From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
An exposure of just how strong the UHI effect can be:
A recent NASA map provides a stark visualization of the extreme temperatures that pavement can reach in Phoenix, Arizona, during periods of intense heat.
Contact burns from hot pavement are an often-overlooked threat during searing heat waves.
A recent NASA map showcases how hot pavement can get in Phoenix, Arizona. Researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) found some sidewalks and roads reaching temperatures capable of causing second-degree burns on contact.
“We create these maps to be intuitive to users and help make data more accessible to the public and citizens scientists,” said Glynn Hulley, a JPL climate researcher.
Notably, Phoenix is the fifth-most populated city in the US. The map encompassed a network of streets and walkways around the city, exposing how urban landscapes devoid of trees can become heat traps.
The map visualization mainly depicts asphalt and concrete surfaces colored by temperature (yellow, red, and purple).
These surfaces act like giant heat sponges, soaking up and radiating strong heat to dangerously high temperatures (at least 120°F/49°C). As per the NASA release, a single touch may cause burns in seconds during heat waves.
The data highlighted areas like Maryvale and Central City, with limited parks and trees, as experiencing some of the highest surface temperatures. In contrast, neighborhoods with trees, such as Encanto and Camelback East, benefited from a cooling effect.
Surprisingly, the hottest land surface temperature within Phoenix was recorded not on a street or sidewalk but at Sky Harbor International Airport, where it reached a scorching 140°F (60°C).
Climate change is pushing temperatures higher across the globe, which could worsen the hot pavement problem that plagues many cities. Due to its dark color and material composition, asphalt absorbs 95% of the sun’s radiation.
On hot days, this might easily raise roadway temperatures by 40 to 60 degrees F (22 to 33 degrees C) above the air temperature. If left unchecked, this issue could become even more severe in the future.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/skin-searing-sidewalks-us-nasa-heatmap
There’s the usual nonsense about climate change, but with road surface temperatures inflated by 60F, that heat has to go somewhere, and that is back up in the air.
And the tarmac and concrete runways at the airport gets even hotter apparently..
Phoenix’s main weather station is at the International Airport, and has been there since 1930, two years after the airport opened. It is situated about 50m from the taxiing area, marked in blue, close enough to the runways to provide accurate temperature data for the aircraft.
When the airport opened, it was just a field with a few biplanes taking off. Now it covers 3400 acres, most of which is concreted over.
It is hard to think of a worse place to measure temperature trends.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Summer – high temperatures – quelle surprise!
Why didn’t NASA (a formerly respectable institution) do maps for the beaches of FL, CA, HI, and TX? Anyone who has tried to walk these beaches in the heat of summer … barefoot … without flip-flops … know EXACTLY how BURNED their bare feet will get in just 5-steps.
I weep for the politicization of our “science” institutions.
You’re leaving out the Great Lakes, Lk Michigan at least (which I am familiar with) and ‘hot beach sand’ plots or maps!
Seriously. Just how STUPID does NASA believe we are? Or is it that NASA “scientists” are just this dull witted? Or … is this NASA’s “mission” … to spread and foment absurd FEAR of ohhhhhhhhhhhhh mommmmaaaaaaaa … “global warming”
There are professional, dedicated people in NASA whose mission is to explore space.
Then there’s GISS, a parasite climate catastrophist cabal that infected NASA a few decades ago.
The Mission to Planet Earth. Thank you, Congress.
Those on the left seem to believe that being hired by government adds 20 points to your IQ.
There was a report today that the employment numbers announced by the USG every month (and corrected in each of the following two months) are impressive, but that much of the hiring over the last many months has been Government hiring. (The source was the CEO of Home Depot.)
The US economy isn’t as rosy as we are being told (quelle surprise). Government jobs don’t actually add to GDP. (Those Government workers may subtract from it.)
When government jobs reach 40% of all employment … America will implode. No Medicare. No Social Security. Nada. It will be OVER as we knew America
Government employment is how they attain their socialist goals.
More “burro” jobs while many private enterprises can’t find workers.
“The US economy isn’t as rosy as we are being told”
That’s correct.
Just notice all the busineeses that are closing or declaring bankruptcy. This is a bad sign of things to come. There’s a reason these many businesses are struggling or calling it quits.
