It has been a busy year at the bottom of the world, from hot to cold with climate change in the middle of it all for the blame by media. Here is a collection of some stories about the issue that the media will never tell you. -Anthony
From Frits Buningh on LinkedIn
Houston – We have a new All-Time Cold Record for Western Antarctica: August 2023!
Contrary to what 97% of the Journalists plus John Kerry, the Special Envoy for Climate related Propaganda for the United States of America are saying about the immanent “Melting” of all of Western Antarctica and the devastating Sea Level Rise that it will cause, who are quoting 3 % of the “Scientists” according to the Seminal Study Numbers provided by Cook et. all (2013), it looks like maybe Western Antarctica is not being subjected to 3 or 4 times the “Warming” that is taking place everywhere else on “Planet A”, that of course is “Planet Earth”. According to this article, https://www.westarctica.wiki/index.php
“In recent years the station has recorded a warming trend, with warming fastest in its winter and spring. This location, in the heart of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth.”
Not so fast, says the Data on the ground in Antarctica.
According to the Data provided by Ohio State University:
https://polarmet.osu.edu/datasets/Byrd_recon/
And the AMRDC depository at the University of Wisconsin at Madison:
https://amrdcdata.ssec.wisc.edu/
Upon which the table included here is based, it does look like there is a NEW All-Time Cold Record in 2023 for Western Antarctica’s Byrd Station.
August 1983: -42.5 C
August 198:1 -43.0 C
August 1978: -43.7 C
September 1986: -44.7 C
August 2023: -45.54 C
An All-Time Ever Record Cold Month since at least 1957? Maybe so! Stand by for the Copernicus Institute of Europe as well as the Climate Change Institute of the University of Maine, to hold a joint news conference later today to make the announcement official. Greta from Sweden, will be on hand to serve refreshments for the Journalists who are going to show up for that one? The NYT, WAPO and Jake Tapper form CNN have all been given a heads up that this is coming down the pike. Look for their reporting, especially from Kasha Patel, who brought us the “Heat Wave” piece on Concordia Station back in March of 2022. https://lnkd.in/eWtfvc2b
From SnowBrains:
The Concordia Research Station in Antarctica recorded a provisional low temperature of -117.76ºF (-83.2ºC) on July 25, marking the world’s lowest temperature in six years. The figure, still subject to official validation, was shared by Italy’s Antarctic Meteo-Climatological Observatory, along with data from the nearby Dome C II Automatic Weather Station, which also registered sub 112ºF (-80ºC) temperatures on July 24 and 25.
Jennifer Marohasy is feeling chill in Mawson Station, Antarctica.
(reposted from her Facebook page)
Last month (June 2023), Antarctica was reported as ‘hot’ in various publications including Vox.com. Yet the average maximum temperature for Mawson was minus 12.6 degrees Celsius, which is not quite as cold as the long-term June average for all years since 1954 which is minus 13.5 C. When the June maximum temperatures for Mawson are ranked highest to lowest, June 2023 comes in as the 29th hottest, and 42nd coldest – suggesting temperatures in Antarctica were not particularly newsworthy and rather cold.
Yet the tabloids, and fashionable, are claiming June 2023 as hot – even in Antarctica. It is all nonsense.
Some of these claims have their origin in the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, a tool that uses satellite data and computer simulations. So, they represent a re-modeled average. Indeed, there is not a single place where anyone, can measure the average temperature of the Earth – or Antarctica. Rather, when it is announced that it is the hottest it has ever been, reference is made to a statistic.
This average temperature is necessarily a number that has been derived from other numbers. There will perhaps have been some measuring done here and there, and then some adjusting, and then some adding up and some adjusting again. This is how it is with the calculation of regional and global average temperatures – whether from satellites, tree rings, ice cores, or thermometers. To be sure, every year we are told it is getting hotter, and back in the late 1980s, this was achieved for the globally averaged thermometer record by dropping out some of the colder weather stations. This had the effect of increasing the overall average global temperature, at a time when temperatures at many individual sites were dipping somewhat.
