Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
A guest opinion article in The New York Times by Zeke Hausfather, Ph.D, titled “I Study Climate Change. The Data Is Telling Us Something New,” suggests that a single record warm month of data is an indication of “evidence that global warming has accelerated.” The claim is false for four reasons; because a single month isn’t representative of long term climate change, the data Hausfather cites isn’t in agreement with other datasets, and it isn’t representative of the globe, but a weather anomaly in Antarctica. Finally, the year-on-year increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, said to drive such temperatures, wasn’t enough to cause the event.
First, one month of record high temperatures has nothing to do with long-term climate change, which is defined by the World Meteorological Organization as “…the average weather conditions for a particular location and over a long period of time.” To create a climate record, 30 years of weather data is averaged to create a “normal” climate expectation for a location or region. What we experience on a day-to-day basis are weather events, not climate events. Weather is not climate and therefore one September record high temperature is not a climate change indicator. Hausfather, being a climate scientist, should know this.
However, given the emotional and unscientific opening statement made by Hausfather in the article, “Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas,” it seems he is prone to emotions over fact.
One errant month of high temperature will in fact change the slope of any temperature graph upwards, but that is not an indication of acceleration, but rather an outlier data point which are known to happen. For example, in figure 1, global temperature data released by Climate.gov shows what looks to be a clear data point outlier in September.
In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations. It happens in almost every data set, and in the case of Earth, which has chaotic weather systems, not at all surprising. Again, Hausfather should know better.
The article goes on to claim:
As global temperatures shattered records and reached dangerous new highs over and over the past few months, my climate scientist colleagues and I have just about run out of adjectives to describe what we have seen. Data from Berkeley Earth released on Wednesday shows that September was an astounding 0.5 degree Celsius (almost a full degree Fahrenheit) hotter than the prior record, and July and August were around 0.3 degree Celsius (0.5 degree Fahrenheit) hotter. 2023 is almost certain to be the hottest year since reliable global records began in the mid-1800s and probably for the past 2,000 years (and well before that).
Note that we didn’t have thermometers 2000 years ago, so this is pure speculation.
Other datasets and scientists don’t suggest that this summer or September was anything unusual, for example, climate scientist Roy Spencer, Ph.D, ran a guest essay here in Climate Realism last week, saying:
“Record warmth” in any given year is usually measured in mere fractions of a degree Fahrenheit. As global data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggest, for example, this summer’s “record” (averaged from June through August) warmth averaged only 0.43 degrees warmer than in 2019 and 2020, the next-warmest years.
The small difference in average temperature also comes with wide variation, which makes climate change considerably more nuanced than usually reported by the mainstream media.
Natural weather patterns, including a growing El Niño event, contributed to the warm summer and September.
Thirdly, not all of the Earth was abnormally warm. In fact, the real “spike” in temperature was limited mostly to a place that didn’t get above freezing – Antarctica. While Hausfather and excitable journalists are now telling the world how hot and terrible September was, the bottom line is that the winter temperatures in Antarctica, also a weather event, we less cold than normal. This is easily seen from two graphs provided by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that produces a GISTEMP product illustrating the issue, seen in Figure 2A and 2B below.
Clearly, the “hottest” place on the planet in September was Antarctica, yet the temperature over the continent didn’t get above freezing during the Southern Hemisphere Antarctic Winter (opposite of our summer in the Northern Hemisphere). It was just “less cold” than normal. That’s hardly a reason for concern, but the big spike in Antarctic temperature skewed the global data to make it look like the places that matter, where the world population lives was abnormally hot.
Finally as outlined in the Heartland Daily News, Hot Summer Due to Many Factors—Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Not One of Them. there was a wide variety of other factors to consider: blocking weather patterns, solar activity, increased water vapor, El Niño, and an increasingly active sun.
According to the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase from September 2022 to September 2023 went from approximately 416 to 418 parts per million (PPM). Just 2PPM increase isn’t enough to explain the jump in temperature. In fact, according to this data graph, that’s much less than the yearly global variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In summary, this end paragraph from the Heartland Daily News article says it best:
In short, there is a complex explanation for the complex weather patterns that have prevailed this summer. Multiple geologic, solar, meteorological, and atmospheric events have occurred simultaneously, resulting in unusually high summer temperatures obtaining over much of the world. Fossil fuel use does not cause volcanic eruptions, oceanic and wind current shifts, or changes in solar activity, thus climate change cannot fairly be blamed for the present pattern of heatwaves, which long-term data show have not increased.
And, as stated before, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather should know better than to write up a scare story about temperature with the adjectives “Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas.“
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
I’ve often noticed that the temperature anomalies are always largest in the polar regions. These are also the regions with the fewest measuring stations. We know that the algorithms used to produce these maps will weight ‘blank’ areas in the data with stations hundreds of miles away. I think these polar anomalies are more artifact of the processing than real temperature excursions.
Well, we know it’s not UHI effect, eh? We just have to break thru this Institutional effect and just stop it, no?
it’s guaranteed that every temp station in Antarctica is near human habitation and the massive heating required , i’d say that UHI is a very definite effect.
Hi Anthony. Typo alert. In the paragraph following Figure 2B, Southern is spelled Sothern.
Regards.
Bob
Hi Anthony. I still have WUWT access, so I just fixed the typo…but without noting it in the post. I don’t recall the protocol.
Regards,
Bob
I noticed that here, the spell check sometimes doesn’t work- or it’s very, very slow. Sometimes I’ll purposefully type a non word just to get it to kick in. And even when it does work- it sometimes doesn’t seem to work correctly.
The spelling checker is in your browser, not the website. But the whole site is very slow now. Probably some militant jerk somewhere running up the planet’s energy budget with a DDOS script in order to “save the planet” from alternative viewpoints.
For goodness’ sake. Don’t worry about the “protocol” for a on letter typo. You’re not changing the facts or the intent of what is being said.
You did fine since it was a small thing, if it was bigger and possibly a concern e-mail an administrator about it.
Hausfather just wants to keep up with Piltdown Mann, I’m sure his people are telling him they aren’t seeing his name in the media often enough
Zeke is the guy that claimed there was no UHI. Nuff said.
This is a man with an agenda, no, an AGENDA. Self-important, semi-educated, barely coherent liar who doesn’t even have the intelligence to lie well. It’s idjits like this that really get my blood boiling – is this the “global boiling” Gutierres mentioned?
Yeah, that was stupid of him since I find it easily when I drive around seen up to a 15 degree change by just driving north about 12 miles.
“Piltdown Mann,”
Fair dos, Pat. The Piltdown man hoax started in 1907 and lasted until ~1953.
The Hockey Schtick didn’t last half as long before it became an utter embarrassment. Maybe cold fusion (5 or 6 years)?
Yet the hockey schtick is still part of the dogma.
Speaking of dogma, the nearby Hah-vid Forest, part of Hah-vid has frequent Zoom events for its enviro intelligentsia. I’m on their mailing list just to see what they’re up to. One going on today is described as:
Managing the Risk of Climate Overshoot
THURS, OCT 19 | 5PM
Science Center Lecture Hall A, 1 Oxford St., Cambridge
By some measures, progress on tackling climate change is breathtaking. Deployment of renewable energy is surging, and prices are falling across a wide range of technologies. On the other hand, global-scale emissions of greenhouse gases are not decreasing, and the prospects for meeting the goal of the Paris Agreement are dimming rapidly. Approaches for managing the risk of missing the goal of the Paris Agreement, or Climate Overshoot, should be core elements of future climate action. These fall into an action agenda with four components – cutting emissions, adapting, removing greenhouse gases, and exploring sunlight reflection. These four approaches, which can be summarized with the acronym CARE, all require increased financial and policy support, as well as a framing consistent with the emergence of a broad, durable political and social coalition.
and for tomorrow:
The Changing Landscape of Western Wildfire Risk
FRI, OCT 20 | 11AM
Harvard Forest Fisher Museum, 324 N. Main St., Petersham & Zoom
Wildfires in the West have exploded in recent years, leading to hundreds of lost lives, billions of dollars in property losses, and, for many people, a fundamental rethinking of the prospects for the region. Climate change, fuels management, and the number of people in fire-prone regions are interacting to increase risk. Some of the options for risk reduction are reasonably well understood and ready to deploy. Others require not only more research but also deep conversations about the kinds of human/environment interfaces we want. Questions about strategic relocation, redesigning the urban-wildland interface, and changing the fundamental character of ecosystems all need to be addressed.
“The Piltdown man hoax started in 1907 and lasted until ~1953.”
If you studied the hoax, you learned that the evolutionary scientists of the time couldn’t place the Piltdown man into the human evolution sequence–it didn’t fit the data. At the time, they thought all scientists were honest. We know that “honest politician” is an oxymoron. Unfortunately, we now know that “honest scientist” is also an oxymoron. It’s a sad state of affairs to the scientific community.
From the article: ” Weather is not climate and therefore one September record high temperature is not a climate change indicator. Hausfather, being a climate scientist, should know this.”
Yes, Zeke should know this. So is Zeke Clueless or just being Dishonest?
It’s hard to tell with these climate alarmists sometimes.
Dishonest. No morals, no conscience
This thread, FULL of Hausfather’s dodging and obfuscating, is strong evidence of his intent to deceive. Apparently, he hasn’t changed a bit since 2013.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
So long as you remember that the “intent to deceive” is rife with all AGW cultists..
.. you won’t get fooled by them.
No talent
Some of them are just nuts.
https://thepostmillennial.com/trans-prof-at-chicago-university-says-israelis-are-savages-in-unhinged-rant
Zeke works for an advocacy group, the Breakthrough Institute.
https://thebreakthrough.org/people/zeke-hausfather
He is a paid spokesman for an anti-energy group. I doubt he believes much of what he spews, but he is paid to spew it. Think Baghdad Bob or Karin Jean-Pierre. They say the most outrageous lies to our faces without batting their eyes.
“Zeke works for an advocacy group”
Would surprise me in AlanJ was also a paid shill for some climate scam grope..
They say the most outrageous lies to our faces without batting their eyes.
Wouldn’t?
The other words are fine though.
darn typos !! Yes, I meant to say “it WOULDN’T surprise me….
Regretably, they assume the electorate is completely composed of idiots, therefore they can get away with it.
Not quite. They assume the electorate is of a similar mental capacity to themselves except they, of course, have been edjumacated, the fact that they are idiots themselves seems to have escaped their attention.
The two conditions are not mutually exclusive.
I’m inclined to believe that, given his position and exposure to facts, he has to work hard to misdirect and is therefore dishonest. But has convinced himself it is “right” to do so – which is the clueless part.
I tend to agree with you.
Noble cause corruption is still corruption and stinks to high heaven.
Don’t forget he shall henceforth be known as ‘gobsmackingly bananas’ Hausfather!
A slightly warmer September for me is gobsmackingly awesome.
The slightly warmer July August and September have been ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT down here.
If it weren’t for all the climate caterwauling…
… I doubt anyone any except the EU would have noticed anything warmer at all.
Antarctic, North Atlantic, and above North Canada… who would have noticed or cared.??
Couple of warmer places in the SH, in early Spring..
… oh.. the inhumanity.. how shall we survive ! 😉
You must remember, journalists these days are mostly 20 something Arts Grads – zero competence in climate science, science in general, engineering, energy or economics
They just regurgitate the photo copied narrative – job done, salary paid
Back in the day, the masses believed the earth to be flat – it was written about, the knowing word was spread by the learned classes, to the uneducated masses, surely they knew what they were talking about?! As it became universally understood, it was actually round, those learned few just slunk into the shadows, out of the limelight into obscurity
It will be the same rinse, repeat, yet again
Relentlessly misleading as always, Anthony. The NYT piece does not claim that the September anomaly is the sole piece of evidence supporting an acceleration in warming. Hausfather cites the trend for the past 15 years as evidence of acceleration:
And to be sure, 2023 is contributing, but isn’t there sole factor. He next cites an increase in the rate of accumulation of heat in the global ocean. And finally, he cites observations of a change in the earth’s energy balance as a signal of accelerating warming. But he doesn’t claim this with absolute certitude. Hausfather notes that there is debate in the scientific community over whether warming is accelerating, and notes that he has himself expressed doubt about it. He also notes that such an acceleration if real is still well in line with model projections, so it isn’t so much a shocking surprise as it is a sharp reminder.
Well, your own website hosts an image of Roy Spencer’s UAH series showing how remarkable the September 2023 anomaly was:
Your map quite literally shows that most of the earth was abnormally warm. All of the red and orange regions were anomolously warm in September. The anomaly in Antarctica was dramatic, but the region is actually a small part of the global surface area and does not exert on outsized influence on the global mean (that is the purpose of area weighting).
The map is a contemptible fraud. It takes measurements from 1,200 km away and uses them to “estimate” the temperatures of the vast areas they have no measurements, such as…pretty much the entire Southern Ocean, most of Africa, etc. It’s like taking the temperature readings from Atlanta and using them to guess what the temperature is in Green Bay.
Anthony posted it. Ask him why he is endorsing “contemptible fraud” on his website.
As I have repeatedly mentioned, posting something on a website and drawing attention to it is not ‘endorsing’ something – otherwise your presence here would be seen to be endorsing WUWT and climate scepticism, which you are quite clearly not paid to do.
It’s Anthony Watts’s site. Presumably if he posts an article written by himself he is to some extent “endorsing” it.
If that logic was correct, by replying to you, I am therefore endorsing you.
So when Watts says
“, not all of the Earth was abnormally warm. In fact, the real “spike” in temperature was limited mostly to a place that didn’t get above freezing – Antarctica. … This is easily seen from two graphs provided by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that produces…”
he’s saying he doesn’t agree with the graph he’s using as evidence that most of the spike in temperature was in the Antarctic?
Do you have any evidence you do endorse that demonstrates the claim?
The big red bulb on your nose…
You are talking gibberish again, little bell-brain !
And given me yet another childish nickname makes your own argument so persuasive.
Whenever an air temperature map or graph appears on the main page, the trendologists show up en masse to defend the honor of their fraudulent Fake Data.
Or in this case just to laugh at people claiming it’s fake whilst using it to support their claim. “This fake data proves that all the warming was in the Antarctic”.
He’s using the map as the sole evidence supporting his argument that the September anomaly was all due to Antarctica temps. Odd that he would rely on something he thinks is contemptible fraud.
Well it looks like AlanJ is the new Nick Stokes , everyone down votes him to hell without any credible criticism of what he posts. Just as moronic as the warmists.
Congrats AJ.
Mr. grog: First time to this site?? Stokes draws credible (often debunk-level) criticism from multiple commenters nearly every time, along with votes from the word-impaired. Mr. J has yet to make a comment of substance, he’s just a gas-lighting contrarian, yet he also draws substantive replies nearly all the time. What site have you been reading up til now?
I made a very substantive comment comprehensively detailing exactly the ways in which Anthony had misrepresented the NYT article he is criticizing. No one in this thread has even attempted to address the points I made on that topic, instead choosing to start trying to debate the particulars of the NYT article (or other random unrelated topics of interest to that person). No one has even attempted to defend Watts’s gross misrepresentation.
