Guest Essay by Larry Hamlin
The usual climate alarmists’ suspects are at it again trying to use the scientifically flawed claim that a single May 2024 global average temperature anomaly data point can characterize that the “world” must be the “hottest” it’s ever been as hyped below.
Alarmists also grossly misrepresent that the earth has exceeded a 1.5 degrees threshold temperature limit that is nothing but an arbitrary and purely politically contrived alarmist propaganda claim.
Of course, this purely politically contrived climate alarmist hype tells us absolutely nothing about the actual measured temperature anomalies or absolute temperatures at any specific location anywhere in the world.
NOAA data through May 2024 for the Contiguous U.S. (shown below) overwhelmingly establishes that the U.S. is not having the “hottest ever maximum temperature anomaly”. The U.S. is not experiencing any established increasing upward trend in maximum temperature anomaly values since at least the year 2005.
Furthermore, the highest May maximum temperature anomaly in the Contiguous U.S. occurred in May 1934 as shown below at 5.66 degrees F versus 1.22 degrees F (shown in red highlights above) in May 2024.
There isn’t a shred of scientific evidence that the U.S. maximum temperature anomalies or maximum absolute temperatures (addressed below) are at all unusual.
Looking at NOAA ‘s maximum temperatures for the Contiguous U.S. (shown below) we see that May 2024 was only the 106th highest May (at 74.68 degrees F highlighted in red) out of 130 total measurement months with the highest May ever measured occurring in 1934 at 79.21 degrees F. May 2024
Looking at NOAA’s data for the maximum measured temperature in California (shown below) we see that May 2024 was only the 96th highest measured May (at 76.8 degrees F as highlighted in red below) out of a total of 130 measurements with May 2001 being the highest ever California maximum (at 83.8 degrees F) measured temperature.
Looking at NOAA’s data for the maximum temperature measured in May 2024 for Los Angeles (shown below) we see this month is only the 38th highest measured May (at 66.4 degrees F highlighted in red) out of 80 May measurement values. The highest maximum May temperature in Los Angeles was in May 2014 at 75.8 degrees F.
Climate alarmists conceal the lack of validity in their use of a single global average temperature anomaly value to falsely hype that the world is the “hottest” ever when, in fact, this climate alarmist propaganda claim applies to no specific location anywhere on earth including the Contiguous U.S. or the state of California or the city of Los Angeles or other global locations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Right here is proof that it’s not as hot as it’s ever been. Not even close.
Evidence that one location on Earth was warmer than today at some time in the past. Most stumps are from over 5000 years ago during the warm Holocene Climate Optimum. There is no evidence any year in the past 5000 years was warmer than 2023
“There is no evidence any year in the past 5000 years was warmer than 2023”
And the converse is also true
In about 1990, an average of local proxies estimated the average temperature in the past 5000 years remained in a 1 degree C. range.
The decade ending in about 1990 was claimed to be -0.5 degrees C. cooler than the warm periods in the past 5000 years.
GAT in 2023 was about +0.7 degrees C. warmer than the decade ending about 1990 … leading to the conclusion 2023 was warmer than any warm period in the past 5000 years.
Those who make the claim that warm periods in the past 5000 years were warmer than 2023 have to offer evidence to prove that claim. They never do. Claims of supported by any evidence are junk science.
The only evidence available is an average of local climate reconstructions that are probably statistically insignificant for changes less than +/- 1degree C.
There remains no evidence, even inaccurate evidence, showing any warm period in the past 5000 years was warmer than 2023.
There is evidence from Central England that there was a lot of warming after the 1690s.
What is about “Intensive properties cannot be algebraically added or subtracted” you do not understand?
GAT is a non physical number. Meaningless.
GAT is an average of measurements
What about “average” do YOU not understand?
The GAT is not an average of measurements. An anomaly is calculated by subtracting the means of two random variables. One random variable is a monthly average. The second random variable is a monthly baseline average. The monthly anomaly is a DIFFERENCE, not an average.
Because it is a DIFFERENCE, it inherits the sum of the variances of the two random variables. The sum is normally calculated using RSS.
Because it is a DIFFERENCE, you lose all indications of what temperatures created the anomaly. Therefore, you cannot call it a measurement. At best, it is a rate of change in temperature at a location.
Averaging anomalies is just as suspect. You are averaging ΔT’s that were calculated at varying baseline temperatures. It is like averaging rates of speed change between two cars. You have no idea what speeds the different cars were traveling at. If you’ve ever been involved in drag racing, you’ll understand.
OMG.. Your mathematical illiteracy is shing trough today, isn’t it RG !
I am not going to bother doing your legwork for you. You are a big boy and if you seriously look, you can find multiple reports that use various metrics to show that it was warmer 5000 years ago. You seem to only see what you wish to see.
It was most likely warmer than 2023 from about 5000 to 9000 years ago, with one or two peaks within that 4000 year period.
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.
Here is a typical guess
Look at the y-axis. It is labeled anomaly. Anomalies are not a temperature. Anomalies are a rate of change, a ΔT. That anomaly only tells that some rates may be the same. IT DOES NOT tell you at what temperature those anomalies occurred at.
Climate science has propagandized anomalies so that it is common that most people do not understand that they are a rate of change rather than an actual temperature.
You should know better. Anomalies treat a +1 in Antarctica @ur momisugly -55 exactly the same as +1 in the middle of the Sahara Desert. In order to actually compare them, you need to know what baseline temperature was used to calculate the anomaly.
Using a much averaged fabrication which doesn’t remotely capture the much higher temperatures in many areas around the globe.
You truly area brain-dead AGW apostle/cultist, aren’t you. !!
Heaps of evidence, It is just that your deep-seated AGW-cultism cannot allow you to see it.
It would prove you were WRONG.. which your pitiful ego could not cope with.
Here is yet another one for you to DENY.
New Study: Western Greenland Was ‘1.5-2°C Warmer Than Today’ During Medieval Warm Period (notrickszone.com)
Western Greenland is FAR from a global average.
Greenland in total, and the entire Artic Circle, are known to have more volatile than average temperatures.
FAIL.. many other places have MWP temperature much higher.
Stop your idiotic MWP DENIAL.
It makes you look extremely stupid. !
And from Germany
Another local proxy
You have to average all the avaolable local proxies to get a fake global average
Guess what happens?
The average is considerably less volatile than most local proxies. The peaks and troughs do not all happen at the same time.
One local proxy is nothing
An average of many local proxies is something
A global average temperature based on measurements is real science, and probably should not be compared with an inaccurate average of local proxies.
This is not true unless all of the baseline absolute temperatures are the same. Averaging ΔT’s with different baselines tells you nothing about the actual absolute temperatures being compared.
With proxies you have no idea what the absolute temperatures were at a given time. One point may have 11 @ur momisugly +1 °C and another 20 @ur momisugly +1°C. The ΔT’s may be the same but the actual temperatures may differ wildly.
Saying something is warm or cold based on ΔT is a scientific mistake.
You get a range of estimated local temperatures for each proxy rather than an absolute average local temperature.
The peaks and troughs have estimated timing.
