeed present a picture that seems to confirm your position, because you are lying by omission.
It’s also worth noting that Tom’s list is not a comprehensive list of regions around the globe that were warmer than present day in the early 20th century, it’s a slapdash list of random studies showing that some point on the globe might have been warmer than today at some point in the past (whether that be a century or several millennia ago). It’s not even an attempt to compile a temporally congruous view.
Show your proof. If you have done a proper mathematical algorithm, then reversing it should not be a problem.
Break your global down to regions and localities to confirm the match.
TA has given you a headstart on some regions, so show how your global breaks down into regions.
You know he won’t. He would have to admit that places like eastern Siberia aren’t measured at all – their data is just “homogenized” (read guessed at) from stations hundreds or thousands of miles away!
That isn’t what the term “homogenized” means, but anyway, you are conflating the idea of a grid cell missing a station with the notion of there being no measured data for that region. If there is a nearby station in an adjacent grid cell then you do have information about the temperature change in that region, even though your grid cells aren’t capturing it as such. In this case, spatial infilling of grid cells without stations using nearby grid cells with stations is completely appropriate and acceptable, and in fact not doing so would be bad practice. That is all that is being done in the Arctic region.
Look at the attached map. How do you “know” what the average should be within a ±2° range? I mean the range is from 61 to 71. Uncertainty in measurement starts here and doesn’t get less.
If you don’t do daily, it is much too late to look at a monthly average since all the data variation is gone, gone, gone.
There is a reason why Hubbard and Lin proved you can’t use common adjustments to temperature readings on a regional basis. The microclimates can be vastly different even within a distance of a few miles let alone a few hundred miles.
Using temps in one grid in another grid is just climate science making crap up out of whole cloth!
AKA Fake Data.
“Unless there are parts C D E F G H I J K L M N O P that you aren’t showing that maybe change the picture”
How is that any different than the global average temperature. There are lots of parts to the globe that don’t get included in that average!
You and bdgwx just keep on cutting your own throats!
“If you pick the parts that show what you want and ignore the parts that show what you don’t want, “
You didn’t even bother to look at Tom’s links, did you? What regions of the globe did he leave out?
” some point on the globe might have been warmer than today at some point in the past (whether that be a century or several millennia ago).”
That’s no different than today with the CAGW advocates claiming that because it was hot somewhere on the globe today it means global warming is going to kill us all. We’ve been hearing that now for 20 years but it hasn’t happened yet. Ever read Peter and Wolf?
There really aren’t. There is good coverage for most of the world – in fact there are vastly more stations than are strictly necessary to get a robust estimate of global temperature (the means start sharply converging after you hit about 60-90 stations).
But importantly the key is intent – the global temperature indexes incorporate all of the available station data – the cards are all on the table. If there is any uncertainty or gaps in the data it’s because the data simply don’t exist. Tom’s list, on the other hand, is a carefully curated selection of datasets specifically chosen to try to persuade people of a single point, assumed to be true at the outset. I.e. it is cherry picking. Tom would need to clearly illustrate that his list does accurately represent the whole state of the global climate in the early 20th century, which you will see him carefully avoid ever doing. All he needs to do is compile the data into a single, temporally coherent map. Or a time series average global temperature.
And you all recognize it is cherry picking – that is why you are all so hellaciously resistant to any suggestion of compiling the information into a map, or any kind of comprehensive analysis. No, the only thing you find acceptable is a scattershot and random list of dozens and dozens of studies that are completely unorganized in any coherent way. It’s critical that you keep it this way, or everyone will see through the facade.
It could not possibly be more different. Saying, “it was a degree or two warmer in the South China Sea 2500 years ago” does not, in any way, shape, or form, support the claim that the globe was warmer than today in the early 20th century. It doesn’t even support a claim that the globe was warmer as a whole 2500 years ago. It’s just a random fact, sitting in a vacuum, no context. And that’s how you want it to stay.
“””””But importantly the key is intent””””
Bull puckey. “Intent” has nothing to do with science.
“””””the global temperature indexes incorporate all of the available station data”””””
And that makes it correct? What it does is simply increase the uncertainty.
Look at the temperatures on the globes you posted. They are declared to one-tenth of a degree. How come we see anomalies out to the one-thousandths digit? Where does that precision originate?
“There really aren’t. There is good coverage for most of the world – in fact there are vastly more stations than are strictly necessary to get a robust estimate of global temperature (the means start sharply converging after you hit about 60-90 stations).”
Utter and total malarky. I have looked at the available stations in places like Brazil, Kenya, and Siberia when doing research for degree-day values around the globe. There are VAST areas that have no measurement stations at all!
If you only need a robust sample then CONUS *is* a robust sample. It is spread over a vast latitude and longitude.
