Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The graphs below from the NOAA April 2024 Climate Report show comparisons of the latest April 2024 Global Land and Ocean average temperature anomaly results compared to all other April months from 1850 to 2024 and all January through April Global Land and Ocean average temperature anomaly results from 1850 to 2024
Unfortunately, NOAA’s latest climate report does not provide comparisons of the April 2024 average temperature anomaly results for all months over time which led to an incomplete and misleading evaluation of the April 2024 outcome.
Fortunately, NOAA’s extensive climate temperature data base provides the information and data needed for making comparisons of April 2024 with all other months with that information and comparison results discussed below.
To provide better visibility of the differences between the results of all monthly measured average temperature anomalies (versus just looking at the month of April) a 30-year period from January 1995 to April 2024 is being used.
The NOAA Global Land and Ocean region average temperature anomaly graph below shows all months during the last 30 years from January 1995 through April 2024 and establishes that the April 2024 result is only the 9th highest value with the peak value occurring in November 2023 as indicated in NOAA’s graph and table showing the November 2023 average temperature anomaly at 1.43 degrees C compared to the lower April 2024 value of 1.32 degrees C (highlighted in red).
This outcome suggests that the year 2023 – 2024 El Niño event may be beginning a weakening phase at this time.
The NOAA Global Land region graph and table shown below for the period from January 1995 to April 2024 indicate this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in February 2016 (over 8 years ago during a prior El Niño event) with the April 2024 value of 1.97 degrees C (highlighted in red) being below the February 2016 peak result of 2.53 degrees C as presented in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
The Global Land region of the earth is where more than 8+ billion people live. This global region’s climate outcomes are of considerable importance and clearly merit visibility, analysis, and discussion none of which happened in NOAA’s latest climate report.
There are many other NOAA Global regions which are unaddressed in NOAA’s most recent climate report with these regions measured average temperature anomaly results establishing that their average temperature anomaly values peaked years ago.
These significant results clearly merited disclosure and discussion in NOAA’s latest climate report given that earth’s climate regions are numerous with largely different, unique, and varying climate result outcomes.
The graph below shows NOAA’s Northern Hemisphere Land region average temperature anomaly results over the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishing that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in February 2016 (over 8 years ago during a prior El Niño event) with the April 2024 value of 2.53 degrees C (highlighted in red) being exceeded by the highest anomaly value of February 2016 of 3.17 degrees C as shown in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
The Asia Land region represents the largest population group on earth and is shown below by displaying NOAA’s average temperature anomaly measurements over the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishing that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in February 2020 (over 4 years ago) with the April 2024 value of 2.61 degrees C (highlighted in red) being well below the highest value of 4.13 degrees C as presented in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
NOAA’s Oceania Land region is shown below for the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishing that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in December 2019 (over 4 years ago) with the April 2024 anomaly value 0.24 degrees C (highlighted in red) well below the highest anomaly value of 2.20 degrees C as presented in the NOAA’s graphs and tables.
NOAA’s East N Pacific Global Land and Ocean region results over the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishes that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in October 2015 (over 8 &1/2 years ago) with the April 2024 value of 0.83 degrees C (highlighted in red) below the highest anomaly value of 1.79 degrees C as presented in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Land and Ocean global region results over the period from 1895 through April 2024 establishes that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in March 2020 (over 4 years ago) with the April 2024 value of 0.89 C degrees C (highlighted in red) below the highest anomaly value of 1.82 degrees C as presented in the table.
NOAA’s Hawaiian Land and Ocean region results over the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishes that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in September 2015 (over 8 &1/2 years ago) with the April 2024 value of 0.39 degrees C (highlighted in red) well below the highest anomaly value of 1.76 degrees C as presented in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
NOAA’s Arctic Land and Ocean region results over the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishes that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in January 2016 (over 8 years ago during a prior El Nino event) with the April 2024 value 2.69 degrees C (highlighted in red) well below the highest anomaly value of 4.99 degrees C as presented in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
NOAA’s Antarctic Land and Ocean region results over the period from January 1995 through April 2024 establishes that this regions average temperature anomaly peaked in August 1996 (over 28 years ago) with the April 2024 negative value of -0.21 degrees C (highlighted in blue) well below the highest anomaly value of 2.25 degrees C as presented in NOAA’s graphs and tables.