If other local proxies had their peaks and troughs at the same time, that would be evidence of global variations. If the peaks and troughs of various proxies are not simultaneous, they may just show random local climate variations.
I do not understand the desperation of conservatives to claim there were some slightly warmer periods in the past 5000 years
Earth is believed to have had a hot “greenhouse” climate MOST of the time.
For the majority of Earth’s history, the planet has been hotter than today. Hotter periods make up some 70 percent of the past two and a half billion years, and are called Greenhouse Earth. They can last hundreds of millions of years, with CO2 levels 10–20 times higher than today, and no ice anywhere on the planet.
“I do not understand the desperation of conservatives to claim there were some slightly warmer periods in the past 5000 years”
I don’t understand the ignorance of AGW-cult-leftists (like RG) to DENY the facts of the warmer MWP and RWP.
A global average temperature based on measurements is real science, and probably should not be compared with an inaccurate average of local proxies.
What real measurements were prior to 1970 or even 1620?
Do some research on ocean sediment isotope measurements.
FAIL….
MANY places around the globe have much higher temperature during the MWP.
You really are a rabid climate change denialist, aren’t you.
And from Chile
The Southern Hemisphere still does not have good enough surface coverage
Yet another wild guess not for the whole globe.
The global average temperature is based on the average for the northern hemisphere combined with equal weighting to the average for the southern hemisphere.
So, it is not a true global average, since your point about surface coverage is accurate.
UAH satellites have good surface coverage.
Except for the tropics and the poles…
FAIL…
Another zero-content, zero-science post from the rabid AGW cultist, and climate change denialist.
And from East China sea…
Another local wild guess not representing the whole globe.
Another zero-content climate change denialist comment from RG.
And from the Azores…
An average for the planet requires an average of all available local proxies, dimwit. And when they are averaged the proxy variations decline. But you don’t like that, El Nino Nutter, so you cherry pick local proxies and ignore global averages of all proxies. As a typical science denying loser, you simply ignore data that refute your claims.
The global average is cherry picked.
Fail.. yet again
..
As a science denier, you really are stretching the limits of your rabid climate change denialism..
You AGW-cultism won’t let you do anything else.
Evidence you will include in your next comment?
Evidence… you have absolutely nothing except your MWP AGW-cult denialism.
Trying to use a massively averaged concoction that hides all reality.
Many, many places around the globe have much higher temperatures than now during the MWP.
Sorry your little brain-washed AGW-cultist mind cannot accept that fact.
That stump might be in one location but the tundra throughout the Arctic is littered with stumps such as this one as well as stumps revealed by retreating alpine glaciers.
There is nothing unprecedented with today’s climate. The HCO was much warmer than today.
“the Arctic is littered with stumps”
Interesting, didn’t know that though I’ve seen that one photo many times. Good info.
The HCO was probably warmer than today. Much warmer is a guess
Few of the stumps are claimed to be less than 5000 years old (after the HCO).
“The HCO was probably warmer than today. Much warmer is a guess”
So, you admit there is nothing unprecedented with today’s climate.
Today’s climate is wonderful
There is an open question on whether adding +2.5 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere every year will be good news if it continues for 100 to 200 more years.
If the 1975 to 2023 warming trend continues, and is assumed to be 100% from manmade CO2 emissions, as a worst case, the temperature in 2150 will be about +2.4 degrees warmer than in 1975.
If CO2 is the cause of future warming, that warming should be mainly TMIN, mainly in colder nations and mainly in the colder months. Mainly warmer winters in Siberia — not hotter afternoons in the tropics
i consider that good news.
My article on why I call climate models Climate Confuser Games.
And how extending the 1975 to 2023 warming trend could lead to +2.4 degrees C. warming by the mid-2100s (only by blaming all warming on CO2).
Climate Confuser Games are effective climate scaremongering propaganda.
Those who know how they are programmed know they are worthless.
Most people just look at the predictions, and they are not that far from reality for the first 50 years, even if just from a lucky guess.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Why I started calling climate computer models “Climate Confuser Games” in 1997
Oh No!
..another ego-driven link to the AGW-cultist and MWP denialist blog.
.. and another little child-like FANTASY concoction to give a meaningless prediction.
So funny !!
https://www.icelandreview.com/news/3000-year-old-trees-excavated-under-glacier/
Here’s a picture of a stump 1000 yrs ago.
Try again.
So it was warm enough for long for many trees to grow?
Mature forest from around the MWP time, and earlier, have been found under retreating glaciers.
As have artefacts from MWp times.
Peat moss beds, now often in permafrost, according to RG form when it was colder.
It is quite hilarious the way he tries to justify the AGW-mantra and “disappear” the MWP.
Mickey Mann must be a good friend of his.
Verified by a friend, now retired, who spent decades in gold exploration in the most god-forsaken places on the planet — Arctic Canada being one such. Retreating glaciers reveal stumps like this broadly.
Alaska, too.
I find it curious that a present local event is presented as if it was “proof” of AGW to the public yet when something like tree stumps from a retreating glaciers shows the past was warmer, it’s dismissed as just a local event and not “global”.
It’s called confirmation bias. Data that confirms you hypothesis must be correct. Data that contradicts your hypothesis must be incorrect.
It was a very different world 5,000 years ago for example Cantre’r Gwaelod was a forest whereas now it’s a seabed.
I’ve seen this photo several times and have wanted to reference it when communicating with colleagues. Do you know the source or have a link?
All I have is the caption under the photo. It was referenced in a study that requires an .edu to access. I’ll see if I can find it.
It is in HH Lamb’s book, “Climatic History and the Future.”
This is all I can find:
The image is referenced in a publication by Scarborough College. The publication is titled “PLATE IV Tree stump (Picea glauca) in the north Canadian tundra.” and it appears on page 117 of the publication.
Here is the link to Mr. Kamakaris’ image (not the original source, but, a shareable link):
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/tree-stump-climate-1718154839.9257 DOT jpg
REPLACE “DOT” with a “.”
(I right-clicked on the image in Kamakaris’ comment and double left-clicked on “Copy image address.” — Then, Ctrl-V to paste it in here.)
Story Tip
“The usual climate alarmists’ suspects are at it again..…..”
Yes, include the UN Secretary-General. In fact, he has never stopped. His speech below from June 5th is about 27 minutes long if you can stand to listen to him that long. His speech was so full of falsehoods I had to quit after about 5 minutes…
‘A Moment of Truth’
Courtesy of ‘The Ministry of Truth’
“at other global locations around the World”
What is a global location?
Larry leads the quixotic WUWT charge against the notion of average by sheer verbosity. Average isn’t a climate science invention. All sorts of people use them. People who pack corn flakes monitor the average weight. They at least understand that if the average is high, that doesn’t necessarily mean that each packet weight is high.
Ironic you pick corn flakes. Dr Kellogg invented those to feed you asylum denizens.
When I visited Kellogg’s in Battle Creek on an elementary school field trip, the process was automated even back. Based on my recollection, I surmise that boxes were filled by volume and not mass in any case.