I believe that the reason for this is because all of the readers actually recognize that Watts was engaging in misrepresentation and so have nothing to say on the matter and would rather it be quietly swept under the rug. The strategy here from WUWT acolytes is always to divert, deflect, obfuscate, never address things head-on (silent downvotes being the only safe form of objection).
But that said I think Nick’s comments are a hell of a lot more thoughtful and valuable than mine, so agree with anyone who downvotes me on that basis.
He has been addressed many times in various threads to discover he is a person who thinks he is never wrong and doesn’t acknowledge when he is well answered that is why his bad reputation has been catching up with him.
He’s earned it.
NO, he is using the data that the LIAR and FRAUD Zeke is using to claim “hottest evah” to show that Zeke is .. of course LYIING”
Even a zealot as blindly biased as you, must know by now that the surface data is absolutely meaningless for comparing temperatures over time.
The chart is totally meaningless non-scientific junk, useful only as propaganda. Which is why Zeke uses it.
“Contemptible fraud” was my wording, not Anthony’s. I’m sure he can speak for himself but criticizing him for my words is a strange argument.
I didn’t even get into further problems with the GISS map. Another issue is that they contaminate the stations they do have data for by letting them be influenced by surrounding stations. Just in North America, for example, compare the 1200km version (in the post) and the 250km version (attached, not that I’m promoting the 250km method they’re using) and you’ll see that the map no longer displays the below average readings in Alaska, California, Baffin Island, etc. I can’t see any justification for corrupting the actual data in this manner, but perhaps someone will be able to make an argument for it.
Of course, that doesn’t get into their other adjustments and the legitimacy of those, or other issues.
If this is the 250km version it does show below average temperatures in California, Alaska and Baffin Island.
Yes, exactly. The 250km version shows those areas as below average while the 1,200km version has them adjusted so they are no longer shown as below average. Sorry if that point was unclear.
Being one among the many that has studied the GISTEMP source code and run it regularly on my own machine I can honestly say that I have no significant concerns with the methodology GISS uses. Would I do it differently? Maybe. Would I get a substantially different result? Doubtful.
I am curious though…do you have concerns with the UAH methodology? I ask because it is (or at least was until recently) well received here and their adjustments and interpolation are at least as aggressive if not more as compared to the GISTEMP methodology.
They are two different measurements and shouldn’t be expected to be similar to any surface temperature measurements. As to their trend, everyone is in a terrible hurry to make something of temperature trends whatever they might be. In another 100 years we might be able to separate a “climate” change from weather, but I doubt it. Scientific research needs to start investigating root causes and their interactions in order to have any inkling of how they work. Continuing to attempt to show CO2 is causing the warming is a lost cause and will never show anything but correlation against time but no physical evidence of how CO2 causes actually causes warming.
Quite frankly, I’m unfamiliar with the UAH methodology, so I wouldn’t say anything positive or negative. I do think that people who have a certain viewpoint tend to pick up on anything that seems to confirm their viewpoint, and that is something to watch out for. It’s why, for example, so many people promote the extreme IPCC 8.5 scenario when even if you believe them it’s extremely unlikely. So I’d say we all should be cautious of only looking for evidence that confirms the view we have, on any issue.
I posted links to their methods here.
Yet more Fake Data…
GISS is based on absolutely CRAP DATA… and that is not the end of the story…
Massively infected with urban, airport and infilling from surface sites that are totally unfit for measuring temperature over time.
I’m sure you love the rubbish routines GISS uses… because they give the agenda-based answers you want to see.
Where is “here”?
So, AJ, you now admit that using the GISS map is totally non-science and it should never be used for anything related to science or climate……
…. because it is totally meaningless.
Finally getting a basic understanding AJ.
Do keep trying… Its funny ! 🙂
“Odd that he would rely on something he is contemptible fraud.”
It’s obvious to everyone but you. When you can use their own data to disprove their point, it completely ruins the point they are making.
I think featuring UAH predominant on literally every single page is about as close to an endorsement as you can get. And UAH interpolates sparse grid cells over 4100 km away as opposed to GISTEMP only doing it up to 1200 km. And yet UAH is (or at least was) beloved here while the indignation is always directed at GISS. Make that make sense.
Still think they’ll come up with a way of dropping that UAH chart off the side-bar. It’s going to get a lot worse looking in the coming months.
What a completely nonsensical and moronic comment !
I’d like to say we expect better from a 5-year-old….
.. but that would be overestimating your mental age.,
You do realize that UAH and NOAA STAR are almost exactly the same.
It is funny how you can say NOAA has accurate information in some cases but not others.
He is using a contemptably fraudulent chart…. based on the data from another contemplable fraudster… to show what a contemptable fraud Zeke is.
Does that explain it for you ?
UAH takes measurements from 4100 km away and uses them to “estimate” the temperatures of vast areas they have no measurements. UAH is featured prominently on this site.
Frequently overlooked by ‘skeptics’ who object to models here.
I’ll ask you the same thing I asked bdg.
Maybe you should question the measures of irradiance from the sun since we are a long, long, long way away from there!
That is the start of everything. Is measuring irradiance from the sun inaccurate too?
I would ask why it is that the various satellite data producers come up with markedly different results when measuring the same raw data? The warming trend in RSS is much warmer than that in UAH, for instance. So it’s obviously not as straightforward as you suggest.
Sorry for your ignorance. Read this,
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/04/19/noaas-star-has-fallen/
NOAA STAR now agrees with UAH very closely and both agree with weather balloon data.
Amazing how they all agree, despite the multiple degree uncertainties claimed by some here.
UAH & NOAA STAR use the same satellites and same data their uncertainties and values should be the same
“The warming trend in RSS is much warmer than that in UAH”
Your ignorance is showing yet again
RSS use “climate models” to infill and reinterpret data.
It is not remotely scientific any more.
“RSS use “climate models” to infill and reinterpret data.”
They don’t.
Yes, they do.
“To account for changes in observation times, the RSS group used a number of different approaches and models to try and estimate what the temperature would have been if the measurement time remained constant. This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments.”
Also, they use surface observations..
ie…. they deliberately incorporate urban warming into their data.
The corruption of the RSS temperature series is a sad state of affairs.. for sure. !
I have to give RSS some credit, they at least admitted that as much as three days can elapse between satellite samplings at lower latitudes—this is 10% of a single month. UAH has not stated this, TMK.
The NOAA satellites cannot capture daily temperature excursions, except at the highest latitudes.
That isn’t “infill and interpret data”. It is estimating a diurnal cycle.
Inserting data that isn’t there, the essence of trendology.
They also use older satellites with large orbital drift that has to be mathematically accounted for which are based on a model this is why they run warmer than UAH who stopped using the worst Satellites due to their massive orbital drift.
UAH uses a model to adjust for orbital drift too. UAH is built on top of models built on top of other models. It is a complex hierarchy of models.
Here is a list of their methods publications for you to review.
Year / Version / Citation
1992 : A : Spencer & Christy 1992
1994 : B : Christy et al. 1995
1997 : C : Christy et al. 1998
1998 : D : Christy et al. 2000
2003 : 5.0 : Christy et al. 2003
2005 : 5.2 : Spencer et al. 2006
2017 : 6.0 : Spencer et al. 2017 [open]
So you think measuring the irradiance from O2 and converting it to temperature from a long distance away is similar to making up surface temperature readings from a long distance away. How scientific of you.
Maybe you should question the measures of irradiance from the sun since we are a long, long, long way away from there!
There is much closer agreement regarding the warming trend amongst the surface producers than amongst the satellite producers (although the RSS trend is in good agreement with the surface data). It’s a question of how the raw satellite data are interpreted. UAH tends to interpret it in a way that produces a lower trend. Either way, they are not as reliable as the surface data.
Moron, of course the CLIMATE CABAL produces the same .. BY DESIGN
They use the same urban/airport corrupted data..
and the same anti-science methodologies to fabricate their creations.
RSS deliberate adjusts their once was data to try to create a warming trend.
Poor Karl.. all that pressure he was under from the climate mafia..
.. . sadly, he forgot out his scientific integrity.
Did you know that NASA’s own satellite data matches UAH very well !
As does balloon data.
It is only those collusional groups that use the massively corrupted urban surface data , and/or climate models to fake their data, that produce the unrealistic GISS-like farce.
NOAA STAR agrees with UAH. Funny how that works.
So 2 vs 1, RSS loses!
define abnormal
“The anomaly in Antarctica was dramatic, but the region is actually a small part of the global surface area and does not exert on outsized influence on the global mean (that is the purpose of area weighting).”
Yes. The Robinson projection shown is a half-hearted attempt to prevent undue magnifation of the poles. Here (from here) is a Mollweide projection which genuinely equalises area:
There’s that JUNK DATA yet again. !!
“was abnormally warm.”
NO, it is still well below most of the last 10,000 years.
“TEPID” would be a more apt description.
And why the **** are GISS still using 1950-1980.. the NEW ICE AGE scare period, as their climate reference period.
Why is AlanJ not condemning such malpractice. !!
He must know by now that the GISS product is totally unfit for any “climate” purpose….
(except blatant propaganda)
… but he says nothing.
Why is that. !?
“Why is AlanJ not condemning such malpractice. !!”
Because he can add zero to one and gain a significant figure by averaging.
And not have the vaguest clue about what he is doing anyway..
It is rather sad, isn’t it.
Its the magic of averaging, how dare you question it.
What impact do you personally believe the choice in baseline has on the series?
Using individual station baselines can introduce bias due to weather. Using a common global baseline will put all stations on equal footing and reduce bias.
As a side effect, it will force climate science to declare a “best global temperature”. As it is now, we are spending trillions to achieve a temperature goal that has not been set.
If CO2 does control temperature, will going to net zero eventually put us back to Little Ice Age temperatures? That is the implication!
Neither individual stations nor the globe are typically used to define the baseline (using the whole globe would defeat the purpose to begin with, an individual station alone will not adequately characterize the regional climate). Instead the baseline is defined as the mean regional climatology over the reference period, so some sort of gridded average of multiple adjacent stations are used to define the baseline, from which the anomalies are derived on a station-by-station basis (“some sort” because different agencies might have a slightly different procedure – I think NASA takes the monthly gridded average as the monthly baseline values against which anomalies are computed).
In the above I think I’ve incorrectly characterized how the baseline is computed, it’s not a gridded average of multiple stations, but multiple stations can be used if a station in question is missing data values during the baseline period.
You don’t have a clue do you? Using a global baseline, whether it is measured or “best temperature for the globe”, provides a common baseline for every point on the globe.
Would you like a stock broker to tweet a congratulations to you saying that the Dow Jones went up today while knowing full well you were invested in individual stocks that fell.
You need to set a common zero point for each station record, using a global mean as the reference value would not do this. You’d still not be able to combine station records of different lengths, which is what the use of anomalies enables you to do in the first place.
Here is an example. I created two “temperature series” with each having a different mean and variance, but both sharing a common underlying trend:
If I use the 30 year average of both series as the baseline, then both series still retain distinct zeros. If I average this set of anomalies, I will introduce a spurious trend:
If instead I take the local 30-year anomaly for each station, it places them onto a common zero, and averaging each station will not introduce spurious non-climatic trends:
When you use a station baseline, you are not determining the change as compared to the global change. You are basically creating a mish mash of ΔT’s that tell you nothing.
The anomalies need to ALL have a common baseline of a given global temperature, so the rates all have a common base.
If you are measuring braking rates of NASCAR autos going into a corner and the acceleration rates going out of the corner, what do you get? A mish mash of information that isn’t good for anything. You don’t know which cars had the highest rate, fast or slow. You don’t know which cars had the best acceleration, fast or slow.
That is why you see so many regional and local locations that simply do not match the so called global anomaly increase. It is a measurement without a common base to analyze.
I’ve just explicitly shown you via a concrete example why you can’t use a common “global” baseline for computing anomalies (not to mention the fact that we are using anomalies to begin with to circumvent the difficulties in determining an absolute global temperature value). You need to directly address what I’ve explained in my example. Using a common global mean as the baseline will introduce spurious trend bias.
The common base is the reference period (e.g. 1951-1980). We are analyzing how temperatures at each location have deviated from their own baseline mean. As long as that period is consistent for all stations, the calculated anomalies are directly comparable.
Your example is meaningless. It does not refute what I wrote. A common baseline VALUE for ALL anomalies is the only way to adequately compare rates between stations.
I gave you an example and you didn’t address it at all. Why?
You make an assertion with no proof about spurious trends. To start with, spurious trends are generated when you average and try to regress , not when you create the anomalies thru subtraction. You’ll need to show a proof that somehow a different constant baseline generates a spurious trends when creating a regression trend.
Jim, I just showed you how use of a common baseline mean introduces spurious trends. If I take the mean of the two anomaly series computed with a common baseline mean, there will be a step-discontinuity in the series where the shorter series ends because both records do not share a common zero. This discontinuity will present as an apparent trend in the combined data series, but it does not reflect any underlying change in either series. It is an artifact:
You can see that the average record doesn’t reflect the common underlying trend in both series (we know that trend is there because I put it there when designing the series). Whereas if we use the regional anomalies, the trend of the combined record accurately reflects the common underlying trend of the individual series:
This is a very critical point that you need to address if you want to continue arguing with me on this. Either you don’t understand it (ask me questions) or you do understand it and are trying to deflect (stop doing that).
“If I take the mean of the two anomaly series computed with a common baseline mean, there will be a step-discontinuity in the series where the shorter series ends because both records do not share a common zero.”
You are your own worst enemy! This is why you do *NOT* adjust temperature data to create a “long record”. The adjustment creates a discontinuity and there is no way to account for that!
It’s why the actual propagated measurement uncertainty should be used for all of this, even when combining data sets to create a long record. It’s a certainty that the measurement uncertainty is going to overshadow anomalies no matter what baseline you use. That’s because the measurement uncertainties ADD even when you are subtracting the measurements.
A global mean anomaly calculated from regional data sets using different baselines is really meaningless. You may as well combine Mars temperature anomalies with Earth anomalies and say that somehow represents a Global Solar Average anomaly.
If you are going to address climate then it is CLIMATE that should be addressed. Anomalies tell you NOTHIG about the climate when the base data of (Tmax+Tmin)/2 can give the same value for two different climates! Not only that but an anomaly calculated from -30C to -29C makes no difference to the climate in that location. A change from 30C to 31C makes no difference to the climate at that location.
If climate science wants to TRULY know about climate then they should start looking at growing season intervals, i..e last frost to first frost. Compare how *those* are changing. Year-to-year changes in those values would be a *real* indication of climate change – either changing for the good of humanity or for its detriment.
Freeman Dyson’s biggest criticism of the climate models are that they are not holistic at all. They tell you *nothing* about the real world since temperature can’t tell you about the real world. If it could then Las vegas and Miami would have the same climate!
Adjustments remove discontinuities, either step discontinuities caused by, e.g., station moves, or trend discontinuities caused by urbanization. But calculating the anomaly is not an adjustment, and your comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
No one ever said that the global mean tells you anything about regional climate change. All it is used to do is to track a bulk change in the system. More research is always needed to understand the nuances and details resulting from that change. A change of just 6-10 degrees for the globe is the difference between interglacials and the depths of the ice ages, so it is worth understanding the rate and magnitude of any global change.