Biden Inflation is taking money out of everyone’s pockets. Money that would have been spent on local economies before the inflation reduced spending power.
When consumer spending power is reduced by inflation, this detrimentally affects the entire economy because consumer spending makes up about 70 percent of the U.S. economy.
Trump getting the energy economy back on track, will serve to lessen inflation. The cheaper the gasoline and diesel are, the cheaper everything else will be.
IQ has been erased from pop science and polite conversation. I am waiting for AI developers to figure out which correction factors will allow them to hit the target.
“adds 20 points to your IQ.”
And still leaves them below 3 digits !!
re: “Seriously. Just how STUPID does ….”
Well, in the ‘overall’ it works from the top down; ownership/leadership adopts something proposed in a seminar or other (by staff or political committee) and you end up with – (if the mods will allow me a little leeway):
“The Plan”
In the beginning was The Plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without form.
And the plan was without substance.
And darkness came upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke amongst themselves saying:
“It is a crock, and it stinketh mightily.”
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said,
“It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor therefore.”
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying,
“It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
such that none may abide by it.”
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
“It is a vessel for fertilizer, and none can abide by its strength.”
And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying to one another,
“It contains that which aids plant growth, and is very strong.”
And the Directors went unto the Vice Presidents saying,
“It promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”
And the Vice Presidents went unto the President saying unto him,
“This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
of the company, with very powerful effects.”
And the President looked upon The Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
This is how (SH-)IT happens.
Seven letters: F U N D I N G.
Nothing else, including truth or proper scientific inquiry matters.
“Why didn’t NASA (a formerly respectable institution) do maps for the beaches of FL, CA, HI, and TX?”
Why? The beaches have always been there. People know the sand gets hot, and always has.
I can see why airports and, maybe, beaches would have stations for local conditions such as wind and temperature.
But they shouldn’t part of a national network for temperature. They are “under the influence” and strictly local.
And people don’t know that asphalt and concrete get hot? The sidewalks and streets have always been there … so why do we need maps that curiously illustrate all the Sun City retirement community streets as EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!!!! Rendered in Purple!! Worse than downtown Phoenix. Puhleeze!?
That curiosity wouldn’t be there to SCARE the old people would it?
Here is a 2023 image from GE.. anyone know what all that grey stuff in and around the heat measurement site is ?
re: “what all that grey stuff in and around the heat measurement site is ?”
I’m going with aged asphalt; Zooming in I can see what looks like fault lines in the asphalt, which one sees as asphalt ages and the surface contracts over time.
Concrete comprises the load-bearing ‘paths’ like the taxiways and the runways, with cheaper non-load-bearing asphalt used nearly everywhere else in lieu of grass/soil which can wash away with heavy rains and grass requires continued maintenance too.
But it is all around the heat measurement site.
WMO goes up to “Class 5” = woeful
This one is several steps WORSE. !
All local sites within 500km, MUST be homogenised to this site.
First off it appears to be either low grade, thin asphalt, or oil soaked dirt, not unlike how some gravel roads are sprayed with oil to knock down the dust. Second off, that is the Glide Slope Antenna for runway 25L, not necessarily the weather station. Each runway with an ILS has a Glide Slope antenna located at the 1,000 foot mark past the threshold, which is the normal touchdown aim point.(solid white bars are the 1,000 foot markers) It would make sense to locate weather station there as it is imperative pilots know the actual air condition on the runway for safety. And in addition, several weather stations situated at the extents of the runways are necessary to measure wind speed/direction to detect wind shear and provide alerts to landing and taking off aircraft. (so large airports like this likely have half a dozen weather stations out in the airfield)
Again I state to the uninformed, these airport weather stations are an imperative safety factor for aviation!!! What they are not suited for is to gauge overall/general weather or climate. But they do take regular and meticulous measurements every 30 to 60 minutes, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. So they are a very complete record. But again this data is not fit for climate history or change purposes but it is imperative to have stations located at or near runways for aviation safety. (an extra 10 deg F could mean an airliner must reduce their takeoff weight or increase their takeoff speed, or not have enough runway available at such and such weight, etc)
Dunno: the “record” 120 degree day in Las Vegas they just had was from a station wedged into the asphalt desert corner of McCarren/Harry Reid IA, next to six lanes of interstate.