Actually, the good doctor developed them to “counter the scourge of onanism”:
https://daily.jstor.org/the-strange-backstory-behind-your-breakfast-cereal/
I can think of some that don’t consume enough.
“sheer verbosity”
That is all Nick has… empty gibberish pertaining to NOTHING. !!
Australia had the 10th warmest May in UAH .. and very wet where I am.
Yes, the Tropics are still in the effect of the large sustained El Nino from last year.
I wonder if Nick-pick has any evidence of human causation.. no-one else does.
How’s the electric or wood heater going down there in central Vic, Nick ?!
The Tonga ejection of water into the stratosphere is still in effect, also.
The effect of increasing total atmospheric water vapor by 0.1% has not been seen in the GAT. It is imaginary.
“It is imaginary.”
Just like your CO2 warming.. which has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
No CO2-warming signature exists in any reliable data set.
It’s been dry for 7 months here in mid west WA. Big May month catchup on rain +100mm, usually ~50mm/mnth over the winter.
Australia warming trend temp seems flat, not accelerating. No feedback runaway amplification.
they also don’t soil themselves for a run of highs or lows
One can have fun with averages. Most have heard of comfortable as the average of one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other foot in hot coffee water. Then there is the “gray” average color of swans. The next time I meet a person that packs corn flakes I’ll ask about your assertion.
“Average isn’t a climate science invention.” Nope but it is used as an Alarmist tradition. 😉
Good science does not use average. Good science uses statistical distribution about the mean given the variance of the data population.
“If the average is high”. What is high?
Well according to the climate bed wetters 20°c is high and 30°c is “extreme”. 😂
Knock 10°C off those figures and you’ve got the UK MSM
What YOU really meant to say is that I have no counterpoint to the article because there is none to offer therefore complain about a word or two instead, I wonder if you are one of those individuals who collects lint as a hobby…..
You really have a PHD in your back pocket while you write like that?
Being in central Vic, there is a very high probability that Nick drives a 4WD Ute or SUV.
But he will never admit he is a broken-minded hypocrite.
Hypocrisy is the one thing climatistas hate to talk about.
I forget. What is the name of that logical fallacy of deflecting the whole based on a minor detail.
Red herring?
From: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/red-herring-fallacy/
Possible.
More likely the factual error fallacy.
Mr. 4: Among lawyers, it’s called “pettifoggery”.
Mr Stokes is like an adult who won’t accept that Father Christmas was just his Dad pretending.
Nobody who looks at this anew rather than with what biases they were educated with would decide that manmade carbon dioxide emissions controlled the planet’s climate.
So who pays him to keep on with the hunt for heresy as if there is a scientific religious inquisition?
Some of us peasants are waking up to the fact we have been fibbed to for fifty years.
Nick used to work at the far-left CSIRO.. maybe he even had something to do with that totally useless climate model of theirs.
Probably needs to stick with the AGW meme, or the only friends he has will “unfriend” him.
We really need to figure out WHY these AGW-trolls like Nick, RG, fungal, AlanJ, bellboy, b***?, etc continue to support a scam that, by its own admission, wants to bring down Western civilisation…. that they live in. !!
What goes through their tiny little minds ?!!
It is not a scam to say the planet has been warming at an unusually fast rate (for a 50 year period based on ice core estimates) since 1975
And there are 40 million EVs on the roads globally (BEVs and PHEVs)
It’s a scam to lie about those two facts to support a conservative narrative,
Yes it is a scam to say the ENTIRE PLANET has been warming at an unusually fast rate. You have been presented evidence by NOAA that NOT ALL OF THE PLANET is warming at an unusually high rate.
If not all the planet is warming at an unusually fast rate, why do you claim that as fact?
You said it much better than I did. Well met, mate.
Based on an unusually fast rate (for a 50 year period)
Point 1. The planet is warming.
Point 2. Based on the prevalent definition of climate, climate is changing, every second of every day.
Point 3. Unusually fast rate is not supported by the data. One or 2 reports, perhaps.
Examination of Antarctica ice cores for 50 year periods reveals that the warming rate from 1975 to 2023 is near the fastest warming rates for 50 year periods in the ice core era estimates.
Once again, warming rates have no ability to show the temperature that the rates occurred at. Also, you are using a single location as a proxy for the globe. Why do you complain about a single location elsewhere, for example, Greenland, being a global proxy?
yawn. !
They also show that when past CO2 was at a maximum.. it had always started cooling.
Your credibility is at an all-time LOW.. and continuing to sink like a stone.
Mr. Greene: Thank you again for entertaining us with your Janus act. Above, you complain (exactly like a CAGW cultist) that a tree stump is “local”, therefore not sufficient evidence of GAT. Here, you take Antarctic ice cores as evidence of GAT. After posters show how widespread the tree stump phenomenon is, and particularly that many stumps are less than 5k years old, you demonstrate that you don’t have the capacity to absorb contrary information and respond, all you do is brush it off. Finally, a mistake you repeat endlessly, you compare ice cores to thermometers and other modern equipment.
Your desire for downvotes leaves you blind.
Just curious, what’s the temporal resolution of the ice cores? If I remember correctly (not going to go look right now) it takes at least several years to a decade or more before the ice becomes compacted enough to isolate and trap air bubbles. If so, short-term warming rates found in ice cores are meaningless.
RUBBISH yet again from the AGW-cultist.
In the last 45 year of consistent records, the only warming has come at strong El Nino events.
It is barely warming at all. !!
If it was not for the constant yelping from the climate scammers, no-one would even notice it. !
Ice cores cannot possibly capture such short periods of time
Your grasp of proxy evidence in minimal at best, as is your grasp on anything to do with science and climate.
Before “adjustments” it warmed just as much from 1900-1930.
They monitor for a “Minimum” weight, not an average. Each packet has to meet a minimum weight content. If you want an “Average” global temperature, you need to monitor the whole globe equally with temperatures taken regularly. I don’t see this happening.
From a metrology standpoint, measuring the weight of Corn Flakes in a box, IS MEASURING THE SAME THING UNDER REPEATABLE CONDITIONS. Then the average becomes the stated value and the standard deviation is the uncertainty in that stated value. If you had ever studied quality control, you would know that these values allow one to create control charts to monitor the variability of the manufacturing process.
Too bad you can’t say the same thing about a GAT (Global Average Temperature).
Sort of like feedback is only relevant in a closed loop system, according to Systems Engineering Control Theory. The earth is not a closed system. If it were, we would not be here.
All very true, Nick; but all statistics are conditioned in some way, and often the conditions remain unstated. In this case, that of an average, one unstated condition is that the things being averaged are similar in some way to make sense doing so. One wouldn’t average flake size of grape nuts and corn flakes and come up with anything meaningful.
Based on your silly Grape Nuts example, would you say that an increase of +5 degrees C. of the global average statistic is meaningless?
Or are all temperature averages deceptive and worthless?
You need to specify the baseline absolute temperature in order to make an educated answer.
What is the baseline value of the global statistics?
You seem to have a misunderstanding concerning anomalies. They are not a temperature, they are a ΔT, that is, CHANGE in a temperature.