Those who have followed the politics of measuring temperatures may also remember the infamous line in the Climategate emails, whereby the globally averaged temperatures based on tree rings, which also show a decline after 1980, are ‘corrected’ by substituting the globally averaged temperature from thermometer records – never mind that the dip in that record had already been ‘corrected’ by removing data from a great many high latitude Canadian and Russian weather stations.
Drawing from this sordid history of calculating global and regional temperatures, I can think of a large number of ways that the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer could possibly generate a higher-than-average temperature for Antarctica and especially the Earth.
Indeed, the larger the geographic area covered, the more opportunity for creative accounting, for which corporates using similar techniques would go to jail, while climate scientists are more usually promoted.
For more information on how temperatures are measured at Mawson, you can download the relevant chapter from Climate Change: The Facts 2020, that is here: https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/…/no-evidence-of…/
Is there an issue with the stated “Average” temps?
The averaged “Average” seems correct at -45.54C
The averaged “Max” of -20.50C appears to be the highest max on 8-4
The averaged “Min” of -63.90C appears to be the lowest min on 8-13
Regional temperatures (taken at specified locations rather than an ‘homogenised’ average) are usually slightly better, especially if they don’t include UHI readings. One can probably assume that most Antarctic regional temperature series have little to no UHI contamination in them.
Not so fast – Lots of UHI around a science lab in the Antarctic, it’s not urban, but it’s still non-background or natural heat sources spoiling the temperature reading.
Absolutely nailed it spot-on – here’s how and why.
What you see attached is last night’s temperature (and wind speed) graph for an extremely rural Wunderground station near me
We’re presently under a strongly resistant ridge (1029mbar) – the air is descending, winds are slack and it is cold
The temp graph shows both the dry-bulb and dew-point temps = no matter.
What you see are all the squiggles in the line as the temperature drops through the night.
Seriously: Is there ANY natural phenomenon that could do that?
I say ‘no’ and what you see in my attachment here are the cold stores, operated by the local farmers and dotted all across their farms and fields around here.
As the use ‘cheap electricity’ through the night are firing up and down and when they do, their immense heat-pumps push massive belches of hot/cold air out across the landscape.
Those bubbles are trapped beneath the descending air of the high-pressure weather system (exactly as per Antarctica) and that descending air ‘smears’ out those bubbles over very large areas.
The very slack winds do nothing to mix them into the surrounding air
And THAT is what’ happening with the research stations on Antarctica.
Even though they think they’ve moved their thermometers far enough away, slacks winds and descending air weather systems smear out the heat from their offices/labs/accommodations over vast areas
And there it is, happening in microcosm almost every night from midnight to sunrise all across Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire
and what’s lovely is watching the wind – how it picks up a little as these bubbles of warm air pass through – exactly as ‘dust-devils’ do.
Tiny invisible vortices that come from nowhere, dance around a bit in front of you then vanish just as mysteriously
The cold stores operated by the farmers, by demand of their wholesaler customers and in turn, their retail consumers are creating the weather we see.
Shines a whole new light on the twee and parochial notion of what we all think an Urban Heat Island is don’t it just?
Urban Heat Islands are actually The Dancing Angels = myriad little heat/dust devils created by all the myriad heating and cooling apparatus we humans feel compelled to operate where we live/work/research haha science.
Far too many people think sitting near a refrigerator will be cold. They don’t understand that the compressor creates heat and the condenser moves heat out of the refrigerator to the area outside the refrigerator.
Point? Far too many “scientists” have no real-world experience with heat and heat transfer let alone atmospheric conditions and wind.
Their experience is rather tainted by suspermarket cold shelves where vast refridgeration cools 1/3 of the store including the lanes between cabinets. Unenclosed cooling makes an urban cold island inside the store, outside the heat causes a UHI. This has to be the most stupid design ever, but we must serve ourselves from glittering shelves to make lots of money to pay for the fridges power consumption!