I suppose you could paint the weather station, the ground and the surroundings with ultra-black — maybe even the thermometer — and make it worse…
I have a thermometer in my rear yard … on an always-shady north facing wall. But this wall is adjacent to our rear patio. The temps it gives … very accurate temps … are ALWAYS 2-5 deg.F higher than my small town’s official temps. I always have to remind the wife that our concrete patio skews the temp readings.
BTW … it was reading 112 deg.F … in Lafayette, CA over this past weekend. Speaking of heat domes and Phoenix-HOT temps … Not to worry … it’s cooled off considerably. Thank you fog!
I live in a rural area. I have two outdoor thermometers. One under the deck in the shade – about 12 feet from the house above gravel-covered ground. The other is at the edge of the field at the tree line.
They are ALWAYS different, with the one by the house always being higher than the other. I’ve seen a difference of as much as 7 degrees (F).
They’re about 100′ apart.
I’ve been thinking of putting another one in a shaded mount of some sort in the field right between them.
Yes, I used to observe the behaviors throughout the day of the birds and animals on my 26 acres of undulating property.
The cooler and greener aspects of the land where sunshine was at an oblique angle to the land slopes were the favored spots at any time of the day.
I could imagine the creatures saying –
“thermometers – we doan need no stinkin’ thermometers”
I have a covered deck on south, west, and east sides, and two remote thermometers, north and south, out of the direct sun but not tucked into the eaves either. They match in the morning, but the south side gets 2-5° F warmer by the afternoon. 4000 feet in the Sierras, and the last few days were 104-105-105-102-100-100.
Sierra. Please. The word is plural.
BTW … it was always my dream to retire to The Gold Country in the Sierra … just above the valley fog elevation (I believe you are there!) … but … I wouldn’t retire there on a bet now because of the threat of wildfire and the impossibility of getting homeowners insurance. So sad what my State has become. This 4th generation Californian is getting the hell OUT of the State. “Newcomers” have wrecked the place.
Sierras, please. It ain’t Spanish anymore. What do you call Napoli or 東京; do you say pahREE or PAIRis? How about München?
Don’t play language grammar with me unless you play it 100%.
You didn’t have to get so angrys at me!
You got snippy, I corrected you. Deal with it.
No. You interpreted a correction as “snippy”. You don’t take corrections well. Not my problem.
It was a miscorrection. You don’t take modern usage well.
“Modern usage” … *snicker*
Were the munchkins the little yellow “Twinkie” looking guys who hung out with Gru?
PS Yes, I know Gru’s crew were “minions”.
But I remember years ago seeing a one frame comic in the Sunday paper.
I think it was “Mother Goose and Grimm” but I haven’t been able to find it online.
It showed Dorothy, Scarecrow, Lion and Tinman from the back looking aside at Lion in horror as he threw some bones over his shoulder.
The caption was, “Why do you think they call them “Munchkins?”
(Sorry. sort of.)
Heh. That’s where my handle comes from. I’m a computer programmer; I fill them full of brains.
As for the origin, I’d never thought of that. Wikipedia says …
Leo 2.0 said this morning on Fox News that he was moving out of California.
I like Leo 2.0. He’s a smart fellow. He converted from Democrat to conservative. Thus, he wears “Leo 2.0” on his baseball cap.
I wonder where he’s moving to? He didn’t say this morning.
Palm Springs posted a new record 124f (at the airport!).
I went to Weather Underground to check surrounding temperatures in Palm Springs. 116 to 120. Now, these aren’t “official” temperature stations, but people do spend considerable amounts on auto stations that forward temperatures to WG quite often. The wifi on mine quit, but updates at 15 second intervals.
This indicates the variance in local temperatures that is never quoted in climate science, nor carried forward into monthly averages.
with all those palms and springs, you’d think it wouldn’t get that hot…
however, if it was a desert community, then I’d believe it gets real hot in the summer.
The weather station (ASOS/AWOS) at PSP sits approx. 450 ft from a jet gate, approx 150 ft from the asphalt tarmac and about 50 ft from an asphalt road. This isn’t the original location of the weather station. It used to sit about 3/4 of a mile to the NE. I’m not sure where the temp readings were made prior to that.