Mr. Greene: You assert GAT are not “deceptive and worthless”, now it’s “all temperature averages”. This is a deceptive technique worthy of Mr. Stokes. Do you think you are somehow upgrading? Because, deceptive-wise, you are not in his league.
yes.
I don’t know, grape nuts and corn flakes sound pretty much like the average green nutter.
high of 60 and low of 20 is an average of 40.
High of 50 and a low of 30 is an average of 40.
No go do the black body T^4 calculations and find that the total EM radiation is not the same as 40 for either and the average EM radiation in each case differs from the other.
The climate does NOT work on temperature. It would on energy flow. W/m^2 is not energy it is field strength expressed as power per meter squared.
Also, use of the black body calculations really requires a detailed understanding of the limits of that ideal model.
Averages are a worthless number without the other statistical parameters that describe the distribution of data being averaged. One big parameter is the variance. What is the variance of the global ΔT?
A ΔT is worthless without knowing the absolute baseline temperature it represents. What is the absolute baseline temperature the Global ΔT has been calculated on?
Is it 14°C (57°F)? Is it 15°C (59°F)? Is it 16°C (61°F)?
These are all very cold temperatures. No wonder, we are in an ice age. What is the activity level of food fish at these temps? How about humans? Do humans need coverings and heat? At these temps why would a 1.5°C increase be a problem?
You have to be incredibly careful when using averages as any decent statistician will know. Corn flakes are a pretty good analogy as averaging temperatures on a global basis is about as flaky as it’s possible to get.
‘Global temperature’ is an absurd construct because the variance is huge. It is, quite frankly, meaningless.
Yes. Every time I see GAT discussed as a temperature, I cring. ΔT as used here is nothing more than a slope of a line segment. It is like averaging a bunch of segments, all with different domain and range, and saying the average slope is meaningful.
Global average air temperature is a meaningless number that tells nothing about climate, or even “The Climate”.
Mr. monte: I’d go further and explain why it’s meaningless, not that Mr. Stokes will get it. As I grasp it, and Mr. Gorman seems to say it best, it’s a hodgepodge collection of numbers, not much different than an average phone number. It gets worse when you try to compare a fictional current GAT with a super-fictional past GAT. Even Mr. Greene gets this- every tenth comment.
paul, I would start with these:
– the basic measurement used is daily air (Tmax-Tmin)/2 (average of the two); this is assumed to be representative of climate
– the measurement uncertainty sqrt[ u(Tmax)^2 + u(Tmin)^2 ], or sqrt(2) larger
– each measurement site has its own uncertainty, affected by many things, all ignored
– uncertainty of daily max-min values increase because two values are used
– averages of daily max-min are made over periods of time, all statistics from these are ignored
– some span of years is designated the “baseline” and averages of the averages calculated, uncertainty again ignored
– baseline numbers subtracted from the averages forming a delta-T (i.e. an “anomaly”)
– uncertainty of the delta-T increases again, but climate science incorrectly assumes that subtraction cancels “error”
– delta-T numbers from all over the world are collected
– old numbers “corrected” in many creative ways, including filling blank spots with made-up data
– numbers sorted by time divisions (month or year) and averaged
– the delta-T numbers are claimed to have extremely small uncertainty, mostly because nearly all variations have been averaged away
– plots of delta-T versus time are made and mathematical smoothing applied, which is another form of averaging
– linear regression applied to get the slope of the trend line, which is yet another form of averaging
– judgements are made based on changes of delta-T less than one degree, and propaganda generated, even though people cannot detect tiny changes
– daily ranges of air temperature everywhere are much larger than these small delta-T numbers
– these plots are called “the climate” but tell nothing about climate in any specific location
Stokes would likely go through my list and find one point he thinks is wrong, then ignore everything else.
Very nice. I’m sure there is a time and place to use anomalies, but I fail to see how it is useful discussing CAGW. It is useful if your aim is to scare people but I don’t think scaring people is a useful endeavor. My understanding of an anomaly is that it is a deviation from average.
Scaring people is a multi-trillion dollar industry Bob. It’s called politics.
Your understanding of anomaly is close. First, is relates to the statistical mean value. More important, a deviation does not conform to the distribution of all of the other data in the statistical population. Under non-critical circumstances, an anomaly can be considered a datum at the 3rd or higher sigma.
I’ve lived in the Los Angeles area my whole life(I’m 67) and here in Pasadena for 30 years. This year, 2024, we’ve never had to use our heater at night for as long into the year, as this year. Last year was similar. It’s been uniquely mild here all year.
It’s the government gaslighting about “global heating” that’s meant to keep us feeling feeling warm.
Why are we so frequently presented with temperatures to the nearest 0.01 degree and no associated uncertainty interval?
Must be expensive, those thermometers.
CERES can measure with a stated tolerance of 0.5% to 1% and bandwidth coverage (based on total energy emitted at a reasonable temperature) of 99.95% of the spectrum.
So we have an energy imbalance of 0.6%? Hmmmm… Based on estimates here and there and there and there and…. throw in some averages…. Hmmmmm……
Technical reasons?
Incompetence?
Political reasons?
Mr. Spencer: Looks to me, a layman, like disclosing “uncertainty” would make it less alarming. I bet you knew that. I’ve read your comments, you are well enough versed in maths to be sincerely puzzled that the CliScis won’t bother with basics. To me, they are self-interested liars, so I’m not puzzled.
Kauri, a magnificent gymnosperm (pine-ish) tree that is restricted to the northern parts of New Zealand at the present time. But here is what Chat-GPT says (correctly) about its distribution in earlier times:
Kauri trees (Agathis australis) were once common in New Zealand, covering 1.2 million hectares from the Far North of Northland to Te Kauri, near Kawhia, when the first people arrived around 1,000 years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that kauri may have grown as far south as Invercargill in warmer times, many thousands of years ago. Captain Cook and his fellow voyagers reported kauri growing throughout the north of New Zealand, from North Cape down to about Kawhia and Coromandel.
The current annual average temperatures are: Auckland 16 deg C, Invercargill 10 deg C, which means that sometime in the past, Invercargill must have been at least 6 deg C warmer than today.
Go figure why alarmists can’t use internet tools.
Somewhat OT:
There was a report on KNX (the CBS affiliate in LA) on people having to work in “hot” environments and efforts to promulgate a regulation to require that the temperature in large building spaces, such as warehouses, had to be held to less than 84 F, and in schools to temperatures lower than 80 F. The story ended with the statement that excessive heat is the largest weather-related cause of death in the US. That’s the news.
Surprised am I they did not crash the grid when they turned on the AC units.
Perhaps Larry is unaware of a simple equation USA Not equal to World. Even if it was colder than usual in the US, it still doesn’t affect the validity of global average temperatures. Evidently, primary school mathematics (e.g. an understanding of averages) is all too much for Larry.
Perhaps the gormless TonyX is unaware that the effects of the large El Nino are still lingering in the tropics (around 34% of the planet)
I bet he doesn’t have any evidence of human causation for the slight warming by the El Nino.