I’ve always found the idea of relying on a ‘global average temperature’ perplexing in that it is a statistic relying on measurements taking place in only certain parts of globe. On a map, the geographic distribution of these stations look extensive, but the maximum temperature taken at one station in any given day can be a different number from another station just miles away.
Especially when the temperatures are carefully chosen, then ‘homogenised’ (smeared across the rest of the series) until they produce the desired amount of warming.
Homogenization never takes into account physical differences in station location. When they homogenize they can do things like attribute the temperature in Colorado Springs to the top of Pikes Peak which is only a short distance away. Homogenization doesn’t consider pressure, altitude, which side of a mountain two stations might be on, humidity, etc. Basically geography and terrain are completely ignored as is the measurement uncertainty associated with the readings. Not only do they smear the temperatures all over the series but also the measurement uncertainty.
Great point. I have never considered this before.
I agree that is a great point. The problem is even more complex, for at the same altitude, a point on the south side of the mountain will be warmer than a point on the north side. Just a few degrees slope affects solar warming effectiveness.
Tmax is based on the accumulation of heat during the daytime sinusoidal travel of the sun. Locations on the west side of a mountain won’t accumulate as much heat as a location on the east side thus creating different Tmax values. On the other hand, the station on the east side will begin its nighttime exponential decay sooner than one on the west side affecting the Tmin values for each. Thus Tmid-range will be different. Yet climate science ignores this and just makes homogenization decisions based on airline miles! The same thing applies to two stations on different sides of a major river valley or a large lake. Temps will be different because prevailing winds will affect humidity at each station, and since water vapor determines heat absorption of LWIR the temps will be different. And on and on and on…..
Climate science is nothing but a mess of assumptions that can’t be justified in reality. “The entire earth is a flat, homogenous media”. “Measurement uncertainty is always random, Gaussian, and cancels.” “CO2 concentrations are the same everywhere.” “Humidity is the same everywhere.” “Enthalpy isn’t the proper metric for climate, temperature is.” Degree-days don’t describe climate as well as temperature.” “Cloud cover is a constant that can be parameterized and assumed to be the same everywhere”.
No self-respecting engineer would accept such assumptions in a study. Yet climate science does. And then climate science wonders why people question their long term climate forecasts?
agree.
Average global temperature is a nonsensical construct, with zero applicability to the real world we all live in.
Especially when it’s taken to three decimal places.
What’s worse is doing it with anomalies. An anomaly of +2C can be from -10C to -8C as well as 20C to 22C. 2C difference in a frozen wasteland doesn’t make much difference but 2C difference in the Iowa cornfields can make a difference in yield. Yet both look like “bad” warming.
Yes – you could have a 20℃ heat wave in Antarctica, but if the normal temp is -50 then not a single icicle will melt – in fact the warmer temps might mean more snow in Antarctica, more ice accumulation, and less water in the ocean.
I wonder if any real scientist has try to simulate what increased evaporation from the ocean around Antarctica would actual mean? After all the pole are big freezers for the world and the defroster doesn’t work.
Barring the occurrence of significant climatic event such as a phase shift in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, statistical anomalies just change the range of possible highest and lowest temperatures. They tell us so little about what’s happening to our climate. Temperature ranges are extremely wide at high and mid-latitude locations, where said warming is supposedly occurring most. Just goes to show how silly the whole ordeal is.
just represent*
Anomalies don’t even tell us what is happening with possible highest and lowest temperatures. Las Vegas, Miami, and Anchorage can have the same monthly average anomaly. So what does that anomaly tell you? NOTHING!
Thanks for the correction. Today, I’ve been experimenting with anomalies and how well they represent the climate at JUST a given weather station. Anomalies are not AT ALL a good representation. What I’ve been doing is taking the sum of negatives (representing colder than average weather) of a given month and comparing it to the anomaly of the given month. A month with an anomaly of +10.5F can have a sum of -40.2, while a month of +4F can have a smaller sum of -24.8. The months closest to the average (+/- 0.5) have very wide ranges of sums. It just speaks to the fact that climate is dynamic and nonlinear, and as everyone here points out, the attempted derivative of a ‘global average temperature’ is a meaningless exercise all together. That doesn’t even take into the measurement uncertainty and ALL of the other factors.