You want to have your cake and eat too! You just say whatever you need to say in the moment! First you say CONUS isn’t a good sample and then you say you don’t need to measure the entire globe to get a robust sample! PICK ONE AND STICK WITH IT!
” the global temperature indexes incorporate all of the available station data”
So what? That doesn’t make the data either accurate or fit-for-purpose!
“If there is any uncertainty or gaps in the data it’s because the data simply don’t exist”
So climate science just makes the data up!
“And you all recognize it is cherry picking – that is why you are all so hellaciously resistant to any suggestion of compiling the information into a map,”
Malarky! This is just you, once again, saying what you need to say! First you say you don’t need a full sample and then you say you do!
PICK ONE AND STICK WITH IT!
CONUS is not spread over a vast latitude and longitude, it is spread over less than 2% of the global surface area. You conflate the quality of the data in the US with its representativeness of the entire globe. You need good spatial coverage of the planet to obtain a robust estimate of global temperature change, that doesn’t mean you need a particularly high station density.
The US covers about 10% of the total longitude of the globe. It covers almost 70% of the latitude of the northern hemisphere.
It isn’t an issue of how much of the total globe CONUS is. It is a BIG sample of the northern hemisphere. And the northern hemisphere is half of the globe. Anything that affects the globe is going to affect the northern hemisphere. And anything that affects the northern hemisphere is going to affect CONUS.
CONUS doesn’t have an insulating wall built around it.
If you need good spatial coverage of the globe to determine global temp change then the GAT is useless.
You can’t simply bound a box containing the maximum lat long ranges of the US and say it the contiguous US represents all of the region within the box, like this:
That notion is so absurd that I’m struggling to articulate a response that maintains a generous disposition toward your intellect.
Not in the slightest.
If you want to talk Continental US, it covers 30% of the latitude of the northern hemisphere and 16% of the longitude of the globe.
That covers far more than enough area to be considered a significant sample of the global climate, especially when considering the varied terrain involved.
That’s from Northwest Angle, MN to Ballast Key, Fl for latitude and Quoddy Head, ME to Cape Alava, WA for longitude.
You don’t *NEED* to cover the entire area to get a good sample.
Again, you want to have it both ways. Poor sampling of global temp is ok for the global average temp but not for anything else. If CONUS doesn’t represent a good sample then the GAT isn’t a good sample either!
Pick one and stick to it.
No one is arguing that the US is not a “good” sample, what I am arguing is that it is not representative of the entire globe, so singular location is. It’s as though you’re saying, “I am going to measure the average height of human beings, and I know there are a bunch of good measurements in Perth, Australia, so I am going to use those measurements as a representative sample.” The measurements might be very good, but representative of the global population they will not be.
Nice of you too show confounding EVIDENCE, NOT! You simply make unsupported assertions! Do you have stone tablets for distribution?
You don’t understand, but averaging together bad data makes it perfect data.
That’s how they can get hundredths or even thousandths of a degree out of older thermometers that only register whole degrees.
Measuring a thing a bunch of times and using the average of all the measurements as your best estimate is better than measuring the thing once and using that as your best estimate. Carpenters have lived by the adage “measure twice and cut once” since time immemorial. But the band of statistics deniers on WUWT believe that measuring twice actually makes you more uncertain than measuring once.
“Measuring a thing a bunch of times” (bolding mine, tpg)
“A thing” is singular, not plural.
“But the band of statistics deniers on WUWT believe that measuring twice actually makes you more uncertain than measuring once.”
Nope. Measuring two DIFFERENT things (plural) and averaging them together is what increases uncertainty. If won’t do the carpenter any good to measure two different boards (i.e. measuring twice) and then assume that their average length is what he should take as the length of each board.
That’s what you are doing with daily temperature measurements – measuring two DIFFERENT things, Tmax and Tmin. The uncertainty of the mid-range value then becomes the uncertainty of Tmax plus the uncertainty of Tmin.
Can you get ANYTHING correct? Ever?
I’m not talking about the daily temperature estimate at a single station, but about the averaging of daily temperature anomalies at stations all over the globe to obtain the best estimate of the global anomaly. You can do this for maximum, minimum, or average daily temperatures.
You believe the best estimate of the global anomaly is a single measurement at a single station, because you think each station you add increases the uncertainty.
It has been explained to you, Rusty Nail, Stokes, and Simon literally dozens of times that averaging temperatures at different times from stations hundreds of kilometers apart is utter nonsense. Why can you not understand this?
Its the only tool in their toolbox; without it, they have nothing.
There are HUGE areas of the globe even today that aren’t measured. You are hoist on your own petard!
“You believe the best estimate of the global anomaly is a single measurement at a single station, because you think each station you add increases the uncertainty.”