Mathematics.. doubt he even got to primary level.
Sigh..Any particular event, like an el nino, is interesting meteorologically, but does not represent a global trend. But fine, this is WUWT, so you can claim anything you like, no matter how fact free.
Sigh.. another blind fool that can’t see the data that shows El Nino driving atmospheric temperatures over the last 45 years.
And can’t see it effects the whole globe averaged temperature.
DUMB… is what the AGW-cult send to make comments.
I’m no scientist but I bet any estimate of “global average temperatures” is NOT accurate.
Keyword: estimate.
The word “estimate” is highly inappropriate if they give numbers to 3 decimal places.
You understand.
In fact, scientific notations forbids an result that resolves to more significant figures than the datum with the least number of significant figures in the calculation.
1.1 x 1.1 = 1.2, not 1.21
5 x 1.3 = 6 (round down), not 6.5
5.0 x 1.3 = 6.5
You miss the problem entirely. IF the global temperature is increasing, the CAGW advocates portray this as everywhere is warming by that amount. A variance or standard deviation is never shown to go along with that average value. Why? Because it would destroy the meme that the entire globe is warming all at once.
Worse, the GAT should carry the measurement uncertainty inherited from the monthly averages and baseline monthly average. These are generally in the units digits which destroy the millikelvin anomaly values.
Proof? Look at all the headlines from all over that everywhere is warming even faster than the GAT!
It is never portrayed this way. You’ve made this up to have a point to rail against. It is said only that the global average temperature is increasing over time. Some places are warming faster than others, some are not warming at all, or even cooling. But the average temperature increase means that the energy content of the climate system is increasing. And we don’t just see this in the surface air temperature – that is but a single metric – we see it in rising sea levels, receding Arctic sea ice and glaciers, rising ocean heat content, shifting weather patterns, etc.
AnalJ reciting the usual climate lies.
“regurgitating”, as in mindless spew, would be a better description.
Indeed it is, I was feeling charitable at the time.
Well that was another nonsense and empty post from AnalJ.
Mindless rhetoric at best.
Yes, there has been a series of strong solar maxima,
Yes, Absorbed solar energy is still increasing..
Sea levels trends are linear,
Arctic Sea ice extent has levelled off
Weather patterns have always shifted..
No signature of CO2 warming anywhere.
Do you have any scientific evidence at all of human causation..
… for the highly beneficial minor warming since the LIA ??
Or will we just get more of your usual mindless rhetoric and headless chook routine.
I am not speaking of the likely causes of the observed changed, just talking about the existence of the change itself.
More mindless rhetoric.
Apparently scientific method, statistics, etc., is all too much for Tonyx.
GATs (of all flavors) are meaningless numbers.
Mr. x: With this lame comment, we can see why you go by “x”. “USA not equal to World” is primary school geography, not mathematics.
P.S. GAT is so invalid, it’s validity cannot be affected, period.
Heh, You can’t affect the validity of something that is invalid. I like that. Will have to remember it.
I keep telling my kids something similar…you can’t have a rational conversation with irrational people.
Alarmists also grossly misrepresent that the earth has exceeded a 1.5 degrees threshold temperature limit that is nothing but an arbitrary and purely politically contrived alarmist propaganda claim.
It’ll be fine so long as we all stand six feet apart and wear a cloth mask. Oh wait, wrong panic. My bad.
“It’ll be fine so long as we all stand six feet apart and wear a cloth mask.”
You’ll also need a tinfoil hat; to avoid being probed by Alans
Well, Alan is lonely!
I think we should also recall that the original “tipping point” (or whatever you call this arbitrary number) was 2C. The 1.5C point was added later as an aspirational goal to prompt quicker action. But over the last few years it has been morphed into the actual goal.
In any case, if the temperature goes to 1.52C or even 2.02C, the earth is not going to erupt into flames or become Venus. It is political number, not a scientific one.
And one more thing, I thought the temperature in May was weather, not climate!
*applause*
Not sure what “flaw” it is that Larry thinks he has identified here?
As reported by Forbes, the Copernicus claim is that, globally, May 2024 had the warmest average temperature on record.
Nothing Larry says refutes that.
Instead, he ignores ‘global’ and narrows in on the US (>2% of global surface area). Then he narrows in to an individual state within the US; then he narrows in to an individual city within that state.
He also ignores the concept of ‘average’ temperature and instead concentrates exclusively on ‘maximum’ temperatures; again, only in the US.
The absolute kicker here is that less than a week ago, on this very site, Roy Spencer of UAH reported exactly the same thing as Copernicus just did. Globally, May 2024 had the warmest average temperature of all the other Mays on record – by some distance, too.
Dr Spencer’s UAH chart is even featured on the side-panel of this site right now! Here are the May UAH global average temperature data, less anyone be in any doubt:
That strong El Nino is hanging in the Tropics still, isn’t it Fungal
Do you still DENY that the El Nino event caused this warming.
Do you have any evidence of any human causation?
If you haven’t, then you are admitting this is a totally natural event.
The usual swerve to avoid answering the points made re UAH and May temperatures globally.
The usual DENIAL of the effect of the El Nino event
Do you have any evidence of any human causation?
In the absence of any evidence at all…
we can conclude that fungal knows the warming is TOTALLY NATURAL.
I did not “avoid”.. I addressed them directly, with their cause. !
It is you that is running around like a headless chook, looking aimlessly for any sort of human causation….
…. and not being able to find any evidence of it at all.
One more time, weather, not climate.
What has this got to do with the points made re ignoring global temperatures, ignoring average temperatures and ignoring the fact that UAH reported exactly the same thing as Copernicus did re record warm May 2024?
What is the point of constantly ignoring the fact that ALL atmospheric warming in the last 45 years has come from El Nino events ???
You have already admitted that there is no human causation…
… so why all the carry-on like a mindless chicken-little.
The one carrying on like a mindless chicken-little is you with your garbage about El Niños.
Unless the continental U.S. is not part of the globe, then the temperature changes there should reflect the GAT. If they do not, then the GAT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the entire globe.
Here are three states that I have started to download from NOAA.
These show that average monthly temperatures across the U.S. have not experienced the “hockey stick” increase in temperatures that are touted.
Remember, the GAT IS NOT a temperature, it is a ΔT, that is, a change in temperature. The actual absolute temperatures are what people experience, not the ΔT. There is no way a human can exit a climate controlled environment and determine by feel alone a temperature down to the milli-kelvin. More than likely, one can’t even get to ±2 degrees. That does make these graphs pertinent.
Says who? The US is less than 2% of global surface area, so picking out the mid-west or any other part of the country is to necessarily reduce that area even more!
Can you point to any global surface data set that shows no warming since 1950; or any global satellite data set that shows no warming since 1979, when they began?
You missed the next sentence.
That is the problem with averages. They are not reflective of a distribution unless a variance is also stated.
Why do you never provide a variance/standard deviation for the average ΔT you quote as a GAT? Why do you never quote an absolute baseline temperature for the ΔT known as the GAT?
Without the associated statistical parameters, the “average” is a worthless number. Without the absolute temperature baseline, the ΔT is a worthless number.