Climate models do an awful lot more Thant yield a global mean temperature estimate.
“Adjustments remove discontinuities, either step discontinuities caused by, e.g., station moves, or trend discontinuities caused by urbanization. But calculating the anomaly is not an adjustment, and your comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.”
Since you never know for sure what the adjustment should be (since you don’t know the calibration drift of the old measurement device at the point in time the change is made) you do nothing with the adjustment but add to the uncertainty of the reading given by the new measurement device. You can’t just take the old device to a calibration lab since the microclimate at the point of installation is also part of the calibration drift and when you change the environment you also change the calibration drift.
In other words, adjustments ADD a discontinuity, it doesn’t fix one.
“No one ever said that the global mean tells you anything about regional climate change.”
Really? So why Net Zero in the US? If the regional climates don’t determine the global climate then why should all regions be impacted – since they won’t affect the global climate anyway?
“Climate models do an awful lot more Thant yield a global mean temperature estimate.”
Global climate models don’t. They don’t predict weather events, they don’t predict, crop harvests, they don’t predict droughts, they don’t predict species extinction, and on and on. What exactly do YOU think they do?
Yet again, the scope of the current discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with adjustments. The points I am making about calculating anomalies apply whether you are using an adjusted dataset or not. I understand that you desperately want to pivot the topic of discussion to one of your old standards, but I’m not interested in following that rabbit trail until we actually find some resolution on the topic at hand.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t have a point! Anomalies simply aren’t fit for the purpose of finding differences in the hundredths digit, it’s not even obvious they are fit for finding differences in the tenths digit.
*YOU* were the one that brought up “discontinuities” and tried to say that adjustments can fix them. They can’t. The adjustments just add to the overall uncertainty.
I know you want to believe that the measurement uncertainties can all be “adjusted” away. They can’t.
I did not mention adjustments at all, you did that. Reread the discussion thread if you’re struggling to keep up.
“”””If I take the mean of the two anomaly series computed with a common baseline mean, there will be a step-discontinuity in the series where the shorter series ends because both records do not share a common zero. “”””
Short series will always do what you are describing regardless of what you use as a baseline. It has nothing to do with a “common zero”. If two different stations have different baselines there is no “common zero” between them.
If I trend two numbers that are averaged, and one stops there will be a step change regardless of how the numbers were calculated.
[(a₁+b₁)/2, …, (a₁₀+b₁₀)/2, (a₁₁), (a₁₂) ]
If you want to prove a point, show some math.
Nope, that is not true of the anomalies. You can very, very easily see this is the clear example I provided you above, which you seem to be desperately trying to avoid. That is one of the major reasons anomalies are used t compete the global mean – if you don’t use anomalies, all of your records have to be the same length.
“””””If I take the mean of the two anomaly series computed with a common baseline mean, there will be a step-discontinuity in the series where the shorter series ends because both records do not share a common zero. “””””
Look at what you said:
• Mean of three anomaly series =>
(a₁+b₁+c₁+d₁)
(a₂+b₂+c₂+d₂)
(a₃+b₃+c₃+d₃)
• step-discontinuity in the series where the shorter series ends => ((a₁₁+b₁₁)/2), ((a₁₂+b₁₂)/2)
————————————-
Let’s make it more real.
a₁ = 30-24, b₁ = 29-20, c₁ = 17-14, d₁ = 24-28
a₂ = 13-17, b₂ = 19-16, c₂ = 21-22, d₂ = 32-28
a₃ = 10-7, b₃ = 8-12,
The mean of three anomalies with a different baseline is:
a̅ = 5, b̅ = 9, c̅ = 2, d̅ = 0
That is funny, I see step-discontinuity between the b and c terms
————————————–
Let’s try using a common baseline:
a₁ = 30-17, b₁ = 29-17, c₁ = 17-17, d₁ = 24-17
a₂ = 13-17, b₂ = 19-17, c₂ = 21-17, d₂ = 32-17
a₃ = 10-17, b₃ = 8-17
a̅ = 2, b̅ = 5, c̅ = 4, d̅ = 15
————————————–
What you are calling a step change that is a problem, I see as a different way of looking at what is going on. These are just made up numbers but they illustrate that your concern is more about maintaining tradition than evolving new ways to examine data. I chose 17 since that might be a good temperature rather than the current estimate of 15.
Any time you add OR drop a series the subsequent values will change. That is life and you must deal with it. It is one reason climate science wants to create “long” records by creating information to replace measurements. If absolute temperatures were the chosen way to publicize changes adding and dropping records would be much less of a problem.
Several articles recently have discussed the problem of finding long records. It is hard. Yet you can’t tell me another physical science endeavor that modifies actual measurements just so long records can be manufactured. It just doesn’t occur. It will catch up to climate science sooner or later.
Jim, you really must actually address the example I so thoughtfully prepared for the discussion. Please stop deflecting. Thanks.
‘Anomalously warm’ is a contradiction when discussing a graph of anomalies. Variances in temperature can be warmer or cooler but to use the term to describe an abstract statistical analysis is pushing it way beyond the bounds of credibility. It’s comments like that that show the ignorance of the climate enthusiasts as well as their duplicitous methods. If you, AlanJ, want to draw my attention to an anomalously warm region then throw away the anomalies and show me the actual temperatures involved, otherwise I will ignore everything you say as utterly irrelevant.
Say what?
This sums up the general level of understanding on this blog, does it not?
Averaged ΔT’s with different baselines are suspect at best. I notice that you have to explain why so many local and regional temperature trends show no warming, yet anomalies show a large increase.
Show us a mathematical proof that averaging ΔT’s doesn’t introduce biases.
I’ll give you an example. Two cars, one a 20 mph and one at 100 mph. Each increases with a ΔT of 5 mph. The car at 20 mph just increased his speed by 25% yet the car at 100 mph only increased 5%.
That is why Richard Page asked you about absolute temperatures. Averaging ΔT’s of different functional relationship is an iffy proposition.
If we looked at absolute temperatures only, Kelvin (K), then we wouldn’t see the observed temperature change on a chart. That doesnt mean it is insignificant, but I can see why people wishing to hide the significance might try to bury it by using absolute temperatures.
Bear in mind that, in terms of human body temperature, the difference between life and death wouldn’t be noticeable on a Kelvin scale chart either.
The current change is only from El Nino events, and is actually rather small in the grander scheme of things.
If it weren’t for the manic chicken-little caterwauling of the climate cult, basically no-one would even notice.
The planet has been a lot warmer for most of the last 10,000 years.
Humans are still here.
Your petty little human body temp analogy is probably the most pathetic thing you have come up with yet.
And you still haven’t told us how much warmer it must have been for forests to have grown where there are now glaciers.
If climate enthusiasts were properly educated scientists (as opposed to computer programmers with a dumbed-down ecology course for art students and idiots) with proper, rigorous scientific training then using the actual temperatures and context would be all-important. Context is key – these are not abstract numbers you just punch into a computer and muck about with, these are the actual, real-world temperature readings and you need to know how they are derived and work in the real world before attempting to draw conclusions. Using anomalies may look good and certainly impresses the morons but these are abstract number constructions that bear no resemblance to the real world. Give me context; Tmax and Tmin over time and how this artificially contrived mean fits into that historical data with a correct error range, not the mathematical probability range for heaven’s sake. Why are you all so apparently incompetent at what should be a fairly straightforward job? Intentional duplicity and manipulation is the answer in case you were scratching your heads and wondering. Either work out how to do it correctly or run off and play with your keyboard and joystick.
Horse Manure! If anomalies are what you say they are why would 288.03 – 288.0 give an value you wouldn’t see?
Why don’t you think about why using Kelvin isn’t a better choice from a scientific standpoint. Your ignorance tells me you have never studied thermodynamics. The first thing you learn is to convert all temps to Kelvin before putting anything else down on the paper.
“general level of understanding on this blog”
Which is about 4 magnitudes MORE that FN’s understanding of ANYTHING..
… particularly climate.. where everything it thinks it know, is manifestly wrong.
FH thinks a +3C anomaly in the Antarctic makes ice boil.
Its brain capacity must be less than the UN gutty-moron..
Did you know that NYT stands for Not Your Truth?
Well, it certainly isn’t mine.
Even the IPCC acknowledges that “The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)”.
Check out the “Climate” entry of their updated “Glossary”, on page 2222 of the AR6 WG-I report, for yourself.
Calculations using an integration time of 15 years comes under descriptions like “natural variability” or “decadal trends”, not “climate”.
Mmmmmmmmm ! Don’t you just love that cherry pie …
One thing that always stands out to me when you get a graph that goes back to 1850 is that is also the end of the LIA. We are basically 1-2 degrees away from an ice age.
“Even the IPCC acknowledges that “The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)”.”
30 years is a choice of convenience. It’s long enough to have enough data, and short enough so that the climate doesn’t change much during the period. It doesn’t mean that any other period isn’t climate. In fact, the IPCC goes on to say (note the last sentence):
“The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. In various chapters in this report different averaging periods, such as a period of 20 years, are also used.”
“30 years is a choice of convenience.”
Because at the time it comprised all the low part of the AMO cycle.
I have used 50 years in a lot of my random station checks and I don’t see a big change. Referenced to the standard deviation, I see what most folks see when looking at smaller areas than the globe, little warming at all.
Yep.. most raw data shows little warming.. 1930.40s high.
The FAKERY in GISS is asstounding !!
As I get older I unfortunately react more and more badly to “change”.
The “classical period” which defines “climate” as “30(+) year averages (/ trends)” is what I’m used to … but let’s look at how these “young whipper-snappers” might look at it as well.
The latest IPCC report includes several mentions of signals that “begin to emerge from natural variability within around 20 years” (paragraph D.2 in the SPM of the AR6 WG-I report), so let’s compare the two “N-month (trailing) averages” options.
[ Please scroll down, peruse the graph attached below, then scroll back up again. ]
Notes
1) It turns out that both the 20- and 30-year averages “level off” at around the +0.2 (°C above the 1850-1900 average) level from ~1965 to ~1980.
2) The 30-year trend since 1980 has an overall “quadratic / parabolic” shape, which can be interpreted as “accelerating” climate change … but your preferred 20-year trend is (a lot ?) closer to being linear over the same time period …
3) The 20-year (rolling, trailing) average ends up at +0.95 for an endpoint of September 2023, while the 30-year average “only” reaches +0.85.
4) Environmental activists hysterically shrieking on their blogs that “The Earth’s climate system has already breached the +1.5°C threshold ! ! !” are wrong.
This is pretty much what I wanted to see, an anomaly graph reference to a common temperature for everywhere. In the future I would like to see the warmists do an anomaly graph with a common baseline temperature that is the best for the globe. As already referenced above, 15° C is pretty darn cold. How about 17°C as a common baseline for every station?
So, 15 years isn’t long enough to draw conclusions about a long term trend in climate? I agree. I’m just wondering where all you guys where when Lord M was running is “no warming in [X] months” a short time ago on this very sight, when is maximum ‘no warming’ trend period was barely 10 years?
Do different rules apply to him?
Shorter periods tell us what is happening NOW.
You really are totally clueless about the Monckton calculation aren’t you.
(UAH currently a non-positive trend back to June 2015)
You poor mathematical illiterate.
And it is noted you are making manic caterwauling sounds about 3 months of data.
Stop making an abject FOOL of yourself.
Another trendologist clown who can’t understand the methods of CMoB, even though he writes them down in every article.
Yes, because he was performing a different set of calculations.
Each month CMoB used to calculate backwards from “now” in order to answer the question :
“What’s the earliest month in the UAH dataset that still gives me a negative trend ?”.
As far as I can remember this wasn’t used to “draw conclusions” about anything, let alone “a long term trend in climate”.
It was merely an “interesting” observation or “a curiosity” (to me, at least).
Quit being ignorant and OBTUSE! CMoB’s purpose had nothing to do with trendology. You would know that if you had read his leading text. FYI, his purpose was to mainly show that CO2 increase was not a casual factor in temperature increase. That still stands as correct.
I like how they choose the last 15 years as the starting point. 2007 – 2012 was dominated by historically strong La Nina’s whereas 2015-2020 was El Niño dominated with a strong SSW. The La Nina’s of the past 3 years were weak. When you take those factors into account, you may still end up with a slightly more increased rate of warming but not to where it’s statically significant. Furthermore, the 2015-2020 bump was likely caused by an increase in the AMO, solar radiation, and a decrease in atmospheric aerosols throughout the North Atlantic.
What, you expected them to choose an honest start date?
Got me there!
ONI over the last 15 years has averaged -0.09. So if anything ENSO has suppressed, albeit slightly, global temperatures over this period.
Cool you know how to average numbers.
That’s all he knows – ask him to show real world data rather than number crunching and he slinks off.
He has some rather odd ideas about heat transfer, however.
Here is the real world data.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/oni.ascii.txt
Global anomalies tell us nothing about any specific global region with this measure used to hide the absolute temperatures outcomes that make a mockery of hyped anomaly outcomes with phony claims about “hottest ever summer” being nothing but climate alarmist propaganda as shown in NOAA data below with the peak temperatures in the dust bowl era of the 1930s.
Many other places with raw unadjusted data also show a large peak in the NH and other parts of the globe around the 1930s/40s… (see Bangalore for eg…)
Even Australia, which seems to have a different pattern than most of the rest of the world, had a series of records from the mid 1930s.
ps, Australian high temperature point seems to have been around the term of the 1900s with a low around the late 1950s then a climb back up.
Hard to be sure because of the massive urban growth (even in so-called rural areas) since the 1960s swallowing up surface temperature sites.
Even the SH had a similar pattern to the NH , with a pronounced peak around the 1940s.. eg Andes, South America
And South Africa…
Oooww, the graph looks so frightening. But strangely, one would not have noticed anything unusual weather-wise where I’m at. Do you know of ANYWHERE in the world where there was some UNUSUAL problem w/the weather, just forgetting for a moment about the scary graph?
“He also notes that such an acceleration if real is still well in line with model projections, so it isn’t so much a shocking surprise as it is a sharp reminder.”
Sharp reminder or: “Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas,”
Fabricated nonsense from the Berks..
Made from all the worst surface data available, and then kludged together using ludicrous anti-science infilling, adjustments and whatever else they want to.
The Giss surface data is also made from junk surface sites, urban, airport, infilling, and mal-adjustments
There is absolutely ZERO probability it gives even the remotest resemblance to real global temperatures over time.
UAH shows a warming spike, but the main area with >2.5 anomaly (apart from the Antarctic) is Europe and northern Russia. This came from a long blocking high, and a record period of cloud-free days.. ie WEATHER.
Most of globe is slightly warmer than usual, certainly nothing most people could even notice.
This spike will turn out to be nothing but a transient…
… but the “climate scammers” must make hay while the SUN shines.
The two temperature datasets are on different baselines, so the two maps are not strictly visually comparable. “Hotter” for UAH means hotter than the mean of the 1991-2020 period. “Hotter” for the GISS map Anthony cited means hotter than 1951-1980. Here is the GISS map on the same baseline:
Mostly similar (with the caveat that UAH is showing temperature of the entire lower troposphere and GISS is showing temper a meter or so above the surface).