It is completely inappropriate and absurd to attempt to characterize global temperature climate outcomes by using a global average temperature anomaly result when the earth is made up of such a huge number of significantly varying climate regions with each representing completely unique climate behaviors as reflected in this analysis.
NOAA’s April 2024 latest climate data for the Contiguous U.S. are addressed here with the maximum temperature anomaly results shown below establishing there is absolutely nothing ominous about the Contiguous U.S. climate outcomes regarding the April 2024 climate results.
Furthermore, none of the 48 Contiguous U.S. states experienced an April 2024 maximum temperature record with that outcome also applying to the state of Alaska as addressed in the referenced report.
NOAA’s April 2024 climate report missed very significant climate outcomes and analysis as provided and discussed above with these results clearly reflecting that the world is not facing a climate emergency.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
and this is after all the adjustments
Sometimes- adjustments by chiropractors work very well! Not so much for climate “scientsts”.
Except that all Chiropractors will tell you that you must continue to receive adjustments as time goes on in order to be effective, so there is in fact a real similarity between chiropractors and climate scientists.
climopractors
Wow, this is very revealing. Thank you!
So NOAA can resolve 10 mK in data from 1850.
Magicians and wizards.
NOAA’s global temperature data base is not fit for purpose.
Hockey Stick data bases are the BIG LIE of alarmist climate science.
The NOAA temperature record after the satellite era began (1979) is usable because the UAH satellite record keeps NOAA from lying too much about the temperatures, so NOAA can only fudge a few tenths of a degree under those constraints.
Story tip – How About a Cheap Used Car? It’s Only Two Years Old, but There’s a Catch… – PJ Media
Tesla and BEV
The article claims Hertz bought 30000 EVs and is selling 30000
Hertz actually bought 65000 EVs and is selling at least 30000
The author claims no one wants to rent them. That is deceiving.
The 30,000 were rented for 2 to 3 years and all have very high mileage.
But the business of renting to Ride Hailing companies and their drivers turned out to be less profitable than hoped for. Repair costs were high as Tesla charged a lot for parts. And resale value was much lower than expected.
Hertz actually kept the 30,000 EVs for longer and for more mileage than ICEs. But The ride hailing rental / lease business did not pay off
Hertz already had about 35,000 EVs for rentals to the general public. They thought they could try using 30,000 more EVs since the resale value was so low. But customers were not interested. The existing 35,000 EVs were enough for them.
Hertz has 425,000 to 450,000 vehicles and about 35,000 will be EVs as of the end of 2024
I have no idea why anyone would rent an EV.
Curiosity.
Satisfied on the employer’s dime.
The Teslas are now costing too much in maintenance for Hertz to get a decent return on their investment
WOAH ! That’s true magic ! Where did the 1998 mega el Niño go ?
When I see a time series from 1850 to 2024 with data points treated as if there were taken by the same equipment, methodology, measurement locations and world coverage etc., I just do not not know where to start. It may be no more useful than the hockey stick.
And these data points have at least four significant digits in absolute temperature scale, but no uncertainty values.
Who are they kidding?
Deep down they know they’re not fooling anyone with a modicum of intelligence, but the reality is that anyone employed in NOAA who pointed out what you just did would be facing a career-ending moment.
I have no respect for cowards unwilling to do the right thing.
You presumably don’t have a mortgage to pay then.