You insist that it’s a worthless number, but it can distinguish between, e.g., glacial and interglacial climate states. So clearly it is a useful metric.
You keep missing the point Jim is posting about even when it OBVIOUS you still don’t see it.
That is really bad.
Perhaps since it is so obvious you can clarify it. Because the argument that I understand Jim to be making is completely invalid.
LOL, you are really funny since Jim spelled it out and still it zooms over your head.
Ponder over this for a while:
I can clarify it.
Here is an average – (20). What is the distribution that average represents?
Here is an anomaly – (+1). What is the baseline value it was calculated from?
This is how unscientific the obsession with ΔT truly is.
Usually the baseline for the anomaly is stated, for example Copernicus on which this post was based uses the 1991-2020 average.
LOL, you really are oblivious.
Not the period of time!
The value of the baseline associated with GAT. It is a VALUE!
Actually, ΔT (anomaly) average values can not tell you glacial states. They can only tell you about the change of temperature, not the absolute temperature from which they occurred. You seem to have a huge misunderstanding about what anomalies actually are and what they tell you.
An average is a worthless number without knowing the parameters that define the distribution it was calculated from.
Address these questions before you take off on another red herring argument.
If you know these values quote them and the source.
Well, it does. You need to reconcile your understanding with this reality. The global mean surface temperature anomaly correlates perfectly with changes in climate state from glacial to interglacial. Yet if we believe what you say this should be impossible.
Because I don’t carry that information around with me. You’d need to refer to the relevant literature or calculate these statistics yourself. The data are all freely available.
Because there is no single absolute baseline temperature. As you say, the anomalies are determined as deviation from local climatology. You can’t back out a single number for the whole globe.
It may tell you approximately when a glacial turned into an interglacial because there was a sudden spike in warming, but it cannot tell at what temperatures the change occurred at. Certainly not a global temperature.
It isn’t up to me to calculate the values that support the mean value you are spouting. You should not be quoting sources that do not provide the statistical parameters that define the distribution of data. Accepting a mean value without the appropriate parameters indicates that you have no understanding of what is required to properly define research results.
Climate science is full of imposters that have no idea what physical science truly means.
Here is an example of the naivete folks like you have. You put a bid out for 8 foot 2×4’s. I furnish you a low bid of lumber and state that the load of lumber averages 8 feet. Would you buy it? Why not?
You don’t need to know an absolute temperature to know the threshold for glaciation to occur, you just need to know how much warmer/colder than some point with known conditions the change occurred, which is exactly what the anomaly provides.
It’s up to you to satisfy your own curiosity. You are fully capable of scanning the relevant literature yourself, or taking the time needed to do the calculation.
You’ve constructed an example where knowing an average alone is not useful, but you have not shown that no scenario exists where knowing an average alone is useful, which is the position you’re arguing for.
If I know that when the climate was 6 degrees cooler than present, the earth was in the midst of an ice age, that is useful information. Whether you think it is or not.
“the climate” — here is the first of your many problems.
Yes, and fortunately we are an interglacial period.
Trouble is, that the planet is at a decidedly COOLER period of the current interglacial… A bit more warming would do wonders for the whole of the planet.
Let’s all pray that the current slight warming doesn’t reverse. !!
What “current slight warming”? According to you there is no warming except for temporary spikes during an El Niño, make your mind up.
“global surface data set”
With all the massive urbanisation, infilling of defunct stations, totally unfit-for-purpose sites, changes to rapid acting thermometers etc…
… global surface concoctions are totally meaningless as a measure of changes in climate over any period of time.
There are MANY places around the globe where raw data from the 1940s and earlier is higher or similar to today’s massively tainted data.
1979 was the coldest period since the much warmer 1940s, and in many places was much cooler than around 1900.
Even Briffa’s tree data (before Mickey chopped off the end bit) shows that.
“Mickey” (I assume you mean Mann) did not chop anything off Briffa’s data.
Funny thing is, you’re actually correct. He didn’t chop it off, he hid it by overlaying the recent thermometer record over it . I don’t remember now if that was Mike’s “Nature trick” but it was certainly one misleading trick of many.
Records, based on English thermometers, go back to the 1600s. So on record is bogus.
The climate change is so dramatic here in central UK we had the heating on again last night. Temperatures again dropped into low single figures centigrade. It is June so low temperatures are to be expected of course…..
This has been one of the coldest wettest and most miserable springs I can recall. I speak as a woodsman born and brought up in the woods. I am a hobby beekeeper and have a keen awareness of weather changes and seasonal variation. By this time of year I have already harvested my first honey but not this year.
If our Climate Alarmists can’t get the weather to at least give us some of their much talked about heat, what is the point of them?
Right this minute I’m staying on a farm near Withernsea. We come the same time each year. It’s an arable farm. We walk amongst the wheat and barley. The tracks we walk are usually dried hard, bare of vegetation. But not this year, they’ve had lots of rain, the tracks are mud baths and overgrown.
You must have quite a short memory.
Central England Temperature
2024 10.61
2023 9.41
Although you’re right about it having felt miserable and damp. The unusual warmth was down to a lack of cold nights, thanks to the persistent cloud cover, and of course most people’s impression of warm weather is influenced by calm sunny days
Larry Hamlin is consistent
A consistent liar
He must know ths website prefers lying about the USCRN average US temperature record.
Hamlin lies:
” … in fact, is the U.S. even experiencing any established increasing upward trend in maximum temperature anomaly values since at least the year 2005″.
The truth, which Hamlin and this website appear to be allergic to:
Since 2005, USCRN average temperature has increased at a +0.34 degree C. per decade rate, which Climate Howlers consider to be a catastrophic warming rate.
In the US TMIN is rising about 50% faster than TMAX, but both are rising. Cherry picking TMAX is biased reporting.
But never mind the truth
Sometimes the truth is inconvenient for conservatives, so they ignore it.
And of course, your truth, is the truth.
I am reporting what NOAA claims for the USCRN.
If you believe USCRN is inaccurate, provide evidence of that claim
BINGO.
RG is a consistent idiot.
USCRN has basically no warming apart from the El Nino bulge around 2016, 2017.. which RG DENIES actually exists.
There was a zero trend from 2005 -2015, and cooling from 2017 to the start of the 2023 El Nino.
But, being nothing more than a monkey with a linear trend calculator, he doesn’t understand what he is doing.
TMin can only be measured at surface sites, which is a sure sign of URBAN warming, which RG also DENIES is the main cause of urban surface warming.
And no , Tmax has been decreasing since 1940.. even in the corrupted surface data.
RG doesn’t speak the truth.. because he is totally unaware of it.
All USCRN weather stations are rural and not subject to UHI
You are a deranged El Nino Nutter who should be in a lunatic asylum.
For you El Nino Nutters, La Ninas do not exist.
And El Ninos also caused the global cooling from 1940 to 1975.
El Ninos can do everything?
Dream on.
Now that you lost the debate you resort to name calling. Rather immature of you.
What a completely moronic and tantrum-like comment. (are you a 5-year-old?)