Again, using data which YOU KNOW is totally unfit for anything related to climate over any period.
Why keep doing that ?
Again.. warming is all in the Antarctic.. thanks for pointing that out..
Shows there is absolutely no human causation,
Show use where the measurements came from for the Antarctic in 1991 and in 2023..
And more Fake Data…
No, GISS uses mostly airport and urban affected temperatures. Then infills and homogenises and “adjusts” with baseless and fake routines.
It cannot possibly be a true representation of the global as a whole.
With all due respect, the climate change terror has nothing to do with science or even observation. It’s a social phenomenon engineered by academics, governments, the media, business and the legal profession. In most respects its a hoax. Saying this will bring accusations of promoting “conspiracy theory”. There are such things as conspiracies, in fact prosecution of conspiracies occurs daily all over the country. Perhaps it would be better to call the climate change fiasco “coordinated activity”, for that’s what it is. Majorities of academia, many in irrelevant fields, discover, analyze and propose solutions for problems, release this information to a cooperative and credulous media, whose product is then conceived as a problem by government agencies, who then offer money to businesses created to solve that problem. The legal profession takes its cut of the deal as well. Personnel move effortlessly from one component to another.
Sensible opposition to this hugely wasteful coordinated activity, which, according to polling, doesn’t seem to be a major concern of the general population, shouldn’t include the science, which is known but fabricated, distorted or ignored. Instead opposition should be the financials of the delusion. The fact that already wealthy research institutions are milking an enormous financial cow, that the media abdicates its duty and shows zero skepticism in exchange for free material, that government agencies grow and prosper regulating the response to the delusion, that businesses have been and continue to be created to take advantage of subsidies to fight a chimerical problem that actually can have no solution regardless of the expense and a lawfare industry that plays on both sides of every dispute. It’s also wrong to use the term “delusion” here. What’s happening isn’t deluded in the least. It’s a concerted grab for money and power by an elite that has too much of both already.
“ climate change terror”
Extreme Gaianism, as I would describe the new religion. It is an eco-centered philosophical, holistic, and above all, a spiritual belief that shares “expressions” with old Earth religions and paganism. Nothing to do with science.
Yup Christopher Lee – the thinking man’s action hero.
I agree with him. He said it was his best film of all.
Only the hopelessly naive could believe that the powerful don’t conspire in ways to maintain and increase their power.
Conspiracy wacko/nutcase psyops has effectively eliminated most of the population from looking at corruption. All they have to do is label corruption a debunked conspiracy theory and people will look the other way to avoid the shame label.
Legacy media exists largely to provide cover for corruption. The weak minded are easily suckered.
Lord Acton observed that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To paraphrase, “Corruption is proportional to the political power wielded by government agents.” If you subscribe to that position, then it follows that corruption exists, and is even present in the USA, where the Founders took great pains to create a separation of powers. Because corruption is generally illegal and officially frowned upon, nobody with more than one brain cell is going to do it openly. It is like the inconsiderate person who passes gas in an elevator, and says, “Who? Me? No, I’d never do that!” Yet, the smell lingers because obviously, someone did do the dirty deed.
I’m not sure I would even call it intentional corruption. As far back as 1970 I learned in political science classes that a bureaucracy has one goal, GROWTH. Once a “problem” is solved, the bureaucracy finds a new problem that requires more money and more people to solve. I fear we have reached the breaking point where western governments are borrowing from future generations to the point that it will soon end. God help us all.
nailed it- better yet, sledgehammered it!
“. . . shouldn’t include the science, which is known but fabricated, distorted or ignored.”
Some, but not all of the weather equations are known. Absolutely none of the climate equations are known. Their so-called climate models are just weather models run longer–well past the chaos horizon of predictability.
general custer,
Your commentary here is one of the best I’ve seen on WUWT in the 3-4 years I’ve been reading it. I’m going to pass it along to as many people as possible here in Wokeachusetts, the epicenter of the climate idiocy. Since I don’t know your real name, I’ll just give a referral back to this thread.
“NYT Claims Record September Temperature Indicates Accelerated Climate Change”
I hate to disabuse you, but Just Stop Oil has found a different target. But don’t worry, even the queasiest woke-merchant can get behind this campaign.
For context, the UK taxpayer is forking out over £8 million pounds each and every day to accommodate economic migrants in hotels. And these hotels had to fire all their staff to let home office hired agents run the show(s).
“Bibby Stockholm is an engineless barge owned by Bibby Marine. It was built in 1976, and was converted into an accommodation barge in 1992. It was formerly known as Floatel Stockholm and Dino I. The barge has previously housed oil and gas workers, as well as asylum seekers in other countries.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/bibby-stockholm-what-used-for-history-asylum-seeker-barge-name-explained-2532229
No engines…. got that?
“Just Stop Oil try to block coach carrying migrants to Bibby Stockholm barge”
Dramatic footage shows the eco clowns rushing a coach driving into the Port of Portland and trying to block its path. The protesters, including one woman with crutches, push back against the moving vehicle and scream at the driver to stop, as another group sits on the road in front. The driver continues slowly edging forward and by the time the coach reaches the group sitting down they are forced to stand up. Activists holding a banner reading ‘No prison ships’ then stand with their backs to the vehicle as it continues moving forward.
JSO later shared a statement admitting defeat and hysterically accusing the driver of ‘intent to kill’. A spokesman said: ‘We are saddened to report that we were unable to halt transportation of refugees to the prison – the driver rammed through the block, risking killing those in front.'”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12649205/Moment-coach-carrying-migrants-Bibby-Stockholm-barge-drives-Just-Stop-Oil-eco-mob-trying-block-vehicle-asylum-seekers-arrive-floatel-evacuated-two-months-ago-Legionella-discovery.html
What do JSO know that the NYT doesn’t?
It’s far easier to just call all these idiots extreme lefties, at the cellular level, that’s just what they are, dressed up as varying activists – from veganists, to satanists, they are all of a similar genetic code
Full marks to the driver. He deserves a bonus.
Tragically, no JSO activists were injured or killed.
Although I hope several privileged ego’s were severely bruised!
They are now indoctrinated in school to be activists. Doesn’t matter what for, just being against something is worthwhile. What dummies! Someday they will begin to protest against work and the end will be nigh!
queasiest or cheesiest?
The first clue that this faux report was just more marxist BS was “NYT claims…”. Didn’t even need to see the rest of it. They are getting desperate.
NOAA’s Climate Reference Network records the average surface temperature of the Lower 48 since 2005 when the network first began operating. The network consists of about 120 automatic weather stations located in places distant from human presence – far away from airports and cities. The temperature report for September 2023 shows little change from August 2023 and earlier months and little change over the entirety of the 18 year 9 month long record. See it at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/visualizations.html More American exceptionalism I suppose.
The USCRN shows a warming trend of about 0.3 degrees C per decade, compared to the whole globe estimate of about 0.2 degrees per decade for the same period. American exceptionalism indeed.
Alan, here’s CRN monthly, all months, trend indiscernible, what did you cherry-pick?
Here is CRN monthly with the trendline and equation displayed:
Usually trying to eyeball trends in time series sis a fraught exercise, it’s best to use regression analysis.
Since you apparently used regression analysis, then you can tell us if the trend is statistically significant. I suspect not. Do you think that the anomaly was -61 deg C in the year 0000 CE, or does that unreasonable value reflect the uncertainty in the fit to the recent temperatures?
The result is statistically significant at the 95% level with a p-value of 0.025. It is generally inadvisable to try to extrapolate a trend too far beyond the bounds of the data used to calculate the regression line, this is not due to uncertainty in the regression, but due to the fact that the climate changes.
Now consider the measurement errors..
And the fact of the 2015/16 and 2020 El Nino bulges… (the location in the time series gives the positive trend)
And there would be no evidence of any warming whatsoever
“Measurement error” only seems to become a ‘thing’ when there’s a warming trend in the best estimate values.
Consider the Merry Lord M’s latest (second, or is it third) ‘No global warming since…’ series here at WUWT.
Not a word of concern about ‘measurement error’, ‘statistical significance’ etc, from the choir here.
The real point is that warmists never, ever, discuss measurement error. They never discuss significant figures.
Find me a university physical lab instruction that lets you use a 0.0303 slope when your measurements are to the one-tenth of a degree. You all use what ever figures pop out of a calculator as if they are significant.
Hell, we could know the wavelength of light down to the nanometer if we just had enough meter stick measurements to average together, right?
Look at the CRN graph, it is showing one-hundredths on the C scale. I’ll guarantee that some of the anomalies are calculated to the one-thousandths digit. How does anyone increase precision by two orders of magnitude through averaging different things I’ll never know. I’m just glad you aren’t building sky scrapers!
Mr. J discusses significant figures if he can increase them by hook or by crook–by crook mostly.
I have never had a lab class or job where where you could increase the resolution of measurements beyond what was measured.
These guys can never explain how you can use a meter stick to measure to the nearest mm, but then average readings and expect μm resolution. They obviously have never done any machine work.
“These guys can never explain how you can use a meter stick to measure to the nearest mm, but then average readings and expect μm resolution.’
I keep explaining why you can’t do that. It’s just a strawman argument you keep using. At best averaging reduces uncertainty by the square root of the sample size. If the measurement uncertainty is of the order of a mm, you would need a million measurements to get to a micro meter uncertainty.
But in reality even small systematic errors will make that impossible.
Moreover, if you are measuring the same thing multiple times, the resolution will be a systematic error. If you keep getting the same result ti the nearest mm, then there will be no improvement from taking multiple measurements.
If on the other hand you are sampling multiple different things, the mm accuracy will mean little if the deviation in the sizes is much bigger.
You need to have a better understanding of measurements. Why don’t you take some online courses that have you do experiments at home?
I never once mentioned uncertainty. That is a whole different subject that resolution. Did you read Dr. Pat Frank’s paper for understanding or just to cherry pick some simple items?
Resolution is the information you can obtain when making a measurement. That is NOT uncertainty, it is a physical limit on the information you have to work with.
Adding information, i.e., increasing the perceived resolution of measurements via averaging is why significant rules were developed. These rules preserve the integrity of the resolution of the original measurements. I know you don’t believe in the significant digit rules, but that just tells me you have never taken any upper level college physical science lab classes.
Measurement uncertainty is certainly related but a totally different subject.
I urge you to do more self-study to learn the difference between resolution and measurement uncertainty.
“Resolution is the information you can obtain when making a measurement. That is NOT uncertainty, it is a physical limit on the information you have to work with.”
Citation required. As far as I’m concerned measurement uncertainty includes uncertainty caused by the resolution of the instrument.
VIM 4.14
If it’s impossible to detect a difference between two values, then there has to be uncertainty.
“Adding information, i.e., increasing the perceived resolution of measurements via averaging is why significant rules were developed.”
Again the problem is you think averaging is “adding information”, but I disagree. All the information used to calculate an average is present in the data used. Averaging actually removes information, by summarizing all the data into a single value.
“These rules preserve the integrity of the resolution of the original measurements.”
But, as I keep explaining, the average of multiple measurements is not an individual measurement. Why should you preserve the integrity of the original measurements, when they are just small components of a much bigger whole?
“I know you don’t believe in the significant digit rules, but that just tells me you have never taken any upper level college physical science lab classes.”
I’m not saying you should never use the rules, and it always makes sense to quote to an “appropriate” number of figures. I just think you need to justify their use beyond saying it’s what you were taught in college. They are fine for a lot of purposes, but should not be treated as dogma. And this is especially true for the claimed rule about keeping the same resolution for an average. It might be reasonable in a laboratory experiment where you are only averaging a few values of the same size – but you can’t apply the same logic to an average of thousands of different things.
Significant figures – Wikipedia
https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electrical_Engineering/Electronics/DC_Electrical_Circuit_Analysis_-_A_Practical_Approach_(Fiore)/01%3A_Fundamentals/1.2%3A_Significant_Digits_and_Resolution
https://sites.middlebury.edu/chem103lab/2018/01/05/significant-figures-lab/
Microsoft Word – Document3 (purdue.edu)
Microsoft Word – SIGNIFICANT FIGURES (chem21labs.com)
Significant Figures: The number of digits used to express a measured or calculated quantity.
By using significant figures, we can show how precise a number is. If we express a number beyond the place to which we have actually measured (and are therefore certain of), we compromise the integrity of what this number is representing. It is important after learning and understanding significant figures to use them properly throughout your scientific career.
Precision: A measure of how closely individual measurements agree with one another.
Accuracy: Refers to how closely individual measurements agree with the correct or true value.
This was from a Washington University chemistry lab web page that is no longer available, however, it states very well what occurs when one doesn’t learn and understand the use of significant digits in physical measurements.
I hope I have provided sufficient references detailing the connection between resolution and significant figures. If you need more, I can provide more. Every university that has physical laboratory classes have similar requirements.
Now it is your turn to provide references showing that significant figures need not be observed when averaging measurements. Good luck on finding some.
It doesn’t matter how many references you can cut and paste when my argument is they the claims made by those references are wrong. All you are doing is engaging in an argument by authority.
By all means I’d you want to pass an exam you had better follow any convention that university demands. But that doesn’t mean why they are saying has to be taken at face value. Try to be sceptical, don’t just take their word for it, but ask what the logical reason is for their style guides.
If given you references in the past saying you can quote averages to more places than the individual measurements. Taylor explocitly states that in two of his exercises. But the main point is that it’s implicit in all the metrology guides you point to. Number of digits should be defined by the size of the uncertainty. If the uncertainty in a mean is smaller then that for the individual measurements than you can quote the figure to more places tha the individual measurements.
You can’t even read Dr. Taylor’s book correctly. Let’s look at what he says in Chapter 2.
Look at the values of uncertainty. They are representative of the resolution of the measurements. Uncertainty is always in the last digit of an experimental measurement, i.e., its resolution. You simply can not reduce uncertainty by averaging.
That is why so many references, and Dr. Taylor too, explains that averages of experimental measurements CAN NOT exceed the resolution of the measurements. You will never find an actual measurement like 6.1 ± 0.00005 because your measuring device’s resolution cannot support the 0.00005 resolution.
If you have integer measurements, the minimum uncertainty will be ± 0.5. NOAA/NWS show ± 1 F for LIG and AOSS thermometers. Consequently, you may end up with an average of 75.58 ± 1. Look at what Dr. Taylor says that should be, => 75 ± 1.
Your insistence that uncertainty can be reduced by dividing by “n” is the problem. Uncertainty always adds. Not even the GUM in any of its equations, not even Eq. 10, 13, etc., shows combining uncertainties and then dividing by a factor of “n”. They may add using fractional uncertainties, which is what the partial derivative of each term is all about, but they still add. They don’t average.
Why don’t you show the text of a reference instead of providing your interpretation of what is said?
You don’t even get the argument by authority correct. There are legitimate appeals to authority. Arguments from authority are legitimate when you provide evidence alongside the appeal. Authorities themselves are not the evidence, authorities provide evidence.
My cutting and pasting were not using the web sites as an authority, it was showing the evidence at the site.