It’s paid off. But the entire time I was paying it- I was a thorn in the side of the forestry establishment in Wokeachusetts due to their terrible policies. Twice they tried to screw me in the state forestry license board. Both times I got the ACLU involved and then the state backed off. The second time, I got 3 certified letters one day telling me I was being investigated! Shades of the Gestapo! Not for doing shoddy or illegal forestry work but for challenging their policies! Doing it openly online in my forestry web site I set up back in ’97 where I skewered the idiots with lots of sarcasm and satire- which they didn’t like- and it countless emails, sent to all the honchos deconstructing all their nonsense. I could have gotten a full time permanent job with them back in ’73. I did work a few seasons with them but soon realized just how mediocre they are as humans and as forestry professionals. Not getting that full time job cost me since as a private consulting forester I could never earn the income the state people get- who did substantially less actual work than I did. They then get to retire with a pension 80% of their salary while I get a measly social insecurity check. Do I regret being a rebel? Not at all. I wouldn’t sell out for more more $$$. So, I had the first forestry web site, the first forestry videos, wrote advanced software, etc. I didn’t get the $$$ but I know what I did and I know what they failed to do.
Good on you, Joe Zorzin. You’re a rare breed.
You want uncertainty bounds? I’ve got the uncertainty bounds.
Global average air temperature is not better than ±1.5 C from sensor resolution and systematic measurement error alone.
I loss all faith in NOAA after they went around saying one year was warmer than others based 0.01 C with an error of +/- 0.05 C
NOAA is a government agency filled with government bureaucrats. The FWS grade peons are unionized and the GS grade supervisors and managers are always looking for promotion opportunities.
They spend a lot of their working time reading emails, inter-office memos, attending Kaisen events and training classes in sexual harassment, diversity, ethics, safety and proper time keeping exercises. As well as escorting auditors around who review the record keeping of such activities.
You get back in quality operations what you sow.
So I can’t defraud the gov., but it can defraud me!
Yes. it can, and is.
I’ve debated a NOAA manager a couple of times, by email.
He had the usual talking points, and dumped in published papers to bear witness.
He dismissed error analysis of any sort. Absolutely unmovable and unwilling to actively consider the integrity of the data.
It is why climate science can not be considered a physical science with accurate measurements and predictions. Karma is funny. It will bite most of them when least expected.
To summarize;
The concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from about 320 ppm in 1970 to 426 in April of 2024. That’s a 1/3rd increase.
Meanwhile, the oceans are boiling, Antarctica is freezing, drought and floods ravage Earth, and sophisticated instruments are needed to detect a temperature change that no one can feel.
Color me unimpressed.
Elvis sang about feeling his temperature rising.
But that was because he was a hunk – a hunk of burnin’ love –
Ooh-ooh-ooh, I feel my temperature rising
Help me, I’m flaming
I must be a 109
Burning, burning, burning
And nothing can cool me, yeah
I just might turn into smoke but I feel fine
Clearly prophetic.
Harold the Chemist says:
At a CO2 concentration of 426 ppm by volume, there is only 0.837 grams of CO2 per cubic meter
of air. At STP, the mass of 1 cubic meter of air is 1.2929 kg. At 70 deg F and 70% RH the concentration of water is 17,780 ppm or 14.3 grams of water per cubic meter. Water is absorbing much more IR light than CO2 on the basis of mass.
Water is the major greenhouse gas by far, and we don’t have to worry about CO2. The claim that CO2 is causing global warming is a lie and a scam. Unfortunately, there are some climate scientists who have been able to convince just about everybody and governments that CO2 is a menacing molecule.
The UN(IPPCC) has the loudest voice on the planet.
“The claim that CO2 is causing global warming is a lie and a scam.”
Only stupid people say that.
Do you have some sort of Tourette’s syndrome that kicks in whenever people say something your AGW-cultism doesn’t like ???
Evidence that CO2 causes warming, please.
Total failure so far.
Only stupid people say that.
Most people – including yourself – do not use precise language.