As always when the actual data doesn’t agree with your brain-washed AGW cultism.
Show us the effect of the La Ninas in the UAH data. 😉
RG is awesome! He speaks the truth
Cold June in the UK and Norway.
High pressure over the Arctic Circle means cool summer in middle latitudes.
Tony Heller’s: “Erasing The Dust Bowl”
on the topic of last month NOT being the hottest on record in the U.S.
Great video!
These NOAA lies are causing our politicians to waste TRILLIONS of our tax dollars because they think the world is overheating from CO2. The world is not overheating.
NOAA temperature data manipulators should be held accountable for their lies. They owe the taxpayers a lot of money because of the false reality they have created with their computers. A false reality that is costing us $TRILLIONS..
NOAA is a government agency funded by government controlled tax dollars. If the buck against the prevailing government policy, they suffer funding reductions.
“It” flows downhill.
And a lot of federal money flows downhill to states- which help sustain the climate cult.
“It” does flow downhill.
“sh”
The real weasel words are in the statement of “…above the pre-industrial average…”. Therefore, they are establishing LIA minimums as the average global temperature. Adding +1 to the sin wave so it is above Y=0. Fraud.
Given the concept of mass production was introduced by an arms manufacturer during the American Revolution, perhaps the pre-industrial benchmark should predate that.
Given the Romans were smelting and shaping iron and steel, perhaps that defines the beginning of the industrial age.
They picked a date that augments their scam. The difference between 1880, 1850, 1820, 1700 give you a variety of start points. You could pick high or you could pick low, whatever best suited your planned conclusions.
Well, yes, the global average is the appropriate metric if you are claiming that the global average is the highest it’s ever been. How could regional averages indicate such a thing? And of course many places on earth experienced anomalies much, much higher than this:
But I don’t see that mentioned anywhere in your post.
Anomalies are not temperature. They are a ΔT based on a baseline at a given station. Mathematically, they are (Tmonthly_avg_baseline ± ΔT). Discussing them as if they were an absolute temperature is incorrect. Averaging ΔT”s that have different baselines is not scientific. It is like averaging the acceleration of two cars, one being pushed by the driver and the other car being a Ferrari. The average acceleration tells you nothing about either one.
Why don’t you show the locations of these “anomalies much, much higher than this”? Your diagram shows a hot spot in central northern Canada. Can you find temperature stations that verify this? How about the hot spot in northern Russia? Show us the stations that have this anomaly.
ΔT is precisely the thing we want to track, so tracking ΔT is quite appropriate and scientific. Here I have shown a map of ΔT (anomalies), not an aggregate metric. So whatever concerns (misplaced as they may be) you have about averaging do not apply here.
It’s a map. Just… look at the map.
Anomalies are calculated from averages, monthly averages dude. Anomalies are based on averages of INDIVIDUAL STATION data. You explaining your assertions is the issue. You assert the map you show supports “global warming”, but you don’t appear to know what the map is based on. That’s an Appeal to Authority argumentative fallacy.
You need to answer the following questions in order to be able to show you know how the map was made.
Your diagram shows a hot spot in central northern Canada.
How about the hot spot in northern Russia?
If what you’re asking for is the source of the map, you could have asked that directly. The source is NASA’s GISTEMP analysis:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You can locate station data for all of the stations used in the analysis using NASA’s tool:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
And you can download monthly station data from the same link for each station.
I’ll leave the exercise of identifying individual stations to you.
GISS is fabricated from massive urban warming and unfit-for-purpose surface sites…
.. and data from sites that don’t even exist anymore.
It is a fantasy model-based fabrication…
… and totally MEANINGLESS for gauging any changes in global temperature.
If you can’t support the assertions you make, then your arguments are worthless.
You posted the map. It is up to you to know the values used to make it. Don’t post stuff that you don’t know inside out!
Sceptics win.
I’ve supported the assertion made and cited the source data, so by your criteria my argument is not worthless. I’ll look forward to you articulating a response that is actually productive.
“I’ll leave the exercise of identifying individual stations to you.”
That’s because you KNOW nearly all of them are TOTAL CRAP and UNFIT-FOR_PURPOSE.
I am not interested in anomalies. I am not interested in temperature. I am interested in energy flows and how that affects everything else.
Anomalies are not absolute temperatures.
20 to 60 gives an anomaly of 40.
10 to 50 gives an anomaly of 40.
The average anomaly does not reflect the average, 35.
It’s a numbers game and anyone can play.
Each of those two instances has changed by 40, the average anomaly correctly yields the average change. That change is the variable of interest.
Nope. If one is talking about an average global temperature, anomalies are excluded.
One is talking about the global average temperature anomaly.
Which is a meaningless number that has no connection to “the climate”.
Of course, as noted earlier, the global anomaly correlates perfectly to glacial/interglacial states, so your opinion defies reality.
Another lie, there were no global thermometers during the ice ages.
Yet we still know the global anomaly during these times. Google “climate proxies.” You will enjoy learning about them.
Liar.
I’m a liar because you didn’t find the learning enjoyable? I’m sorry for that if so. I find the subject quite fascinating.
“the variable of interest.”
To an anti-science Con-man. !
The mean = 40
The variance of 20, 60 = 800
The standard deviation = 28.3
The mean = 30
The variance of 10, 50 = 800
The standard deviation = 28.3
Anomaly = 40 – 30 = 10
Variance = √(800²+800²) = √1,280,000 = 800√2 = 1131
Standard Deviation = √1131 = 33.6
Anomaly = 10 ± 33.6
You see, you need to calculate ALL the statistical parameters in order to understand what your have.
Here is a different set of numbers.
Tmonthly_average = 25.2 ± 2.0
Tbaseline_average = 25.0 ± 1.0
Anomaly = 25.2 – 25.0 = 0.2
Variance = √(2² + 1²) = √5 = 2.2
Standard Deviation = √2.2 = 1.5
Anomaly = 0.2 ± 1.5
Show some references that has a method of calculating both the anomaly AND the standard deviation.
The standard deviation is not the uncertainty, it’s not clear what you’re trying to show here.
We can see at a glance that the variance in the annual/monthly global mean temperature anomaly is much lower than the observed trend:
Actually IT IS a component of the measurement uncertainty. It is known as the reproducibility uncertainty.
From the NIST Engineering Statistical Handbook.
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section5/mpc5311.htm
The main point, which you are obviously ignorant of, is that anomalies INHERIT the measurement uncertainty (evaluated by RSS) of the random variables used to calculate the anomaly. Didn’t know that did you?
The variance of the anomalies values IS NOT the measurement uncertainty of the anomaly distribution. Didn’t know that did you?
Read this.
https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat500/lesson/7/7.1
The uncertainty in the global mean anomaly is already being reported:
If that’s what you’re after it is readily available to you.
If it is so readily available then show it AND how it is calculated.
Your reticence in supplying the information is telling. Perhaps you don’t really know the value.
You should know that your dancing around these questions rather than giving straightforward answers makes you a questionable source of information.