The airport has gone thru numerous additions (lots of new asphalt) since its beginning in the early 1930s as an army airfield.
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN DIEGO CA
135 AM PDT SAT JUL 6 2024
…HIGHEST MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE RECORDS BROKEN OR TIED ON JUL 05 2024 …
LOCATION NEW RECORD OLD RECORD PERIOD OF RECORD
SAN JACINTO 114 106 IN 2008 1948
IDYLLWILD** 104 99 IN 2007 1943
PALOMAR MOUNTAIN 97 TIED 97 IN 2007 1901
CAMPO 109 108 IN 2007 1948
PALM SPRINGS* 124 120 IN 1931 1893
BORREGO 119 118 IN 1989 1965
* THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 124 AT PALM SPRINGS BREAKS THE ALL-TIME
RECORD HIGH OF 123 DEGREES THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SET ON JUNE 17
2021, JULY 28 AND 29 1995, AND AUGUST 1 1993.
Thank you for acknowledging UHI. Now explain how it’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
What’s that, crickets? Gaped-mouthed blank stares?
UHI is not caused by greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing to explain in that regard.
Then why do we use UHI temps to scare people about climate change?
There’s a lot to unpack in your comment. It’s not clear who you mean by “we” here. The organizations producing surface temperature indexes do not use them to scare anyone, they use them to provide observations of the changing climate. These organizations also do not use “UHI temps” to do this, they use the indexes they produce via careful analysis of the surface station records. As noted above, part of this careful analysis is the removal of systematic biases in the station network arising from urbanization or station siting issues.
You mean like the near 80% of UK Met Office stations that the WMO classifies as being in class 4 and class 5 – the two lowest classes?
There is much confusion on WUWT about the WMO classifications and their use in UK Met Office site assessments. A WMO class 4 or 5 rating is not equivalent to a UK Met Office rating of “unsatisfactory.” From the Met Office:
But this is a side track because, as noted above, stations used to compile land surface temperature indexes are adjusted to remove systematic biases arising from siting issues. This makes the discussion around whether or not siting issues might exist for some subset of stations a moot point.
Adjustments fix nothing only inserts some biases.
Show what each adjustment is for each station and from where it was derived.
How often is the adjustment revisited? Where is this data correction stored?
Your whole red herring does not address the issue. The WMO classifications contains a measurement uncertainty. What is the uncertainty used at each of the MET stations where bias adjustments are made? How are these uncertainties propagated?
NASA has a data viewer that lets you view the adjusted and unadjusted versions of every station in GHCN:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
To understand the adjustments being performed, refer to the references on the same website. NASA provides the source code for their analysis here:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v4/
The description of the GISTEMP uncertainty model can be found here:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/le05800h.html
To understand the adjustments being made..
You need to understand what best supports the “global warming” scam. !
If they aren’t used to scare people, why do the anomaly graphs never begin with the absolute baseline temperature on the y-axis so people can judge what actual temperatures have done?
Just add about 15 to the anomaly series and you can see what “actual temperatures” have done.
RUBBISH and nonsense from AJ, yet again..
Surface station data is totally unrepresentative of “global” temperatures.
About 15? You mean you don’t know the baseline as accurately as the anomaly you are quoting? Something is amiss in your science world if that is the best you can do! I would expect 15.???.
There is not a baseline for the globe, the baseline is the mean local climatology for a given record over the defined period. Thus there can be no precise determination of a “global baseline” value. The temperature of the earth at the surface is approximately 15 C (288K), so if you feel the need to convert from anomaly value to absolute, this value will suffice.
Well bless your heart!
Without a common baseline temperature to go along with the so called global ΔT, you have a meaningless number.
Even worse is you don’t even have regional numbers, i.e., ΔT or baseline.
It’s all “trust our math, we know what we are doing”.
If I tell you I can accelerate at 10 mi/hr•sec what should be your first question?
You don’t need to trust anyone – the raw data are freely available for download. You can calculate the anomalies yourself, construct your own global temperature index. Share your methods and results here for discussion, or publish them in a journal.