You can’t even state what I believe accurately! Once again, multiple single measurements of different things using different measurement devices results in the measurement uncertainty growing via summing.
How many times must that be repeated for you before it sinks in? You remind of the old mule the farmer is trying to get to listen. Maybe you need the same attention getter tool?
A classic Red Herring.
Nice!
It’s 6% of the global land mass and 10% of the NH land mass. Is that not statistically significant?
Define “statistically significant” in this context, please.
The recorded temperature at any particular point on earth at any particular moment may well be accurate and notably at variance with other records at the same place at other times. That indicates nothing in particular nor must there be an unusual causal effect evident. Near extremes in temperature and other weather features are a daily event all over the world. Attempting to correlate the presence of a common atmospheric gas with daily temperatures anywhere is beyond realistic scientific analysis.
This whole affair was given birth by the atmospheric models of Rowlands and Molina at Cal Irvine in the 1970s which stipulated that the release of chloroflourocarbons was destroying the ozone layer, allowing ultraviolet rays to blind the children of Patagonia walking to school. An invisible threat from inert chemicals used to keep food from spoiling was just too much to bear.
After the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the media moved on to other sensational stories, such as the discovery of cold fusion by two chemists working at the University of Utah. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989 stunned the world with their claim to have harnessed nuclear fusion – the process that powers the Sun – in a test tube of water at room temperature. Oh, never mind that. Just the same, bogus science continues, now with remedies for global variations in temperature that can’t and won’t be contained even if the effort bankrupts the entire planet. We live in strange times.
Thank you for a thoughtfully written comment amongst the point scoring elsewhere – as if the points matter when all of us will very soon realise that climate will change regardless of what our species says, does, believes, or prays for.
Temperatures in the British Isles about a million years ago were very pleasant indeed – even in the far northern islands -according to what we can decipher from the remains of habitation.
And so I ask myself one question. “When humanity has failed to respond to its success in finding EFFICIENT means of generating power (Gas, nuclear, hydro, etc) and has instead spent loads of dosh we haven’t got on the INEFFICIENCY of wind and solar, WTF started going wrong with our education processes about four/five decades ago and how come people get cancelled for wanting an answer to how bad things are academically NOW?” And for my follow up I would ask “Are Mann, Stokes and company the best we can do when we are cancelling real scientists who have contributed much of value to humanity for speaking out against trash?”
Strange times indeed.
While it may be quite true that this last summer’s heat was nothing special, at least in the US, the NOAA data presented does not come close to the actual highest temperature readings in many US locations. I can only conclude that NOAA, and this article, are using some special, but undisclosed, definition of “maximum temperature” or “Tmax temperature values” that is quite different than the measured high temperature presented in daily weather reports.
The NOAA website used in this, and at least two earlier articles by Mr. Hamlin
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/3/9/1895-2023
does not, as far as I can find, present any definition of their terms, thus no insight as to why its “maximum” temperatures are so much lower than reality. For me, that also brings to question their data for minimum and average temperatures. Therefore, use of the data, such as in this article, to make claims about temperature extremes are definitely misleading.
Just a last comment on the Hamlin diversion trick. The headline
“Major Climate Alarmist Fail: “The Hottest Summer Ever” that Never Was”
is just wrong. No one was talking about the US summer. They were talking about the global average. That summer in 2023 was warmer than any previous summer in the record. Not just by a little bit. It was 0.23C warmer than the next summer (2019 and 2020). Here it is:
Again.. the farcical fabrication from massive URBAN warming, Airport expansion, and other agenda driven nonsense
It is not real.
There is ZERO PROBABILITY that it can be remotely realistic wrt global temperatures over time.
Apart from climate shills like you, no one gives a toss about average global temperature, which in any case is a physical absurdity.
“Apart from climate shills like you, no one gives a toss about average global temperature, which in any case is a physical absurdity.”
And here we have a classic climate science denier. The “OK it’s warming but so what” phase of denial. The last phase is “ok it’s happening, and it is a problem, but no one told us.” Not too long to wait now.
Prove it is caused by CO2, and prove it is a problem, Slimon:
Slomon knows he is totally incapable of actually providing scientific evidence of anything to do with the AGW scam.
“classic climate science denier.”
We are still waiting for you to PRODUCE some of this “climate science” that you say we deny.
So far you are totally EMPTY.
Start with the very basis.
Scientific proof that human CO2 causes warming.
YOU KNOW YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ANY !!
There is nothing to deny !
But hey, he can play the “denier” card with flair and pizzazz!
Your typical misleading dishonest post defeats you since he starts in 1895 which thus show a different profile and that he shows a series of charts based on average temperature, Maximum and also minimum temperature data spread out in charts and using two different month time bases of June-August and July to September.