Precisely put: “That the planet has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age (coincidentally, approximately the beginning of the Industrial Age) is indisputable, despite the massive manipulation of the temperature data. How much of this warming, however, can be attributed to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, is indeterminate, and may indeed be unmeasurable. This is because all hypotheses about the cause depend upon a truly massive amplification of this increase’s effect by positive feedback mechanisms. The actual effect of increased carbon dioxide alone is impossible to distinguish from other climate factors, such as aerosol load (natural and anthropogenic), solar variability, orbital mechanics, cloud cover and timing, albedo changes from ice and vegetation cover, etc., etc., etc.
All of that being said, another precise statement is that the claim that carbon dioxide is causing a climate crisis IS a lie and a scam.
Granting your numbers and under those conditions, water is 66× more concentrated in the atmosphere than CO₂, on a per mole basis.
Coats Engineering posts a very critical view of green house gas absorptivity, as used in climate so-called science. Atmospheric Infrared Absorption.
The opening paragraph gives a flavor of the technical analysis.
Intro: Representations of atmospheric infrared (ir) light absorption and transmission* in atmospheric, climate, and environmental science are incorrect, because they completely ignore the composition dependence of measured component ir absorption spectra, which results in claimed atmospheric trace gas absorption that is orders of magnitude greater than it actually is. Proper adjustment indicates that CO₂ and CH₄ absorbance values in literature ir spectra are too high by a factor of about 800 and 147,000, respectively, based on the NIST component ir spectra in our national database.”
“the world is not facing a climate emergency.”
Yes! Solar panels, windmills, EV’s, ethanol… All these efforts are changing the climate.
In the last hundred years the temperature has gone up a bit, the sea has risen a bit, hurricanes and typhoons about the same, a few trees have burned but biomass has increased overall, there’s far more people with more food and more wealth and deaths from climate related disasters have decreased by 98%. I’m sorry I just don’t understand the “climate emergency” argument. Things have improved and should continue to do so!
Exactly.
But “world governance” ambitions by the UN, EU WEF etc means that they need a “global crisis” of some sort of rationale for totalitarian measures.
They think that if they can get us by the balls, our hearts and minds will follow.
As Bruce Lee was wont to say –
“you make big mistake!”
If only the climate whack jobs would take a basic course in geology, they’d realize the changes that the Earth has experienced- infinitely greater than a few degrees in temperature.
Since that is totally irrelevant to their goals, you would be hard pressed to find any inducement that would get them to spend time on such a worthless endeavor.
The charter of the US(IPPC) was to find HUMAN caused warming.
You just pointed out the “emergency” from the closet Malthusian’s viewpoint.
Somebody tell Gov. Maura Healey of Wokeachusetts that there is no climate emergency before she ruins the state! I try telling everyone here but nobody’s listening, as usual with mind destroying cults.
Especially when so much is not known about many of the regions’ past weather patterns and events.
Larry Hamlin is a data mining fool
Why this website gives him space to data mine and try to confuse people is hard to understand
I stopped reading immediately after I saw his name on the byline.
The following statements are the most important that can be made about recent historical temperature trends. I am very confident, without reading, that Hamlin avoided the most important facts.
Since 1979’s Charney Report, a warming trend of +0.3 degrees C. per decade has been the consensus average of what is usually called catastrophic warming by Climate Howlers/
I enjoyed the “catastrophic” warming rate in SE Michigan and hope for a lot more “catastrophic” warming. So far the main effect was warmer winters.
The US has had a catastrophic” warming rate of +0.34 degrees C. per decade since 2005 per USCRN. (+0.3 degrees C. per decade since 2007 globally)
Did Hamlin mention that FACT?
Did Hamlin cherry pick some hot El Nino months for the purpose of biased reporting?
Please explain why there was zero warming in the USA from 2005-2015..
…then a bulge for the 2016 El Nino, then COOLING since 2017.
I know your mathematical understanding is very limited, but the calculated trend comes only from that 2015-2017 El Nino bulge.
I am very confident, having read many your rants, that Larry has several times the scientific acumen you are capable of.