Nope! Don’t push that to me. YOU are the one touting a global ΔT, you are the person who needs to provide the proper information to make an accurate and scientific assessment.
You criticize the work of Dr. Spencer but can’t (or won’t) provide a simple answer as to what the global baseline temperature truly is. An acceleration MUST be related to a physical baseline to be meaningful. Come on dude, we all know you are a mathematician, put your knowledge to work and calculate the global baseline.
I can point you to where NASA has calculated global temperature change, but you say you don’t trust them. You don’t understand the papers, but you don’t trust them. I can point you to where I have calculated global temperature change, but you ignore it, or say you don’t trust it. So the only thing left is for you to do the calculations yourself.
The thing it is related to is the mean global temperature across the baseline period, which has an anomaly around zero. Above this zero mark and we know the planet is warmer than the baseline, below it and we know the planet is cooler.
You need to specify that mean global temperature across the baseline period.
If you can’t specify the baseline temperature along with it’s uncertainty, then the anomaly is meaningless.
An anomaly is calculated by subtracting a baseline temperature from an absolute temperature. You can’t quote either one, nor can you quote the related uncertainties. The issue is not iif the global ΔT you are quoting is correct. The issue is that you have nothing to show that the average of disparate anomalies is close to the true value of real global warming. The uncertainties of the fundamental temperatures is so large that the “average” global ΔT can not be verified.
That’s how a single anomaly is calculated. The global mean anomaly is calculated by averaging together an array of these single anomalies. Thus it is impossible to reverse-engineer a single global baseline value, and such a number would not be useful to have.
It is quite obvious that the global mean anomaly represents the global temperature change because the global mean anomaly can be seen to exactly represent the distribution of individual anomalies as viewed on a map:
Just how good is that careful analysis to remove bias?
As I noted elsewhere in the thread, the analysis brings the full network into near perfect agreement with the bias-free US reference network, and the adjustments have been shown to be skillful against real and artificial (I.e. data with known biases) datasets – see Menne et al. 2009.
As noted after your ignorant comments, anyone and his monkey could use “adjustment parameters” to make ClimDiv match USCRN.
Does not mean they have a clue what they are doing….
… any more than you do.
WE don’t. The alarmists do.
Funny how the only stations that show substantial warming, are the urban ones.
And the rural ones after they have been “adjusted”.
It might be funny if it were true, but it is not.
It is true, prior to the stations being
adjustedcooked.Except it is true. And I suspect you are well aware of that fact.
That makes you a deceitful and deliberate LIAR.
I remember a story here related to a new record high for the day being set in, I think was Boston?
The poster dug deeper and found out it was a “spike” from the airport that coincided with a wind shift where the wind came to the station from across the runway where planes wait to be cleared for takeoff.
No surrounding stations showed anywhere near that spike for that hour.
Ergo, the UHI is a significant cause of warming. I presume “the science” has that factor down to 5 decimal places.
Most of the planet is covered by water, far from any cities, so in no possible world is UHI a significant driver of the observed global warming trend. It is certainly a small component of the observed warming over land.
And those oceans show absolutely ZERO sign of any human cause warming.
UHI makes up a LARGE proportion of land surface warming.. adding to the homogenisation warming and other agenda based fakery.
“observed global warming trend”
In UAH, the only remotely respectable “global” data, there is only warming at El Nino events.
Absolutely zero evidence of any CO2 or human caused warming.
Because Urban thermometers are so totally unrepresentative of “global” anything or even of “land” anything…
UAH land also shows very little warming except at El Nino events.
You have yet to provide an explanation for why El Niño events are getting warmer and warmer over time.
OMG, it as if you are totally unaware of ocean currents.
Do you actually deny that there is a step up at each major El Nino… and nowhere else. !
Stop being DELIBERATELY IGNORANT !
How are the ocean currents driving El Niños to get warmer and warmer and warmer over time?
Ocean currents… moron !!
Wake the **** up !!
You said that. How are the ocean currents causing El Niños to keep getting warmer and warmer over time?
Three little words.
Reduced cloud cover.
So Dr. Spencer’s analysis is all a bunch of hooey from an incompetent scientist when compared to you, right?