He makes clear the point that Maximum temperature isn’t going up at all while the minimum temperature is going up steadily since the mid 1990’s.
bnice2000 employs and approves of the tactic from the movie Matewan. ““Sometimes you got to tell a little bit of a lie just to get the truth across.” Your outing of those lies then becomes “nitpicking”.
Mr. bob: I’m sure Mr. Stokes appreciates support from you, you’re like a Swifty for him. Mr. 2000 and his “nitpicking” is just too subtle for some of us, I prefer the more direct “liar.” If you think Mr. Stokes comes here to “out lies”, you are lost.
Mr. Stokes appears to be utterly indifferent to my “support”. Probably because it’s not support for him per se, but for his pointing out of the obvious.
Mr. bob: He is indifferent to it, makes you look all the more ridiculous. His “obvious” point was to change the subject from CONUS to global, to set up the rest of the sham. That you fall for, hook line sinker.
What is fascinating is that the diversion here is wholly on the part of Hamlin, who has taken an LA Times article about Northern Hemisphere temperature, and has suggested that it is about temperature in the contiguous US only. And what is even more fascinating is that not one single WUWT acolyte even has the intellectual courage to acknowledge this single simple thing. Not a single person can even come out and just say, “yeah I guess Hamlin should have used more than just US temperatures.” Even that simple admission is a bridge too far for the contrarian set. It’s as though everyone is complicit in contributing to the preservation of a collective delusion.
Here, we are treated to Mr. J. taking the mistake Stokes made, and reverse-engineering the article until he can project the error onto the author. As an acolyte of this site, I read and understood Mr. Hamlin’s article instead of trying my darndest to misunderstand it, as you and Mr. Stokes do. Tell us more about us!
As usual, BoB defines a lie, as anything he disagrees with.
Mr. Stokes: Sure it is. Be very alarmed.
Isn’t it fascinating how the warmists jump from warm local records, to warm regional records, to warm global records and back again at a moments notice. Makes it easier to deny they ever said whatever is being disproven to today.
There are many things you can say about global temperature measurements and records, from lingering artifacts caused by that MSU NOAA-14 satellite.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
and incorrect methodologies
https://financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-the-important-climate-study-you-wont-hear-about
and quality issues for surface stations, very well illustrated that one of the best surface station subset shows a different trend than the global trend:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/u-s-surface-temperature/
But opinions like this
“””The global August temperature anomaly measure tells us nothing about August average temperature outcomes at any specific location on the globe nor does it tell us anything about August average temperature anomaly measurements at any specific global region. “””
makes a very weak argument IMHO!
All issues with these data series they nicely call “temperature products” aside, if there was a high global trend as some of them indicate, it would certainly indicate the strong CO2 feedback is a potential cause for it and that would affect EVERY region of the world as it is a global effect!
(even if local measurements may be statistically too weak to see it)
Now come along, surely there can be no question of how serious it all is, our scientist in chief his Holiness Pope Pontificate the innumerate has declared, earth quakes are now happening due to our sinning ways. Driving our cars powered by Satan’s refined black blood and heating homes with the breath of Beelzebub (did he play for the Green Bay Packers?).
Now with that form of inside knowledge to fall back on, how can we mere mortals challenge it was the hottest year ever!
Here’s a story tip: https://electroverse.info/ushcn-weather-stations-decommissioned-yet-noaa-still-uses-their-data/
Doesn’t this mean that about 25% of their data is fabricated?
They never cease to propagandize. Check out this scary map from the “news” today. More use of red to cause dread.
Interesting topic, from a lifetime of farming weather is in my blood and I pay attention to
that. Last year was abnormally cold and wet here in the Northern Rockies, the grass
was some of the best I’ve ever seen, with above average hay without any irrigation.
We went from winter to summer very late no spring at all, I felt it was a La NIna effect.
I hope this winter is not as severe as last but who knows. Not a single wildfire
which with the fuel load is a good thing.
Check out this NOAA web page====>https://www.noaa.gov
They are really pushing this narrative..
I experienced the same weather for last year as you say, though we lacked unusual cold in the central west slope Rockies. We had a summer with spectacular foliage, flowers and wild fruits as well. I have two each of apple and pear trees, at 6500′. The wild fruit must be abundant as I’ve had but one bear come by in an evening, scared away by yelling at it, and it hasn’t returned in over two weeks. Usually, it is a race to pick the fruit before the bears show up as they stock up for hibernation.
It’s said to stay bear aware this time of year is wise. We’ve had the grizzly’s
in this area for quite awhile now. They will completely trash a fruit tree, or anything
with food in it, like grain. ElectroNet works real well for the “government bears”
as some call them. I set trailcams around the and collect
some amazing pics of bears and other critters. A good dog or two is also a must
these days.