Why do you continually ignore the opposite climate effect from La Ninas?
Because you are an El Nino obsessed Nutter
Absolute average temperatures by year from the US Weather Service
2005. 53.4. F.
2006. 53.8.
2007. 53.8.
2008. 51.9.
2009. 52.1.
2010. 52.7.
2011. 51.8.
2012. 56.6.
2013. 53.3.
2014. 55.6. F.
2015. 56.3.
2016. 56.2.
2017. 56.1.
Your claim of no warming from 2005 until 2015 is total BS
“The annual average temperature of the contiguous United States has risen since the start of the 20th century.
In general, temperature increased until about 1940, decreased until about 1970, and increased rapidly through 2016.
Because the increase was not constant over time, multiple methods were evaluated in this report (as in NCA3) to quantify the trend. All methods yielded rates of warming that were significant at the 95% level.
The lowest estimate of 1.2°F (0.7°C) was obtained by computing the difference between the average for 1986–2016 (i.e., present-day) and the average for 1901–1960 (i.e., the first half of the last century).
The highest estimate of 1.8°F (1.0°C) was obtained by fitting a linear (least-squares) regression line through the period 1895–2016. Thus, the temperature increase cited in this assessment is 1.2°–1.8°F (0.7°–1.0°C).”
Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report (globalchange.gov)
You should know that averages have no meaning without knowing the standard deviation, that is, the uncertainty and Degrees Of Freedom. What are those for your posted data?
Took the words right out of my mouth, Jim. 🙂
Funny how reading the byline makes you stop reading. I get the same effect from reading yours.
Please show the data that you have mined to arrive at your AGW belief. (follow the scientific method if possible and be specific – quantify your findings.)
The USCRN in its current configuration is not better than about ±0.3 C (1.94σ), mostly due to the configuration of the electronic components. The resulting 95% uncertainty in an anomaly is ±0.4 C.
See Hubbard, et al (2005) On the USCRN Temperature system.
If you think a warming trend of 0.3±0.4 C is significant, well then good luck to you.
The uncertainty in a global average anomaly is about ±1.6 C. The rate and magnitude of warming since 1900 is unknowable. Even the satellite temperatures are not better than ±0.3 C.
I already have a Suburban. What more can I do to help maintain this wonderful climate?
Nothing; not even prayer or human sacrifices.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. More people than ever before are beating drums and the climate is changing rapidly.
Backyard barbecue. 🙂 Repentance is worthless without some suffering. 🙂
The Guardian says….
Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no….
Global Land Region Temperature Anomaly Peaked in February 2016
Alarmism is at least a century behind
These short term variations are weather, not climate, and hardly significant as indications of any changes in the climates of large regions. A few degrees up or down, if persisting for many decades, may be something worth some consideration as an indication that climate is actually changing.
As I understand it, we’re still recovering from “The Little Ice Age”. That was a “climate” event.
Weather trends in the last decade or so hardly qualify as “The Climate is Changing”.
Maybe the Climate is recovering since the little ice age but both require a definition of “Just what the he11 is a “Normal Climate” and just when has it ever NOT “changed”?
“Man” be damned!
The World Meteorological Organization has redefined “climate” to mean only 30 years of weather. I guess now it you want to refer to the old-time “climate” of thousands to millions of years you have to say “long-term climate” or something like that.
None of these land temperatures of various regions is no surprise to me. I have been researching various stations around the globe and there are many that simply do not show a ton of warming. One of the most enlightening finds is that if you don’t look at Tmax and Tmin separately, you have no idea of what is actually happening. Tmax and Tmin have different distributions in a single day, single month, and season. Stuffing a distribution from the NH with the SH just makes it worse. In the U.S., The coasts have different distributions that in the center of the country. Any good statistician should be able to tell you that jamming different distributions together just to get an average isn’t the best thing to do if you want accurate data.
Sounds like with “climate math” it’s possible to have an average temperature anomaly that higher than any of of the max temperatures anomalies.