Why do you never show any text or web location of the texts that support your assertions? Talk about argument from authority! What is true is true if and only if you say so, right?
“Why do you never show any text or web location of the texts that support your assertions?”
You’ll just find some reason to ignore this, as you keep doing but here are the two exercises I mentioned from Taylor’s section on the standard error of the mean (SDOM as he calls it).
4.15
Question:
Given the three measurements in Problem 4.1, what should you state for your best estimate for the time concerned and its uncertainty? (Your answer will illustrate how the mean can have more significant figures than the original measurements.)
Answer:
The best estimate is the mean = 12.0, and uncertainty in this estimate is the SDOM – 0.6.
4.17
Question:
a) Based on the 30 measurements in Problem 4.13, what would be your
best estimate for the time involved and its uncertainty, assuming all uncertainties are random? (b) Comment on the number of significant digits in your best estimate, as compared with the number of significant digits in the data.
Answer:
(a) (Final answer for time) = mean ± SDOM = 8.149 ± 0.007 s. (b) The
data have three significant figures, whereas the final answer has four; this result is what we should expect with a large number of measurements because the SDOM is then much smaller than the SD.
—–
Here’s a detailed paper that agrees that the SEM should be used to determine how many digits are reported:
How many of the digits in a mean of 12.3456789012 are worth reporting?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421670/
Or look at the example in this web site:
Error Analysis and Significant Figures
Estimating random errors
https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/data_analysis/errors_sigfigs.html
And that example shows 5 measurements made to 1 decimal place, and finishes, with a result given to 2 decimal places
Then there’s Bevington Example 4.1. This starts with dropped ball measurements made to 2 decimal places with an uncertainty of ±0.020 s. 50 drops are measured and
Here are the published values for Hubble’s constant–at least to 2010. Use your magic to tell me the correct value.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble.plot.dat
As usual, you misconstrue what the context is.
The number you quote is the standard deviation of the mean. That is an interval surrounding the mean and shows where the mean might lay. The measurement uncertainty is the interval surrounding the mean describing the dispersion of the data, i.e., ±0.020.
The GUM defines measurement uncertainty.
Like it or not the dispersion of the values that could be attributed to the MEASURAND is the experimental standard deviation.
The experimental standard deviation of the mean only defines, closer and closer, where the center of measurement uncertainty lies.
bellman is never going to get it. Neither are many in climate science. Their agenda is to somehow rationalize their ability to *know* what anomalies are in the hundredths digit with no uncertainty. Thus the meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. They can protest, as bellman does, that they don’t assume that meme but it is apparent in everything they write and assert.
“As usual, you misconstrue what the context is.”
The context is you claiming that an average cannot have more significant digits than the values that make it up. Then demanding I give a quote that said otherwise. Then when I give several examples, you try to change the subject, as always.
“The measurement uncertainty is the interval surrounding the mean describing the dispersion of the data, i.e., ±0.020. ”
That’s the measurement uncertainty of individual measurements. It is not the uncertainty of the mean, which is what determines how many digits you can quote for the mean. The standard error of the mean (or if you prefer the standard deviation of the mean) is exactly what Bevington is describing as “the uncertainty in his determination of the mean”, and you are still avoiding the point that he uses this to add an extra digit to the quoted mean.
“The GUM defines measurement uncertainty”
Do we have to keep doing this. We both know what the definition says. We both quote it enough. You still don;t seem to understand that if you are talking about the uncertainty of an average, then that average is the measurand, and the uncertainty of the mean is given by the SEM, or whatever you want to call it.
“Like it or not the dispersion of the values that could be attributed to the MEASURAND is the experimental standard deviation”
It’s explained in Note 2 of B.2.17. The standard deviation of the distribution of the mean is not the “experimental standard deviation”, it’s the “experimental standard deviation of the mean”, obtained by dividing the “experimental standard deviation” by the root of N. See the example of 4.4.3 for the difference between the two, and how the “experimental standard deviation of the mean” is the standard uncertainty of the mean.
“That’s the measurement uncertainty of individual measurements. It is not the uncertainty of the mean, which is what determines how many digits you can quote for the mean.”
The MEASUREMENT *mean* can have no more signifnicant digits than the data that makes up the MEASUREMENT mean.
“you are still avoiding the point that he uses this to add an extra digit to the quoted mean.”
I’m not ignoring ANYTHING! How many significant digits are in the measurements?
You don’t even understand that reason for the extra digit in the time to fall is because it will be used in later calculations to determine the acceleration of gravity. The extra digit in the mean is to prevent rounding errors in later calculations! If the result wasn’t to be used in later calculations what do you think the final answer should be?
” average is the measurand”
The average is *NOT* a measurand. It is a statistical descriptor of a set of data. It is not even a complete description of the data. You simply don’t go out and *measure* an average. The average is no more a measurand than is standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness, first quartile, etc. They are all statistical descriptors. As descriptors of a set of data they can be no more accurate or precise then the data itself is. To go further than the data provides is saying that you know the unknown – the realm of carnival hucksters.
“he standard deviation of the distribution of the mean is not the “experimental standard deviation”, it’s the “experimental standard deviation of the mean”,”
The standard deviation of the mean is only useful in gauging the interval in which the mean might lie based on your samples. Once again, for the umpteenth time, it is *NOT* the accuracy of the mean. The accuracy of the mean is based on the accuracy of the data elements, it is based on the standard deviation of the data. It is *NOT* described by the sampling error, which is described by the standard deviation of the sample means.
Give it up, man! You *still* haven’t learned anything about metrology. Neither have most climate scientists. Medicine has recognized that the standard deviation of the mean, the sampling error, is not the accuracy of the average. Why can’t you and climate science do the same?
This is getting very desperate. You really will jump through any hoops just to avoid admitting you were wrong about something.
“The MEASUREMENT *mean* can have no more signifnicant digits than the data that makes up the MEASUREMENT mean. ”
Now you are inventing terms like “MEASUREMENT *mean*”. What on earth do you mean by that? The claim was that any mean can only be reported to the same number of places as the individual measurements. You simply can’t accept that Taylor and Bevington do exactly that.
“I’m not ignoring ANYTHING! How many significant digits are in the measurements? ”
I’ve already told you. In the Bevington example the measurements are given to 2 decimal places and the average reported to 3. In the Taylor exercises the first is reported to a tenth of a second, the average reported to a hundredth.
“You don’t even understand that reason for the extra digit in the time to fall is because it will be used in later calculations to determine the acceleration of gravity”
No mention of this in the book as far as I can see.He just says the student quotes his experimental result as 0.635 ± 0.003 s.
But you keep ignoring the point that the data supplied for monthly anomalies are always going to be used in calculations, so why are you so upset when they are quoted to more places than you think are acceptable?
And, finally, I’ve pointed this out to you before – the very fact you think you need that 3rd decimal place in order to avoid rounding errors, means you do accept that that final place is not spurious. You can know the average to a higher resolution than the individual measurements.
“The average is *NOT* a measurand.”
Then what do you think is? I’ll repeat again, you keep wanting to have it both ways. Do you want there to be a measurement uncertainty associated with a mean or don’t you?
“The standard deviation of the mean is only useful in gauging the interval in which the mean might lie based on your samples.”
In other words, the uncertainty of the mean.
OMG! The data set is made up of measurements, stated values +/- uncertainty. The mean value of measurements is the measurement mean.
Are you REALLY that obtuse that you can’t figure that out?
“No mention of this in the book as far as I can see.”
Which only shows the lack of ANY scientific knowledge on your part! We did this very experiment in Physics 101 lab. Why else would you try to find out how long it takes a falling object to cover a specific distance? Again, you didn’t even bother to read Ex 1.2! It says “In a physics lab experiment”.
“But you keep ignoring the point that the data supplied for monthly anomalies are always going to be used in calculations, so why are you so upset when they are quoted to more places than you think are acceptable?”
Because that extra digit gets put in the final average, meaning the hundredths digit! Trying to mislead people that they know the temperature to a precision that is not justified. You simply can *NOT* increase precision through averaging!
“Then what do you think is?”
I told you what it is! It is a statistical descriptor. The average is *NOT* a measurand. You can’t measure it. It is a PARTIAL descriptor of a group of data in a set.
“ Do you want there to be a measurement uncertainty associated with a mean or don’t you?”
I already answered this. Your reading comprehension hasn’t changed much.
“You simply can *NOT* increase precision through averaging!”
You keep doing your best to avoid seeing all the examples when just that is being done. The Bevington one for example. Measurement uncertainty is ±0.02, uncertainty of the mean is ±0.003. Or Taylor exercise 4.17, Standard deviation of 30 measurements is 0.039s, but the uncertainty of the mean gives a final uncertainty of 0.007s.
You keep claiming that the extra digit in all these examples is the extra one added to avoid rounding errors – but that’s just wrong. In all these examples the digits quoted are completely in line with the stated uncertainty. An uncertainty of 0.007 quoted to 1 significant figure means the final answer is given to 3 decimal places.
“I told you what it is! It is a statistical descriptor.”
I’m asking you what you think the measurand is, if it is not the average? You insist that there has to be a measurement uncertainty associated with the average.
Measurement uncertainty is defined in terms of the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand. So if the average is not the measurand, what is the thing you are attributing the dispersion of values to?
You are cherry-picking again! STOP IT!
You don’t understand the context behind Ex 4.1 at all because you didn’t bother to do any actual studying of Bevington.
Ex. 4.1: “We return to the student’s measurement of the dropped ball (Example 1.2)”
Ex 1.2: “One set of observations, corrected for systematic errors …”
Ex 1.2: “If the distribution results from random errors in measurement, then it is very likely that it can be described in terms of the Gaussian or normal error distribution …”
These assumptions imply, even if not explicitly stated, that you are measuring the same thing multiple times under the same environment where no systematic bias exists in the measurements.
Once again you are back to your (and climate science’s) common meme of all measurement uncertainty in temperature measurements are totally random, Gaussian, and cancel. Thus the mean becomes an accurate estimate of the true value.
This is *NOT* the real world of temperature measurements.
If you had bothered to read on after Ex 4.1 you would find:
“It is important to realize that the standard deviation of the data does not decrease with repeated measurement; it just becomes better determined. On the other hand, the standard deviation of the mean decreases as the square root of the number of measurements,, indicating the improvement in our ability to estimate the mean of the distribution.”
Even here Bevington distinguishes between the interval which contains the possible values of the measurand and the ability to precisely locate the mean of the values.
The mean of the values, and its associated calculation uncertainty, is ONLY an indicator of measurement uncertainty if the requirement that all measurements be of the same thing using the same instrument under the same environmental conditions where no systematic bias exists.
This is why Bevington makes the assumptions he does in Ex. 1.2 and Ex 4.1. IT SIMPLY DOESN’T APPLY FOR TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS. Without those assumptions the measurement uncertainty in Ex 4.1 remains the standard deviation of the data, +/- 0.02s.
I could go on further with this, all backed by statements from the text, for example, the 50 measurements represent a SAMPLE of the parent distribution. Therefore the estimated uncertainty of the parent distribution is (σ_μ) * sqrt(1/N) = +/- 0.02.
It goes on and on, e.g the title of the section for Ex 4.1 is “Estimated Error in the Mean”. It’s not “Estimated Measurement Uncertainty in the Real World”.
I simply cannot emphasize enough that you need to STOP CHERRY-PICKING, and actually study something about measurement uncertainty! You do *NOT* understand the subject at all, you cannot relate it to the real world, and for some reason you simply will not take the time to actually learn anything about the subject.
“You are cherry-picking again! STOP IT!”
For new readers, this is the standard MO for the Gormans. Demand I provide a quote that demonstrates something, and when I do say I’m cherry-picking. A quote that proves any point is by definition cherry-picking. I’m not going to quote random passages from a text book in the hope that it demonstrates their mistake.
Rather than accept that even their own preferred texts show, and in some cases explicitly state, that in some circumstances you can have more digits in an average than in the measured values – Tim will go on at epic length to claim that this only works under certain circumstances. And then he’ll try to distract with a flurry of personal insults.
“These assumptions imply, even if not explicitly stated, that you are measuring the same thing multiple times under the same environment where no systematic bias exists in the measurements.”
Yes. It’s timing dropped balls. Whoever said different?
“Once again you are back to your (and climate science’s) common meme of all measurement uncertainty in temperature measurements are totally random, Gaussian, and cancel.”
I’m not assuming anything of the sort. As well you should know. If we are talking about uncertainty caused by your measurements being rounded to the nearest digit, then I would assume it’s most likely the error distribution is rectangular.
But none of this has anything to do with you not accepting that stating a mean to 3 decimal places when the measurements were only to 2 decimal places is breaking your claimed sacred rule.
What part of that do you imagine I disagree with? I’ve been telling you for ages that the standard deviation does not decrease (let alone as you’ve claimed increase) with repeated measurements. And my main point is that the standard deviation of the mean decreases with sample size – which as Bevington says improves our ability to estimate the mean of the distribution. (That is reduce the uncertainty of the mean).
“The mean of the values, and its associated calculation uncertainty, is ONLY an indicator of measurement uncertainty if the requirement that all measurements be of the same thing using the same instrument under the same environmental conditions where no systematic bias exists.”
Wrong, but also irrelevant. The claim is you cannot increase resolution by averaging – irrespective of what is being averaged.
“IT SIMPLY DOESN’T APPLY FOR TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS.”
Another argument by capitalization. Yet the GUM has a good example of where this is used with temperature measurements.
“the 50 measurements represent a SAMPLE of the parent distribution.”
Wow, who’d of thunked it?
“Therefore the estimated uncertainty of the parent distribution is (σ_μ) * sqrt(1/N) = +/- 0.02.”
And you claim not understand math. Yes, if Z = X / sqrt(Y), then X = Z * sqrt(1/Y). Well done.
“I’m not assuming anything of the sort.”
When you cherry picked Ex 4.1 of Bevington you also have to accept the assumptions that go with it – no systematic uncertainty and the random error is Gaussian and cancels.
That meme is so ingrained in your mindset that you don’t even realize when you make it!
“I would assume it’s most likely the error distribution is rectangular.”
You didn’t bother to read Ex 1.2 at all, which is what Ex 4.1 is based on!
“What part of that do you imagine I disagree with? “
I don’t disagree with it at all! What I disagree with is stating that the sampling error, the standard deviation of the sample means, is the accuracy of the average. That only applies in one specific measurement situation – which is what the assumptions in Ex 1.2 realize.
” And my main point is that the standard deviation of the mean decreases with sample size “
No one disputes this! What you and climate science can’t accept is that this is *NOT* the accuracy of the mean! It is the accuracy with which you calculated the mean! It is a measure of the sampling error!
If I am building a bridge I simply don’t care how accurately I can calculate the mean of the lengths of the beams being used – I care about the standard deviation of the beam lengths because that is what I must design fish plates for in order to make the construction work!
“Wrong, but also irrelevant. “
Think about that for just one minute! You are telling me that if I’m designing a bridge that the standard deviation of the beam lengths is irrelevant! Unfreakingbelievable!