Temmmmperatures … temmmmmmperaturrrrreees … I won’t be smoothed over, like milk, silk, a bedspread, or a quilt, icing on a cake … or a serene translucent lake
https://youtu.be/LH82sJ898jg?si=AgnQlNYW-s-cYdT6
So the practical, rational, honest? approach would be to only use temp stations that are rural, remote from urban areas.
Then no “homogenization adjustments” to recorded DATA would be necessary.
(and, once you amend recorded DATA with assumptions, it is no longer DATA, it’s just a CONSTRUCT)
You don’t always have stations in rural, remote areas, so such a goal is not feasible even if it were desirable. And you don’t have to do any adjustments (you get basically the same result either way), you just have to be ok with a dataset that objectively gives you less information about the thing you are trying to analyze. But the adjustments unquestionably work as intended, and remove sources of systematic bias from the full network, which you can easily see by comparing the Climate Reference Network for the contiguous US, installed in 2005 with the goal of instituting a state of the art climate monitoring network for the US, with the full bias-adjusted US station network:
Like I said – a construct.
In other words, since there isn’t enough good data, just make up what you need.
Fake Data, an important part of the Fake Science.
More red herring. Go back to 1980 or earlier with old climdiv data from a wayback and see how it has been adjusted downward to almost match USCRN.
Look at the lower graph that shows the long-term climdiv! Do you really think climdiv has always been showing no temperature increase for its entire record or worse matched USCRN? If so, why was USCRN even built?
It all just casts so much doubt on the temperature record. It is the BIG reason that it is unethical to change official data. Once changed, how does one trust the changes. Researchers can publish papers about how official data could be manipulated which makes it both public and reviewable while preserving official measured data.
The full network has not been adjusted to match USCRN, the full network has been adjusted to remove systematic bias, and as a consequence it now matches the bis-free reference network. Why is this disagreeable to you?
nClimDiv shows a pronounced warming trend, it is just difficult to see in the squashed pane of the range selector:
One can always and easily return to the original data, which are readily available. It is a persistent myth on WUWT that the original data are being destroyed. What you propose is exactly what is being done.
I never said the original data is being destroyed. However there are ghost stations that are no longer in operation yet are being infilled.
The original data is not the official published data. That is the point.
Also your graph shows the dust bowl years cooler than now. Do you really believe that? Do you reckon adjustments have been made? I’ll put some more states together and we’ll see what shows up.
The USHCN had infilled values for missing stations, but these are clearly labeled as such. However, this is a moot point because USHCN was replaced as the national temperature record by nClimDiv, which does not do any infilling.
USCRN shows ZERO warming apart from at El Nino events.
nCLimdiv DOES NOT have USCRN to constrain it before 2005, so they have no “reference” to adjust it to.
nClimdiv is a total FABRICATION.
“You don’t always have stations in rural, remote areas, so such a goal is not feasible even if it were desirable.”
OF COURSE it’s feasible. We’re gonna spend hundreds of trillions “to save the planet” and can’t afford to establish more stations in rural, remote areas? What’s really not feasible is spending hundreds of trillions on wind and solar energy. And grid improvements and battery systems.
Time travel is, at present, not feasible, so scientists must rely on the existing historic records when compiling temperature indexes. Installing new stations in pristine sites is a a great strategy for ensuring high quality observations going forward, and that is exactly what has been done in the US with the Climate Reference Network.
Yes, they have assured that ClimDiv reasonably closely matches USCRN since USCRN was installed.
USCRN brought the manic temperature warming adjustments under control.
Nothing before 2005 can have any credibility except in the mind of a gullible brain-washed idiot.
So much so that neither shows any warming except around El Nino events.
Thanks AJ,
…. as I have said MANY times. USCRN is being used as a reference to adjust the ClimDiv end product.
USCRN has brought an end to warming, except El Nino effects, in the USA…
… as would always happen if you have a mostly uncontaminated surface network.
Trouble is that a huge proportion of sites around the globe are massively contaminated, with no “reference network” to adjust them to…
… making any “global” temperature fabrication absolutely meaningless.