Sure, the uncertainty is shown in the graph above , and here is a detailed description of the uncertainty estimation:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029522
Along with the computer code so that you can run the analysis yourself:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/
So the NASA magicians are able to take 1880 air temperature data, with a realistic measurement uncertainty of at least ±2°C, and transform it into ±100mK data.
You, and they, are liars.
I read both :
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029522
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010RG000345
Not one mention of measurement uncertainty nor its propagation into the anomaly calculation was made in either.
Not one mention of uncertainty budget analysis for measurement uncertainty at each station was made in either.
Not one mention of how NOAA’s measurement uncertainty specification for ASOS and CRN stations is propagated through to anomalies.
Not one mention of the GUM (JCGM 100:2008), NIST TN 1297, NIST TN 1900, NIST Engineering Statistical Handbook, ISO/IEC 17025 Accreditation.
It is why noone with experience in making measurements that must meet ISO requirements for certification, have any confidence in GISS and/or others who profess one-hundredths values of uncertainty.
Climate science professes to use the epitomy of scientific analysis. What a joke! Both of these papers only assess spatial uncertainty. Measurement uncertainty is thrown in the trash can and assumes anomalies are 200% accurate.
If you think this uncertainty done by GISS is scientific, then you have never been responsible for accurate measurements. Spend some time looking through chemistry or physics papers that deal with physical measurements and learn what real uncertainty assessment is is.
Read this, it has some good points about measurement uncertainty.
https://journals.aps.org/prper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020139
You need to find some papers that include ALL measurement uncertainty and not just spatial.
Apparently you didn’t read past the second sentence of the abstract:
Come back when you’ve actually done your homework.
Doesn’t mean the NASA magicians actually used real numbers of measurement uncertainty — the usual climate pseudoscience modus is to hand-wave and ignore the subject completely, as Jim indicated.
Apparently, you found the one and only mention of measurement uncertainty. Did you not do a “search” in the document for the phrase “measurement uncertainty”?
Show us the text where they utilized measurement uncertainty in their data analysis.
For your information, when I reference a document, I have researched it carefully. Here is the most important text that you didn’t bother to post because you didn’t understand it.
Guess what. No mention of updating measurement uncertainty. It was just assumed that the data was 200% accurate in terms of measurement uncertainty.
Well you have to expand your search terms. Say, pluralize the word “uncertainty”
IPCC, climate science, and goobers like yourself have no understanding of measurement uncertainty.
Witness this absurdity about how non-random uncertainties somehow magically vanish.
Problem solved via hand-waving!
Nowhere in the above quote is it suggested that non-random uncertainties disappear. The entire paper is devoted to quantifying non-random uncertainties.
He believes the gray hatching in the NASA graph is “uncertainty”.
Perhaps he doesn’t even know what you’re talking about. It’s going right over his head. But I guess that’s easy when his head is buried in the sand.
He has no clue. None of these yahoos ever quote anything from real metrology resources. It’s all just saying that climate scientists know what they are doing. No ability to do independent research to learn about measurements. Just belief, plain old faith in the Word as written by the Guru.
This is not real measurement uncertainty, but rather is the result of statistical gymnastics by climate pseudoscience practitioners.
That you swallow the absurd lie that these averages of averages have an uncertainty of 100mK in 1880 indicates that you are just another clown dancing in the trendology three-ring circus.
The clarity problem is between your ears, where there exists zero clues to real-world measurement uncertainty.
Where do the numbers for the South Indian Ocean in your crayon graph come from?
Note — no response.
GISS is fabricated from massive urban warming and unfit-for-purpose surface sites…
.. and data from sites that don’t even exist anymore.
It is a fantasy model-based fabrication…
… and totally MEANINGLESS for gauging any changes in global temperature.
Notice also, that they still use the coldest period in 100 years as their reference period.
Only a complete moron still falls for that sort of anti-science CRAP. !
I recently found the site Larry has used at NOAA. It is enlightening. I have downloaded the data from several states in the U.S. to see how the monthly average temperatures have changed. As Larry points out, there has been little change in absolute temperatures. Certainly not any hockey sticks.
If measurement uncertainty of something like ±1°F was shown on these graphs, there would be little statistical significance in the changes.
A link to the site I am using.
Climate at a Glance | Statewide Time Series | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)
CAGW advocates can argue that the U.S. is not the globe, but then they must address where all the warming is occurring and why. Bnice200 has shown several locations around the globe with little to no warming. Curiouser and curiouser!
Lastly, people have are putting climate change low on their concerns. Why? People experience average absolute temperatures. 20 or 30F change during the day, simply overwhelms the small changes being touted as an emergency. The alarmists have cried wolf too many times for people to take them seriously without some physical evidence that CO2 is the control knob.
It’s easy to check this using the GISS website, for example.
Since 1950 (or you can select your own start date) the bulk of the warming has been over land areas in the northern hemisphere and over the Arctic. The Antarctic has cooled in some parts and warmed in others. Canada has seen more warming than the US in North America.
GISS is fabricated from massive urban warming and unfit-for-purpose surface sites…
.. and data from sites that don’t even exist anymore.
It is a fantasy model-based fabrication…
… and totally MEANINGLESS for gauging any changes in global temperature.
Notice also, that they still use the coldest period in 100 years as their reference period.
Where is this surface data measured, especially in Canada and the Arctic ??
I bet you HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE. !
Studies of sites in surface sites USA, UK and Australia have shown that a large proportion do not meet WHO class, 1 or 2 specifications, having been altered in various ways from what they were when originally put in place.
That means they are totally unfit for any measurement of even local temperature changes.
Even worse, it is coming to light that in those 3 countries that are many sites that are no longer being used or even in existence… but STILL being recorded as reporting data. !
There is massive scientific malpractice going on.
The absolute need for “long records” has climate science doing unscientific and unethical data tampering. I couldn’t believe what John Shewchuk has found for stations no longer existing but still being infilled in order to have long records.
And that is in three countries with “supposedly” the best temperature records.
One shudders to think how much data is just being totally mal-adjusted or outright fabricated in other places. !!
If the U.S. is not the globe for temperature, how can it be the globe for CO2, methane, NO2, etc.?
How can Mauna Lau be the global for CO2 ppm (11,000 feet, volcanic island)?
Jim, I was adding grist to your mill. Hope it came across as supportive of your points.
No problem. These are good questions.
High temperatures are not seen over the Pacific.
Anecdote time. It is definitely not the hottest ever in NE Kansas. I sleep most of the time except for the worst of the summer heat in an unairconditioned attic in a 140 year old farm house with just a window fan. I have needed a blanket by morning every day so far this year. We didn’t turn the AC on until last week in the main part of the house.
Topeka here, you? I agree with the cool temps and good moisture.
Bureau of Meteorology
Another cold morning gripped Australia with parts of every state recording temperatures below their winter averages.
The unusual thing about this current cold outbreak is how long it is expected to last. Across large parts of Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, daytime temperatures and the overnight temperatures will be colder than usual for the next 7 days and in some cases even longer.
This will mean frosty mornings all weekend and next week for many areas, with daytime temperatures in the low-to-mid teens.