“The claim is you cannot increase resolution by averaging – irrespective of what is being averaged.:
You can’t increase resolution beyond what you can measure. It is physically impossible. It’s trying to divine the UNKNOWABLE by using a crystal ball.
“Yet the GUM has a good example of where this is used with temperature measurements.”
Where the GUM assumes no systematic bias and all error is random and cancels.
“Well done.”
You don’t even recognize the implications associated with the calculation!
The problem is that your quote didn’t PROVE anything other than you were cherry-picking without understanding the context of what you were cherry-picking!
Your Example 4.1 referred back to Ex 1.2 but you never bothered to go look at Ex 1.2 to see what it was or what context it provided.
Now you are just whining that you got caught cherry picking. If you don’t like getting caught at it then the answer is simple – DON’T DO IT!
You haven’t even bothered to read Bevington’s text about significant figures! He says exactly what Taylor says, you can add one significant digit to interim values that will be used in later calculations in order to reduce rounding errors – but the final answer should have no more significant digits than the data itself!
“You haven’t even bothered to read Bevington’s text about significant figures! He says exactly what Taylor says”
And they both say you are wrong.
“but the final answer should have no more significant digits than the data itself!”
Give me the exact quote where Taylor or Bevington say the final answer should have no more significant digits than the data itself. The explain why Taylor literally says the “final answer” has four significant figures when the data has three.
“Give me the exact quote where Taylor or Bevington say the final answer should have no more significant digits than the data itself.”
They both say the final stated value should have the same last digit as the measurement uncertainty. If the uncertainty is in the tenths digit then the stated value should only go out to the tenths digit.
You’ve been given these quotes any number of times in the past. I’m tired of dancing at the end of your puppet strings. Go look up Taylor’s Rule 2.9. You should have printed it out when I gave it to you before.
I just gave you the quote from Bevington on this. Taylor says the same thing. Read Taylor’s Section 2.2 for MEANING, not cherry picking. Focus on Rule 2.5 and 2.9 and Page 16.
“They both say the final stated value should have the same last digit as the measurement uncertainty. If the uncertainty is in the tenths digit then the stated value should only go out to the tenths digit.”
And if the last digit is in the thousandth place then the stated value should go out to the thousandth place, etc. That’s the whole point – as the uncertainty reduces so the number of digits reported in the stated values increases. I’ve given you three examples in those two books where the final answer is given to more significant digits than the data, in each case becasue the uncertainty of the mean allows it. I’ve quoted you twice where Taylor explicitly tells you it can.
The fact you can’t quote any part where either of these two authors, let alone the GUM, actually state that you cannot quote a final result to more digits, should be enough to make most intelligent people question if they might be wrong. But, you cannot accept that so you’ll just keep babbling on about “cherry-picking”.
Again.. You are showing that your scientific and mathematical understanding is basically ZERO.
The no-positive-trend Monckton calculation will be statistically equal either side.
I don’t think anyone could get you to actually comprehend the basic maths behind that.
You do not have the capability to understand.. period. !
“The no-positive-trend Monckton calculation will be statistically equal either side.”
As is the uncertainty in a positive or negative trend. If the trend is saying 0 ± 0.5°C / decade, it is saying that there is a reasonable likelihood you would have got the same results even if the underlying warming trend was warming at 0.5 a decade or cooling at the same rate. This means it’s impossible just on the statistics to claim there has been any change in the underlying trend. It’s just too short a period.
You really do have a thing for Lord Monckton, haven’t you? Cute.
CMoB has been a burr under the bellman saddle for a long time, don’t know details but it may predate WUWT.
It’s simple really. I just like to laugh at pseudoscience. And am especially interested in how many otherwise sensible people are taken in by it.
“I just like to laugh at pseudoscience”
You must read your own posts in utter hilarity then.
Giggling all the time at the utter scientific idiocy in them, while you are writing.
I wasn’t talking to you or about you.
No. But karlomonte was, and that’s who I was replying to.
“Now consider the measurement errors..”
I thought the whole point of the CRN was that it was more accurate. It’s UAH where people keep claiming there are massive measurement errors.
“And the fact of the 2015/16 and 2020 El Nino bulges”
There aren’t the same spikes caused by El Niños in the US records. This is obvious if you look at annual values. The big spike was in 2012 which was a La Niña year.
All your comparison of confidence intervals shows is that there is always going to be more confidence in a global data set than in a regional ones – simply because there is var less variance in a global average.
Try not to be ignorant all your life.
What utter desperation is causing you to show your true ignorance ?
Why are you trying every feeble little thing you can to support a rancid agenda that wants to destroy western civilisation
What is in it for you?
Why the continual DENIAL of warming by EL Nino events?
Why do you have blinkers on that don’t allow you to see the bulges from the 2015/16 and 2020 El Ninos in the USCRN data.
Why are you choosing to be totally ignorant !
I’m finding that difficult to believe. Would you please show the output table from the statistics software you used?
I used the stats module in the Scipy library, I’m sure that it is trivial to perform the analysis yourself to verify my result.
I also get a, just about, significant result using R.
Trend is 0.30 ± 0.26°C / decade. That’s using a 2σ confidence interval.
p-value is 0.025. I.e. significant at the 5% level.
But as I’ve said that is ignoring auto-correlation.
Looking just at annual means the up to 2022, the trend is
0.31 ± 0.48 °C / decade, with a p-value of 0.21.
For comparison, UAH data for the US48 over the same period gives
0.26 ± 0.17°C / decade, with a p-value of 0.003.
Using Annual data for 2005 – 2022, gives
0.29 ± 0.28°C / decade, with a p-value of 0.057.
The higher significance probably coming from the fact that there is less variance over the UAH area data.
Thanks for showing to two massive El Nino bulges in a different way.
You are obviously agreeing completely with what I have been saying all along.
Gotta use those El Ninos.. because there is NOTHING ELSE.
THANKS HEAPS for the graphs, bellboy.
Saved and will be able to use them in the future to show the huge effect the 2015/16 and 2020 El Ninos have on the calculated trend in the US.
Well Done… 🙂
Says someone who keeps using the 2016 El Niño to show there has been global cooling since 2015.
Remember the last three years have been La Niñas. 2010 was a big El Niño. 2020 was not an El Niño, 2018-19 was. 2012, the warmest year was a La Niña.
As far as I can tell there is very little relationship between El Niños and US temperatures. It’s much more to do with rain patterns in that small part of the globe.
You have supplied me with ABSOLUTE PROOF that the 2015/16 and 2020 El Nino are responsible for the positive trend calculation in USA temperature data.
Thank you. 🙂
“ABSOLUTE PROOF”
You have a very low standard for “proof” when it suits you.
I’ll repeat, there was no El Niño in 2020.
But let’s take your self serving definitions of when El Niños happened, and see how far your absolute proof gets you.
Remove the years 2015,2016 and 2020, reduces the warming rate from 0.31 °C / decade, down to 0.20 °C / decade.
Removing the actual El Niño year of 2019 instead of 2020, increases the warming rate to 0.33°C / decade.
See the attached image. I’ve shown you this before. It is what uncertainty is all about. You don’t really know where the projection lies within the uncertainty interval.
Nor does he understand what the confidence interval is meant to convey!
Well done on realising the grey area represents the 95% confidence interval. You could also just look at the ± figures I quote. That shows the confidence interval covers a cooling of 0.17°C / decade, or warming at 0.79°C / decade.
Now if only you could relate that to the uncertainty over a short pause.
The confidence interval is not the uncertainty!
All it tells you is the standard deviation of the fit of Y on X as a function of X.
What do you think it’s a standard deviation of? And why do you not think it represents the uncertainty of the slope?
NUTS
Doesn’t really answer my questions. Let’s try a different one. If you don’t like the confidence intervals as uncertainty, what do you think the uncertainty of the CRN trend is? Is it bigger ir smaller than the ones I used to show no significant warming so far?
The uncertainty of Tavg shown from CRN is determined by the uncertainty at the very first calculation of Tavg.
Let’s look at TN 1900. Paragraph 3.
3 – Measurement uncertainty is the doubt about the true value of the measurand that remains after making a measurement. Measurement uncertainty is described fully and quantitatively by a probability distribution on the set of values of the measurand. At a minimum, it may be described summarily and approximately by a quantitative indication of the dispersion (or scatter) of such distribution.
From the GUM.
3.3.5 The estimated variance u2 characterizing an uncertainty component obtained from a Type A evaluation is calculated from series of repeated observations and is the familiar statistically estimated variance s2 (see 4.2 ). The estimated standard deviation (C.2.12 , C.2.21 , C.3.3 ) u, the positive square root of u2, is thus u = s and for convenience is sometimes called a Type A standard uncertainty. For an uncertainty component obtained from a Type B evaluation, the estimated variance u2 is evaluated using available knowledge (see 4.3 ), and the estimated standard deviation u is sometimes called a Type B standard uncertainty.
4.2.2 The individual observations qk differ in value because of random variations in the influence quantities, or random effects (see 3.2.2). The experimental variance of the observations, which estimates the variance σ2 of the probability distribution of q, is given by
s2(qk) = (1 / (n-1)) [Σ1n (qj – q̅)2 ]
This estimate of variance and its positive square root s(qk), termed the experimental standard deviation (B.2.17), characterize the variability of the observed values qk, or more specifically, their dispersion about their mean q̅.
B.2.18 uncertainty (of measurement)
Parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.
Tell everyone what the standard deviation (dispersion of values around the mean) of Tmax and Tmin is when example temperatures of say, 78°F and 50°F are read.
Now, how does the uncertainty propagate through all the rest of a monthly average?
None of this has anything to do with the point if the discussion, or with my question. We are not talking about the uncertainty of CRN data. We are talking about the uncertainty in the trend. I’m asking if you are claiming that uncertainty should be bigger or smaller than what I’m stating for the annual data.
The problem I see is people want to argue both ways. On one hand insisting that the CRN data is sufficient to prove all other US data sets were wrong. Yet when it’s pointed out that CRN shows similar rates of warming to the older data, start insisting that there is too little data to get any meaningful rate of warming.
Yep, the climate changes, and has done so for millennia, generally within a fairly small band. The wonder is, given our position in the cosmos and the uniqueness of our atmosphere, that it doesn’t change more. It’s rather like a talking horse …the wonder is that he talks at all, not how good his grammar is. All this AGW histeria is absolute codswallop, and every adherent of it is living in the land of the Red Queen with Alice.
“then you can tell us if the trend is statistically significant”
That depends on the period of the data, which is short. But the central estimate is 3 C/century, which is quite high, and higher than elsewhere in the world. Now you can’t be sure that it isn’t lower, or higher. But you certainly can’t rule out that it is 3 C/Century.
You are telling us that 20 years, with 240 data points, is not long enough to determine if the trend is statistically significant? The central estimate is 0.03 deg C/yr over a period of time 2/3rds of baseline periods. If the trend is not statistically significant, then extrapolating to 100 years is not justified. Therefore, I could rule it out.
See the chart attached for the 95% range of trend estimate using a basic linear.
Since the data isn’t “linear, but is “event” driven… (El Ninos)
… extrapolation of any sort is complete nonsense.
Who has extrapolated to 100 years?
The issue is that someone claimed there was no discernible trend, and AlanJ calculated it and showed that it was quite large, and apparently is statistically significantly diferent from zero. But even if it weren’t, you can’t say there is no trend. The best estimate is 0.3 C/Decade, a quite large trend.
And I suppose now you’ll have a rigmarole about how you don’t understand how units work. 3 C/Century, 0.3 C/decade, 0.03 C/year, all exactly the same thing.
Trendologists all. Since when is temperature determined by time? It’s a joke right?
I can tell that none of your jobs ever, ever relied on making accurate forecasts for the next year or even the next five years. Trends based on an independent variable that doesn’t determine the dependent variable are a joke!
The first question I asked was what caused this time series trend? Sales, productivity gain, lack of demand, excess demand, price increases/decreases, on and on.
Can any warmist tell me exactly what causes this trend? What variables are useful to explain it? Without, this information, extending the trend into the future is a worthless endeavor. It is why the models are continual failures and have never had an accurate FORECAST.
“Since when is temperature determined by time?”
When you want to see if it’s changing over time.
Nice soft shoe dance! I didn’t say “changing” I said “determined by time”. Somehow you missed the difference.
Why don’t you address the issue of time not being an independent variable in a functional relationship with temperature?
It might help you understand the difference between correlation and causation.
“determined by time”
Fair enough. Temperature is not “determined” by time. But it is useful to see how it changes over time.
“Why don’t you address the issue of time not being an independent variable in a functional relationship with temperature?”
Because it is.
I know, I know. You still do n’t understand what a functional relationship is, or independent variable, or just about any of the terms you use. I suspect what you are trying to say is that time isn’t a physical cause of rising temperatures. But that doesn’t mean you can’t show a functional relationship between time and temperature.
Yes, it can be more useful to look at the relationship between CO2, and any other things relating to temperature. But for some reason when I do that, you keep rejecting that relationship as well.
More anti-science gibberish from the bellboy !
Hilarious.
“Who has extrapolated to 100 years?”
YOU did.
You used the term “/century”
Good grief, are people still trying to pull that line? Describing a rate of change per century does not imply that it happened over a century. If you are driving at 100 miles per hour you are still speeding even if you only do it for 10 minutes.
In science, the independent and dependent variables are related with a functional relationship. A linear regression will show a possible function that exists inside measurements that have experimentally uncertain results if they are linearly related.
Even then possible results outside the range of tesing are not shown because the relationship could change. Only additional testing can verify the limits.
If you had any training ing physical science labs you would know some of this.
One is scientific.. one is used for everyday life.
Pity you are too dumb to know the difference.
all exactly the same thing.
Wrong.. In science, you do not extrapolate trend units outside the period of your data.
It is meaningless to do so.
But Nick’s posts are always trite and meaningless.
“You are telling us that 20 years, with 240 data points, is not long enough to determine if the trend is statistically significant?”
It’s a bit less than 20 years – and no, you can’t get much information from 20 years of highly variable data. All you can say is there were more cold years at the start of the period and more warmer years later, but whether that represents a rising trend or is just down to the toss of a coin is difficult to say at this point. The best you can say is the data is more consistent with a rising trend than with cooling.
Of course, you could then look at the bigger picture. What’s happening globally, or over a longer period of time.
You are being just as clownish as your cult protege,
Look at the difference in the range of the data.
It is meaningless statistical nonsense to try and compare the trends..
.. particularly when measurement errors should also be taken into account.
Best you can say is “slight warming” in both..
…. and in both cases that warming is based purely on El Nino events.
No evidence of any human causation.
I haven’t checked recently, but I doubt the trend is statistically significant when you allow for auto-correlation.
But that’s the problem here.Everyone keeps pointing to CRN as if it can proof something despite only being around for 15 years. The claim is usually that CRN disproves the previous US figures, or even the global ones, and ignore the fact that it actually shows as much if not more warming. Then they will claim that it’s the lack of significance that proves something – which is the usual problem when people don’t understand what statistical significance means.
Good thing the El Nino bulge from 2015/26 and 2020 are there , hey AnalJ.
Otherwise it would be dead flat !
Absolutely no evidence of any human causation.