You would think that so-clled *scientists* in climate science could figure this out. The problem appears to be that far too many in climate science are statisticians and computer programmers. They simply don’t have any background which would allow actually describing physical reality.
You would think that someone in climate science could tumble to the fact that Las Vegas and Miami having the same mid-range temp value in a day is a sure-fire tipoff that mid-range temps simply do not describe climate in any useful manner. That means that anything derived from those mid-range values is just as useless in describing climate, be it averages of the absolute mid-range values or anomalies calculated from the mid-range values.
Surely you understand why the term anomoly was invented for climate? It is because absoloute temperatures provide far too much data, proving that we are not melting. The right hand page average number is really interesting, it varies hardly at all, proving there is no anomoly for the whole world.
Add to that the fact that the annual anomalies that get shouted about are not =/-2C, but are really =/-0.2 or even =/-0.02C. Nonsense on steroids!
And on top of that the electronic temperature probes have no sensible time constant applied, they are peak reading, which is a worthless number. A 5 minute average is what we feel, what plants respond to, and much better indicator of change.
Using peak values would be ok *if* climate science would use the integral of the temperature curve to develop degree-day values. Both agricultural science and HVAC engineering have moved toward doing this while climate science remains stuck in the 1800’s.
The data for doing this has been available at numerous stations since the 80’s. If climate science had moved to collecting the data and developing degree-day metrics we would have 40 years worth of data by now. Long enough to meet the arbitrary 30year requirement for representing climate.
Not only that but those stations also record the information necessary to calculate enthalpy, the true measure of heat content. Climate science could have been developing enthalpy records for 40 years but has refused to do so.
It’s just one more reason to believe that far too many climate scientists have little real-world working knowledge of heat and heat transport. In addition no self-respecting engineer (or statistician) would consider combining winter and summer temps to create a global average because of different variances and a multi-modal distribution of the data sets – it’s like combining the heights of Shetland ponies and quarter-horses to develop an “average height” of horses!
When I drive into (a small, less than 20,000 people) town – about 25 km of windy road through hilly forests, farms and suburbia – the temperature on my truck shows a lot of variety. Often, 4 or 5 degrees Centigrade. The ‘official’ temperature comes from the local airport, an outwash plain and one of the highest points of land in the area. In winter, it’s colder everywhere than there (because the cold area flows downhill, into the low lying valleys). Global average temperature statistics are garbage.
YEP!
Whenever I tune in to PBS and NPR here in the USA they are ALWAYS talking about “climate change” and how it is doing this and that and we need to protect “keystone species” and they never say warming or cooling, they just say this catch all “climate change” which must be a bad thing, and I bet NONE of the people I hear on those stations have solar panels on the roof, the FLAMING HYPOCRITES!
“they are ALWAYS talking about “climate change””
24/7! except for the minutes they’re not talking about gender sh*t, black lives matter, Native Americans, glass ceilings for women, the beast called Trump, etc.
I can’t believe I used to listen to and trust NPR PBS and gave them money! Used to put up with there bias for some of the alternative entertainment music for a while etc. But then the Trump derangement and ESG BS became so over the top and with the internet and satellite NPR PBS have nothing to offer especially at tax payers expense. I can’t stand them now.
Don’t know about NPR, but CBC in Canada is vomit worthy now.
Do you get them discussing a ‘gender pay gap’ in the US as if there were an equal number of men and women in the workforce?
Tony Heller goes on at length on this. Reporting “instrumental” temperatures from places with no weather stations is typical.
“There will perhaps have been some measuring done here and there, and then some adjusting, and then some adding up and some adjusting again.”
Take Mosher’s reasoning back a few years ago with the BEST data.
Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
“One example of one of the problems can be seen on the BEST site at station 166900–not somempoorly sited USCHN starion, rather the Amundsen research base at the south pole, where 26 lows were ‘corrected up to regional climatology’ ( which could only mean the coastal Antarctic research stations or a model) creating a slight warming trend at the south pole when the actual data shows none-as computed by BEST and posted as part of the station record.”
[ Reply of the prior post ” “]
The lows are not Corrected UP to the regional climatology.
There are two data sets. your are free to use either.
You can use the raw data
You can use the EXPECTED data.</i>
See how easy it is.
If a fully automated, staffed by research scientists has already been adjusted. They are free to use any number they like. Anything for the cause.
Raw data is however not raw, it is peak upwards always! Measured every few milliseconds. All thrown away except the highest number. Not science or engineering at all!
Speaking of cherry picking temperatures by choosing the hottest within a region, I personally sometimes experience a good example of how easy it is to cherry pick temps. My property is 2700 ft long, with only about 100 feet of elevation change, and I’ve seen 5 degrees F change from one end to the other.
Antarctic Stratospheric HT Water Vapor is at play here, and almost no one on the planet knows it.
Stratospheric Water Vapor 75S
mls_h2o_taperecorder_profile_75S.png (1926×1394) (nasa.gov)
Is HT water vapor what is found inside a pressure cooker on boil?
No, it is just gas in the upper atmosphere, just reflecting heat at the speed of light.
Divergence is thought to be a problem since about the 1960s.
Nice work, keep it up. They can only continue to lie so long as no one confronts them. They need to be confronted a lot.
Cold is weather. Warm is apocalypse.
This is especially absurd considering human anatomy. We are relatively tall and thin, with lots of skin area exposed. We have no fur. We sweat all over and can die of hypothermia in fairly mild temperatures. We are adapted to warm climates and, only through shelter, clothing, technology and tools, have survived in cool to cold climates. It does not take a scientist of any kind to see their fear mongering for what it is.
In places where people live, there were record snowfall and low temperatures in November. Bound to follow record warm ocean surface in September:
(Reuters) – Authorities in western Germany on Tuesday urged residents to stay home, warning of life-threatening danger, after a burst of winter weather led to hazardous roads, leaving two people dead.
People living in northern regions that come to rely on weather dependent generators to produce electricity to keep warm and power transport will die when the grid shuts down. Even if gas is in the mix to provide fuel to the back-up generators, it becomes vulnerable to grid shutdown.
The world got where it is today by burning coal. It is a durable and energy dense fuel. Its only competitor is nuclear fission fuels.
Can you imagine the situation in places like Canada when the power line crew head out in their battery powered service truck to repair the fallen line to find their battery is dead before they get to the job.
How long will a battery powered snow plough last before it needs to return for charge?
Given the load, about 15 minutes.
I was going to say
1 pass down the driveway before needing to recharge overnight
Natural gas is good as well.
Cold, hot, wet or dry the climate nuts have us covered as the cause of all that is wrong with the world.
My hope is that the Antarctic cold isn’t a harbinger of a deep post solar minimum cool down.
The Grand Solar Minimum has just started.
The last time the Sun had one was during the Little Ice Age, although I’m not sure if the GSM caused it.
Hey scvblwxq
I think I misunderstood one of your previous comments and responded unkindly. I apologize.
I hope you are wrong about a new GSM and a new little ice age. Famine would be a real threat. A great deal of wheat ag would have to be shifted south and people would go hungry in the transition.
The good news is the US has more than enough natural gas. What is needed regardless of a deep cold spell, is for the America people to wake up, exercise their representative power and create the political will to greatly increase natural gas supply…. to give the global fossil fuel market the big shudder it needs. It would also slow corporations from wasting our investment and tax dollars on crappy solar and wind systems.
A deep cold spell will not harm the climate crazy movement, They have the funds and the power to continue to perpetuate it’s current it’s crazy endemic dystopic/eugenic anti-human narrative for decades. Politics probably won’t help…. our representative power has already been deeply eroded by big tech narrative management and control.