The range of data in USCRN is nearly 7 degrees C
The range of data in UAH is less than 1.2C
And you want to compare trends.
What a silly little zealot you are.
Almost as if it’s better to look at global data, rather than just the US.
You really are showing your utter cluelessness today.
What substance have you been abusing this time, because it is causing deep cognitive impairment.?
Whatever it is it seems to have got you rattled. A dozen comments directed at me in an hour, mostly just consisting of substance free personal abuse.
I’m not sure what your problem is with particular comment. In comparing a very small part of the earth with a lot of variation, with the globe with much less variance, you get a less useful result.
Here are the 95% regression intervals. for USCRN and UAH Global
Saying the trends are any different is unscientific…
… especially when there are measurement errors to consider as well.
So you are agreeing that there’s no evidence that the USCRN data is inconsistent with the the global data, right?
WT* are you yabbering about this time. !
The claim is usually that USCRN proves all other data is wrong. First the argument is it shows no warming, then when someone point out it does show warming, they claim the warming isn’t significant. But your graph shows why such an argument makes no sense – the uncertainty on CRN is much larger than the uncertainty in other data sets. It’s pointless using it at this stage to refute any other data set.
The NASA globe map attached in this article shows pretty much the entire US is hot in the 1 to 4 C range except the Pacific coast region, but the USCRN data for September is +0.23F, so about 0.12C hotter than average? Just looking at the NASA data, I would guess it is showing around 1 to 2 C of anomaly over the lower 48 states, so 8 to 16 times more warming than USCRN. Are they disagreeing with each other, or is it in the baseline 0 reference each is using?
Anything under 0.5° is unmeasureable by even today’s thermometers so not worth bothering about – it’s noise.
That’s 0.5°F. 0.3°C.
Here is the NOAA CRN page.
So why do they report temperature in whole degrees? They are losing significance.
Remember, this provides an interval surrounding a value such as 22±0.3°C or 72±0.5°F. Part of it is to make the temperature reports the same as LIG.
Here is the info for AOSS processing. I suspect CRN isn’t much difference.
“””””Once each minute the ACU calculates the 5-minute average ambient temperature and dew point temperature from the 1-minute average observations (provided at least 4 valid 1-minute averages are available). These 5-minute averages are rounded to the nearest degree Fahrenheit, converted to the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius, and reported once each minute as the 5-minute average ambient and dew point temperatures. All mid-point temperature values are rounded up (e.g., +3.5°F rounds up to +4.0°F; -3.5°F rounds up to 3.0°F; while -3.6 °F rounds to -4.0 °F).”””””
The following doc is for CRN. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/CRN_Ingest_Functional_Spec.pdf
“””””Temperature
Calculated temperature elements are:
T_MAX: calculated maximum temp for hour
T_MIN: calculated minimum temp for hour
T_OFFICIAL: calculated average temp for hour
T5_1, T5_2, …T5_12: calculated average temp for 5 minutes ending at :05, :10, …:60
All calculated temperature values are rounded to 3 decimal places but displayed publicly with only 1 decimal place. A detailed flowchart is included below, showing how hourly temperature calculations (T_MAX, T_MIN, T_OFFICIAL) are performed. 5-minute subhourly average values (T5_1, T5_2,….T5_12) are also calculated for each 5-minute period in the hour and included in the flowchart below.
CRN Calc Temp Inputs
For all temperature calculations, there are 3 specific temperature element values used to determine a particular calculated value, one for each of the 3 temperature sensors. CRN_Calc_Temp_Inputs.csv lists the temperature value inputs for each calculated value. For convenience, a chart containing the same information is also included below.”””””
So that’s 0.3°C plus 0.1°C for the MINIMUM accuracy plus 5 min averaging, so at least +/- 0.4°C going up from there with less accurate instruments. Interesting but hardly surprising.
Right. These are minimum numbers, they get larger the longer the instrument has been in the field without being recalibrated.
Really? This from the UAH September Global Temperature Report (GTR), co-authored by Roy spencer.
And from the August UAH GTR:
Nothing unusual!?
Nothing unusual!?
Nope, it’s bog standard stuff in the UK
Do you have an explanation for that?
He thinks it’s CO2. This guy just takes what he cans and runs with it.
And yet it is asked when asked of evidence of human causation…
… it is totally empty.
At the very least, no one can claim that the science is settled. The fact that that view is controversial in the face of a significantly uncertain field with little knowledge just says a lot.
The fact that CO2 has an effect on the energy balance of the planet and thus its temperature and the fact that humans release it in large quantities into the atmosphere is as settled as anything in science can be settled.
What isn’t settled is exactly how much of an effect CO2 has and the minutia of details regarding the consequences. Remember, not having perfect understanding is not equivalent to having zero understanding.
“The fact that CO2 has an effect on the energy balance of the planet “
Rubbish !
Any extra absorption is thermalised and channelled through the atmospheric window.
This is proven by measurements.
There is no evidence it causes any warming.
You are dancing. Show us how much CO2 increased in September to create that much of a temperature increase. If CO2 didn’t have a big increase, then it was something else like natural variation. Yet you warmists want to say that natural variation was overcome by CO2 starting in 1950 or so. In essence, CO2 causes cooling and CO2 causes warming. Real science!
Consensus with a refusal to accept or shed light on different hypotheses is not science. Their argument is that CO2 and other GHGs are the dominant cause of the long term trend. Do you honestly believe that CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, can overpower natural factors; one’s that have sent Earth into an ice age within 20 years or vice versa? That answer sounds generic or less-than-optimal in a scientific sense but there has to be at least a little bit of obvious logic that goes into this 😂.
“Remember, not having perfect understanding is not equivalent to having zero understanding.”
No, but having imperfect understanding is like having zero understanding.
And having a NEGATIVE understanding is worse than having zero understanding.
But that’s how the AGW crowd rolls !
Think that through. Not even a single discipline in the entirety of science has perfect knowledge. Does that mean humanity has zero scientific understanding?
I was listening to a physicist a few years back. He said he thought that thermodynamics might not be overturned, but he wasn’t positively sure it wouldn’t happen. And he considered thermodynamics to be the best tested discipline in science. Yet many here and elsewhere wouldn’t know a thermodynamic law if it hit them in the face. So yes, not understanding one of the best tested disciplines in science is like zero understanding. And climate science is in oxymoron, IMO.
As for humanity, I don’t speak for them. I laugh every time I hear someone talk about how such and such has been proven–not in science it hasn’t.
Best kindle book I ever bought was Max Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation. The section on entropy is as valid today as it was when he wrote it.
Wow.
And it still hasn’t come up with a number as to how much warmer it must have been for forests to grow where now there are glaciers.
Didn’t he say forests grow next to glaciers and are ocasionally covered up?
Phooey! I meant to say “old growth forests.” (Darn missing edit function!)
So it’s ‘bog standard’ to have the warmest June then the warmest September since 1884 in any given year in the UK?
Don’t quite remember that happening when I were a lad.
2/3 of summer was very much bog standard.. Get over it. !
And I doubt anyone would notice a very slight change in one month, if it weren’t for the continued mindless climate caterwauling from ignorant zealots.
Ah, born after 1975 then were you?
You ought to be rejoicing the earth is slightly warmer and echoing that far more atmospheric CO2 is required – cold and CO2 starvation are the real enemies of life – if you don’t see that, you are lost
CO2 is good for the planet. More CO2 is better. A few million years ago CO2 levels were around 7000ppm. Life on the planet has been suffering due to the drop in CO2 levels.
Another convert to the ‘CO2 causes warming’ team!
Again, MarkW said nothing of the sort.
Your little zealot brain is twisting itself into a tiny little pretzel in a pathetic effort to try and support its brain-washed fantasies.
Right, so this seems to be in direct contradiction of what others are saying here. You seem to be saying that CO2 causes warming and that (in your view) it is a good thing.
Several other posters here (see above) are saying that there has been no CO2 influence on global temperatures.
You are arguing with them as much as you are arguing with me. You are no more on their side than on mine. In fact, slightly more on mine. Welcome aboard!
Lack of comprehension, yet again.
Enhanced atmospheric CO2 is good for the planets plant life, hence all life on Earth.
There just happens to have been some small warming out of the coldest period in
10,000 years.. This is also a VERY GOOD THING.,
There is nothing in the quote you cite that says the enhanced CO2 caused the warming.
That is purely your tiny brain-washed mind playing tricks on you.
“That is purely your tiny brain-washed mind playing tricks on you.”
Yeah, but they are doing it intentionally. The mind tricks are being played on us.
FN isn’t fooling anyone here with its nonsense.
Thank you bnice – I have attempted to highlight TFNs bias in distorting what I actually wrote, to suit his own alarmist agenda
Once again TFN, your presumption / analysis is incorrect – I offered no correlation between temperature and CO2
What I did offer was that slightly increased temperature was a good thing for earth and we need much more atmospheric CO2 to enable optimal plant growth and via photosynthesis, more O2 for life
As you should be aware, the correlation between temp and CO2 levels is yet to be empirically proven, although latest unbiased, honest data seems to show CO2 levels follow temperature increases
For clarity, I am a fully signed up member of the climate realist camp, following true, unbiased science – alarmism has taken the hoax to extreme levels, where science is purposely corrupted on the altar of extremist hysteria, to serve a nefarious purpose
Nope, not unusual..
Just a strong El Nino transient, probably aided but some warming from a recent large volcanic eruption.
There is certainly ZERO evidence of any human causation… you keep proving that.
How much warmer do you think it must have been when trees grew where now there are glaciers?
You do realise the planet is currently at a COOLER period of the Holocene, don’t you. !
It’s funny how all these El Ninos (and this isn’t a particularly strong one, by the way) lead to new global temperature records almost every time they come around, isn’t it?
It’s a real head-scratcher.
It’s almost as if, and don’t quote me on this, there’s some underlying driver of warming?
Did CO2 take a great big leap in September? If not, it sure wasn’t CO2 that caused it!
It’s crazy how people really believe that.
“It’s a real head-scratcher.”
All you will get is wooden splinters.
No evidence of warming apart from at El Ninos, which spread the energy after the initial transient.
Certainly, you have never been able to produce one iota of evidence of any human CO2 causation.
And you still haven’t told us how much warmer it must have been for forests to have grown where there are now glaciers.
Or underlying manipulation of data, perhaps? A driver of propaganda?
“climate scientist Zeke Hausfather should know better than to write up a scare story about temperature with the adjectives “Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas.“”
I’m sure he knows exactly what he is doing – scary, extreme statements to get his name in the press, to bolster his promotion and citation prospects.
Definite conflict of interest.
Us older Englishmen are familiar with the term: How’s Your Father? What does it mean? Well, it means having sex.
“I was surprised, too: an affair forgiven after one night’s how’s your father.
Times, Sunday Times (2007)”
Poor old Zeke, good job he’s not based in England…..
We should write to him and suggest he uses the adjective ‘bonkers’ more often!
17y of ZERO net change does not show accelerated sea ice melting either.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?p=2078
It’s close enough for NYT subscribers.
Just think, we are only ~4 months away from claims that record cold is evidence of man caused climate change…
The weaponization of weather as climate has been an effective brainwashing tool because some weather anomalies are rare enough to not be considered normal locally. This ignores the fact that rare anomalies happen almost every day somewhere. Weather averages for the time of year are presented in the media as what is normal ignoring that rarely are temperatures exactly average. Wild swings around the mean are what is normal.
The brainwashed are incapable of understanding that there is no climate crisis because of media propaganda that characterizes perfectly normal weather as a march towards climate doom.
Attribution and detection was developed because we lack the grid cell resolution to isolate the tiny human forcing from the much larger scale of natural variability. Never has there been a more phony branch of science. They are making definitive conclusions based on pure speculation.
“Attribution and detection was developed because we lack the grid cell resolution to isolate the tiny human forcing from the much larger scale of natural variability. Never has there been a more phony branch of science. They are making definitive conclusions based on pure speculation.”
You are exactly right.
Climate/Weather Attribution Science is pseudoscience.
“Attribution and detection was developed because we lack the grid cell resolution to isolate the tiny human forcing from the much larger scale of natural variability.”
Still, if you measure temperature with a thermometer or something that acts like a thermometer, then you’re using the thermodynamic definition of temperature. In thermodynamics, you can’t measure a system that is not in equilibrium. Meteorologists have tried to circumvent this by assuming something called Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE). It’s just more nonsense. Meteorologists can’t use LTE to explain or compare anything. For example, you can’t compare the temperatures of two LTE regions, because the actual size of those regions are unknown.
Yes! Accurate projections cannot be made because it is a chaotic system in continuous flux. Measurements are a constantly moving target.
If we could have the grid cell resolution to measure every variable every second it would take a long baseline to understand how cause and effect works in driving changes. Even then confounding variables could invalidate results.
“Other datasets and scientists don’t suggest that this summer or September was anything unusual, for example, climate scientist Roy Spencer, Ph.D…”
Just for the record, here’s what Dr Spencer’s own UAH data shows for September. These are compared with the 1991-2020 average, rather than the 20th century as used in the quoted article.
September 2023 according to UAH was 0.45°C warmer than the previous record set in 2019.
According to the NOAA data used in this article, September 2023 beat the previous record set in 2020 by 0.46°C.
What surprises me about your posts and those of TFN, Alan J, BDGWX etc is that you only ever comment on things to do with temperature and never on the vast majority of posts that deal with the impracticality, if not impossibility, of achieving net zero and what the attempts to do so mean for people in the world. Is that because you have nothing to contribute or you don’t care?
You shouldn’t be surprised. Any piece that even alludes to the possibility of temperature data tampering elicits a quick response from Coach Nick or one or more of his acolytes coming off the bench to commit the intentional.
echo-lytes.
echo-lites?
I typically only comment on scientific points. I steer clear of socioeconomic and political based discussions. They just aren’t my thing.
“They just aren’t my thing.”
Neither are scientific points.
I prefer to restrict myself to pointing out when claims are just wrong or misleading. I try to avoid, for the most point, political or speculative arguments.
Maybe it’s impossible to do anything to reduce warming, maybe it will just be too expensive. I can’t say for sure, and I doubt anyone here can.
But if people were as sure that they could proof it was impossible, they wouldn’t need to keep coming up with so many reasons to deflect from the actual temperature.
“are just wrong or misleading”
You mean your own posts ,.. right !
“speculative arguments.“
Yet your whole AGW cult is based purely on “speculative arguments.”
“deflect from the actual temperature.”
You mean the FACT that current temperatures are “tepid” at best, compared to the rest of the Holocene?
Or do you mean the fact that we have just had an El Nino transient, which is nothing to do with human CO2 or anything else humans have done?
“. . . keep coming up with so many reasons to deflect from the actual temperature.”
It’s needed because activists won’t accept one case that disproves their thesis. And by stating “actual temperature” you really know that value? What is the “actual temperature” of a system that isn’t in equilibrium? If you studied any, ANY thermodynamics, you’d know that was a completely stupid statement.
A global average ΔT, hides so much information. This year it could be the US is hot due to weather, next year maybe S. Africa, and following, Siberia. It will look like the globe is warming but it is not.
There needs to be a common global baseline so that the global ΔT will be determined based on the same baseline everywhere.
There must be a reason regional temps don’t show a hockey whole global ΔT does.
To deal with thermodynamic processes not in equilibrium, one must use gradients based on time and points. That requires calculus to describe. Do you really think these folks want to give up simple arithmetic averaging? Not likely. It would require them to do deep learning like physicists like Dr. Happer and others. I am always amazed at Max Planck’s insights on heat radiation that were proven by sophisticated mathematics and experiments. How many so called climate scientists would know what a curl operator does in vector calculus?
“How many so called climate scientists would know what a curl operator does in vector calculus?”
Heh. As a double E, I know what a curl is, and I know how to calculate it. As to what it does exactly–well, to me, that’s another thing entirely. Besides appearing in Maxwell’s equations, it appears in equations involving fluid dynamics.
Now.. evidence it is anything but an El Nino response.
You do know that the ONLY warming in the UAH data has come at major El Nino events, don’t you.
There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of any human caused warming in the 45 years of UAH data
It may be, it may not. Scientists debate it.
But the claim that UAH data doesn’t show the unusually warm September is clearly false.
Still, good attempt at deflecting from that point.
“There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of any human caused warming in the 45 years of UAH data.”
Of course there’s evidence. The 45 years of warming that has coincided with the rise in CO2. You would have to work extremely hard to avoid seeing it. Or maybe you just don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof.
I’m not sure that you know the difference between evidence and proof. A ‘spurious correlation’ is not proof because it does not establish causation. Christofides et al. have made the case of an inverse causality from what you presume. I have demonstrated that data transforms that deal with spurious correlations do not show correlation between anthropogenic emissions and the net atmospheric concentration.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
“I’m not sure that you know the difference between evidence and proof. A ‘spurious correlation’ is not proof because it does not establish causation.”
I’m saying it’s evidence, not proof.
“Christofides et al. have made the case of an inverse causality from what you presume.”
And I say their case is nonsense. Temperatures can affect CO2 levels, but that in no way implies that CO2 levels do not affect temperatures.
It’s strange that people keep insisting that sometimes temperatures have gone down when CO2 is rising, yet never seem to notice how that is good evidence against the idea that rising CO2 levels are caused by rising temperatures.
Evidence of what? Without a causal link any ‘evidence’ you think you have is spurious at best. It would be like looking at a brick and thinking it was a baby house, just needing to grow up – complete random nonsense.
Just like the high correlation between CO2 levels and U.S. Postal rates.
Yes two equally plausible hypothesis. One predicted increasing CO2 would rise temperatures. Another predicted that rising postage rates would increase temperatures. Absolutely no way of determining which one is more plausible based on just the statistics.
The causal link is the hypothesis that as a greenhouse gas rising CO2 levels will result in rising temperatures. The experiment has involved adding CO2 to the atmosphere and observing rising temperatures. That is evidence in support of the hypothesis.
That is not a causal link.. it is a baseless unscientific conjecture.
It is totally meaningless.
You really are showing all your doofus anti-science brain-washing today.
“Coincided.”
Wow… that doesn’t even reach the level of RUBBISH SCIENCE
The warming in UAH has come ONLY at El Ninos..
Nothing to do with CO2.
The cost of walnuts also “coincides” atmospheric CO2…
… as do many other things…
NOT EVIDENCE of anything.
“The 45 years of warming that has coincided with the rise in CO2.”
The ice cores show that CO2 rise follows temperature rise by about 800-1000 years. 800-1000 years ago was the Medieval Warm period. How can you ignore that obvious correlation? I know, because you don’t want to.
“The ice cores show that CO2 rise follows temperature rise by about 800-1000 years. 800-1000 years ago was the Medieval Warm period. How can you ignore that obvious correlation? I know, because you don’t want to.”
I don’t ignore it – I point out it’s nonsense. There are just too many reasons why this feels like clinging to straws.
That’s enough arguments for now.
Dear God in heaven Bellman, I’m so sorry – I had absolutely no idea what utter deluded crap you believed in. Have you considered getting professional psychiatric help for this severe condition? If not, I urge you to do so immediately.
Aside from your concern about my mental health, do you have an actual argument?
I’m quite prepared to believe I’m wrong about something there, or even that you have a valid reason for disagreeing. But if all you do is throw out personal insults, it’s a bit difficult to tell.
4… CO2 is GREENING THE PLANET.
That is what CO2 does..
Why the hatred of plant life.
Why the hatred of all life on Earth ?
Your whole comment is one of abject ignorance.
It contains no rational arguments whatsoever.
Humans are responsible for some part of the MASSIVELY BENEFICIAL rise in CO2, (around 15%)
This rise in CO2 allows the human population to grow enough food to feed most of the world apart from areas where distribution systems have issues due to political or other reasons.
There is zero evidence that the enhanced CO2 causes any measurable warming
If you had such evidence, you would be able to produce it.
Yet you FAIL… every time.
“That’s enough arguments for now.”
Heh. I used to number my arguments, but decided it was too anal-retentive and puerile so I quit doing it.
Let’s see, first ice-cores are valid and then they are not. Then your side tried to explain away the 800-1000 year delay and now your side just ignores it. Still, climate scientists need to explain why the temperature rose hundreds of years before the CO2 did, and why it fell without the CO2 falling first. And the CO2 fell at an even slower rate than the temperature. Let’s see, that covers items 1 and 2.
For your item 3 is that coincidences do happen–all the time.
Your item 4 is just silly.
“Heh. I used to number my arguments, but decided it was too anal-retentive and puerile so I quit doing it.”
It wasn’t much effort. The comment system does it for you automatically. If you prefer next time I’ll use bullet points.
“Let’s see, first ice-cores are valid and then they are not.”
When have I said they are not valid. All I’ll say is like all proxies you have to use some caution. There will be more uncertainty than with direct measurements.
“Then your side tried to explain away the 800-1000 year delay and now your side just ignores it.”
I’m not ignoring it. I specifically said that ice ages cause changes in CO2. I think there might be some debate over exactly how long that takes. My point is the ice core samples show that the changes in CO2 are smaller than we are currently seeing, and are caused by much larger temperature changes.
“Still, climate scientists need to explain why the temperature rose hundreds of years before the CO2 did, and why it fell without the CO2 falling first”
And the usual explanation is Milankovitch Cycles.
“For your item 3 is that coincidences do happen–all the time”
But if there’s an explanation that doesn’t require multiple big coincidences it’s more reasonable to go with the explanation.
“Your item 4 is just silly”
Really? You think that all the carbon we added to the atmosphere can just vanish. We’ve put X gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the years, and over the same period the amount of CO2 has risen by around X / 2 gigatons. Yet somehow you have to look to vague arguments about that rise being caused by something that happened 1000 years ago.
You are talking scientific GIBBERISH and empty baseless rhetoric again, bellboy !!
You provide absolutely nothing in the way of real science to back up any of your baseless chattering
“””””Really? You think that all the carbon we added to the atmosphere can just vanish.”””””
No, but the more you put in the less the effect. Have you heard of “saturation”? If CO2 is already absorbing all the radiation there is at 1500, then you can add all the CO2 you want and nothing much will occur. Why do you think the effect is logarithmic? It is because doubling is larger and larger for each increment!
We are not talking about the effect, we are talking about the increase.
I was expecting dozens of bullet points with the same argument stated dozens of different ways.
“There will be more uncertainty than with direct measurements.”
Usually that’s true except when activists are involved. The recent ice age sequence started about 2 million years ago and nobody knows why. They (the ice ages) usually run in 100,000 year cycles with around 10,000 years of warming–again nobody knows why. The claim was CO2 was the control knob, but now you’re saying it’s Milankovitch Cycles. I guess being a consistent alarmist isn’t your strong suit.
“My point is the ice core samples show that the changes in CO2 are smaller than we are currently seeing, and are caused by much larger temperature changes.”
That was your point? I didn’t see that in your previous comment. My point was the timing, which you want to ignore. If you want to argue about the accuracy of ice cores, then you should know that the temperature proxy along with the timing stands on firmer scientific ground than the CO2 proxy.
“But if there’s an explanation that doesn’t require multiple big coincidences it’s more reasonable to go with the explanation.”
Occam’s Razor? I thought you activists eschew Occam’s Razor.
“You think that all the carbon we added to the atmosphere can just vanish.”
My choices are either all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is human caused or all the carbon dioxide isn’t human caused? Gee, I wonder if there might be another obvious choice. That’s why your item 4 was and is silly and nonsensical.
“The claim was CO2 was the control knob, but now you’re saying it’s Milankovitch Cycles. I guess being a consistent alarmist isn’t your strong suit.”
As with so many arguments here, it would be so much easier if you could just argue the facts without resorting to ad hominems. I don’t know if anyone has claimed a drop in CO2 was the cause of ice-ages. In the past lots of different theories were suggested. But the one that is generally regarded as the most plausible today is that of Milankovitch Cycles.
“That was your point? I didn’t see that in your previous comment.”
What did you think I meant when I said “The scales all wrong. Changes over ice ages are in the order 100ppm, when temperatures are changes by 5-10°C, and staying at that level for millennia.”?
“My point was the timing, which you want to ignore.”
I’m not ignoring them. I’m saying that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2. I just don’t think that can be used to explain the current rise in CO2. And it certainly doesn’t prove that current warming wasn’t caused by the rise in CO2. Both things are possible.
“Occam’s Razor? I thought you activists eschew Occam’s Razor.”
You would have to ask an activist. I’m certainly not eschewing it.
“Gee, I wonder if there might be another obvious choice. That’s why your item 4 was and is silly and nonsensical”
I’ll wait till you publish your theory. All you said was “The ice cores show that CO2 rise follows temperature rise by about 800-1000 years. 800-1000 years ago was the Medieval Warm period. How can you ignore that obvious correlation? I know, because you don’t want to.” This was in response to me pointing out the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 45 years.
“blah blah blah ad hominems blah blah blah”
Yeah, well typical.
Just for the record…
This year was lousy. A washout.
That sounds unprecedented ! Extra precipitation is exactly what our models predicted …. as well a less precipitation, more droughts and more flooding, hotter in some place cooler in others ( we’ll leave it open as to which will happen where , that way we can always be right somewhere ).
It’s AGW which every way it goes. Now just face up to the every changing facts and accept the agenda.
And, sometimes models show more precipitation in one area, and other models show less in the same area! Who are you going to believe?
On a year-to-date basis, 2023 is still behind 1998 and 2016 in UAH.
Why keep using the El Nino transient, bellboy!
Is it because it is all that you have?
You realise 1998 and 2016 were both El Niño years? Why do you keep using El Niños to claim there is no warming?
Of course, the main difference between those two years and 2023 is that they started with El Milos already in full swing. By contrast, this El Niño only started a few months ago. If it is causing the main cause of the current warming it’s happening much more quickly than before.
Why do YOU keep claiming that El Nino transients are NOT the cause of the slight warming. !!
When there is no evidence of warming between them….?
Stick with those El Ninos, bellboy.
They are all you have.
Still a long way to go before trees are growing again where there are now glaciers. !
“Still a long way to go before trees are growing again where there are now glaciers.”
You really think this is a convincing argument don’t you? I keep pointing out that trees do already grow where glaciers are, and always have done. Glaciers are not simple thermometers.
yawn
You are really pathetic !
Trees are growing higher in the Ural mountains where they grew 1,000 years ago but died during the 13th and 14th centuries.
“Global” it isn’t.
Monthly data are shown at the following site:
National Weather Service – NWS Pendleton (noaa.gov)
This is from the Yakima Airport (KYKM) site about 50 miles south of me.
I see no indication of Global Warming for September or any other month.
The sensors are at 46.564, -120.535
As such things go, it is a reasonable site, about 275 yards from the main runway.
My home is at 1,200 feet higher elevation than KYKM, so naturally cooler. The past two mornings have been near freezing. I hope spring comes early. 🙂
“I Study Climate Change. The Data Is Telling Us Something New,”
Data doesn’t talk. Data needs to be carefully studied.
“Note that we didn’t have thermometers 2000 years ago, so this is pure speculation.”
but.. but… they can read the
tea leaves– er, I mean the tree ring temperature data to multiple decimal places.Believe me, I’m a govt. paid activist-scientist ! I am the data !!
Zeke Hausfather— so I searched for his academic training and found at: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/author/zhausfather/
Hardly seems qualified to claim to be a world class climate scientist.
He is a pretty good CON-ARTIST though…
…. for those stupid enough to fall for his cons.
But once you are aware of his perpetual LIES and DECEIT, it is easy to see passed them.
He also has his PhD in Climate Science from UC-Berkeley.
ROFLMAO !!!
You do know that just means “climate propaganda” don’t you !!
Last I heard they were giving those away to anyone showing up to more than 2 classes, as more of an attendance reward!
Do you have a citation for the claim that UC Berkeley hands out PhDs to anyone showing up for more than 2 classes?
“suggests that a single record warm month of data “
It wasn’t just a single month. It has been about four months now. Here is a stacked plot of monthly temperatures (TempLS numbers, very close to GISS). For each month, the color of that year goes from that level to the next lower year Black is 2023. So you can see that from June to September, 2023 was the hottest for that month by a long way. But for September, it was not only 0.45C hotter than any other September; it was 0.14C hotter than any month at all. And the YTD average is 0.095C hotter than any previous full year, and heading upwards.
Is your prediction that September will continue to out pace all other months for warming?
I guess you mean, will it be warmer than future months. I don’t think October will beat it (informed guess), but November and December well might. And of course, with the warming, the record won’t last long.
“with the warming”
What warming.?
Are you saying there is another El Nino coming?
Because there sure isn’t any other real warming.
What a trite and meaningless graph !!
If its “close to GISS” is a farcical from the start.
No doubt based on mal-adjusted urban and airport sites that are totally unfit for anything to do with climate.
Which of course, is why you keep using it.
Exactly my thought, what an unintelligible mess.
UAH YTD is below 1998 and 2016…
Unless you want to name your chart…
“Agenda-Adjusted Urban/Airport temperature fabrication”.
Then it might be somewhere near reality.
It is all about WEATHER which varies every year while climate stays the same since a desert is still a desert, Tropics is still the Tropics, and so on.
Climate in my region of Southeast Mid Columbia Washington is the SAME now as it was in 1964 when I moved there.
BSk
Köppen climate classification
LINK
Isn’t it wonderful to know that even in the USA, some 40% of data is just “fabricated”
One-Third Of USHCN Weather Stations Have Been Decommissioned, Yet NOAA Still Uses Their ‘Phantom’ Temperature Data – Electroverse
Just 40%?
The rest is once-was-data, manically adjusted. 🙂
Fraudulent Fake Data.
“The claim is false for four reasons;” Surely you mean Seasons ed?
I am guessing if you pull GissTemp local station data, it does not have the current year, or it is completely unreliable. Conroe, a city North of Houston (No UHI) and a comparison of NOAA Station 2019 ( “typical summer for the Area” and current 2023 NOAA Station), compared to current GISS (Lat Lon) Conroe to the right.
GISS Fail, the hottest summer I have seen in this part, but my friends in Colorado said it was below average for them in 2023.