Not quite so fast, I think we are saying different things. USCRN is a reference network, not a calibration target. The adjustments to station records aren’t arbitrary changes that do nothing by shift the station record closer to USCRN, they are specific adjustments to remove biases that have been positively identified in the station record. The fact that removing these biases brings the full network into line with the reference series is a byproduct.
The full USCRN has only been reporting since 2005, so any longer term climate trends in the US may not be well visible. We can use the full nClimDiv network (which is in perfect agreement with USCRN) to examine longer term trends, which are unquestionably positive in the US.
ROFLMAO
Of course it is what they adjust ClimDiv to match USCRN.
So yes, it is a reference and calibration target.
Anything before USCRN wasn’t constrained to USCRN…
… they can produce any garbage they want to produce.
Unquestionably, the 1930s,40s in the USA were MUCH warmer than now. in all raw data.
ClimDiv has had that FAKED out.
ClimDiv is totally non-credible before USCRN brought the data fabrication under control.
You’ll be able to provide proof of this claim no doubt.
Look at the data.. moron !!
It isn’t just good luck.. it is deliberate matching.
It’s neither of those things, it’s the removal of systematic bias from the full network. This makes the full network match the bias-free reference network. You can read exactly how nClimDiv is adjusted here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/53/5/jamc-d-13-0248.1.xml
“This makes the full network match the bias-free reference network.”
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THEY DO !
WOW.. you finally got there.. amazing!!
Hold your horses there, buckaroo. The match happens because the adjustments work, not because the adjustments are done using the USCRN. The match is a byproduct of good adjustments.
If the data is adjusted, then it is no longer data. It is just some guys opinion of what the data should have been. Funny how after cooking, the aggregate data always ends up being warmer than before cooking, even though most of the siting issues being adjusted for should have warmed the data.
If you want to figure out what is happening with the climate, then you want to do your measuring in some place that is not rapidly changing due to manmade factors. By placing many of the stations in urban areas, and then adjusting the rural stations to better match the urban ones, you are guaranteeing that your data is garbage.
Funnily enough, the raw data show more historical warming than the adjusted data, although both show considerable warming:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
But what you say is partially correct. First that the surface temperature indexes are not raw measurements – they are an analytical product. At the very least the values have been gridded. This is precisely what makes it useful for climate monitoring instead of in-site weather observing.
And in an ideal world we would indeed have nothing but pristine measurements from a perfectly sited and maintained surface network, but we do not live in an ideal world, and scientists have to work with the data available. The historical surface stations were not originally intended to be used for long term climate monitoring (indeed the concept of climate change was not even well understand when the earliest stations were installed), and so the idea of a homogenous and bias free network was not something anyone thought necessary or worthwhile. But, as shown unequivocally in my above comment, scientists are able to identify and remove systematic bias from the full network and bring it into agreement with the pristine reference series.
You’re kidding, right?
Farming families have observed for generations how their regions have experienced swings in prevailing climatic conditions lasting decades.
They had to adapt to prevailing conditions, knowing that in time, the regional climate pendulum would swing back.
As just one example, look at how conditions in the American mid-west plains recovered from the devastating “Dust Bowl” droughts in the 1930s.
You make the rookie mistake of believing there is just one climate all around this planet, and that it behaves as a single entity.
There are hundreds if not thousands of the buggers, all doing their own things in their own time and their own ways.
People understood that their climate could vary, they did not think it important to have a global climate monitoring network established in the way we do today. Thus the original intent behind the surface station network was to merely have a set of observing points to provide local weather forecasts, not to provide continuous, homogenous long term monitoring of widespread change across the continent or globe.
And yet again the response is to try to divert the discussion down rabbit trails, never addressing the simple, glaring fact that the adjustments adequately address systematic bias in the network.
Again, you bring up red herrings. If you want adjusted temperatures, then YOU adjust them. Don’t try to put that onto the official record keepers. As above, adjusted data is NOT data.
As MarkW said, “It is just some guys opinion of what the data should have been.”. Your remarks identify you as a mathematician and not a scientist or engineer. You want perfect numbers with no uncertainty, that’s a mathematician!
You are raising a peculiar objection, and it makes me wonder if you fundamentally disagree with me or if you merely misinterpret my comments. I am not proposing that the people who installed the historic surface stations should have had the foresight to realize they might one day be needed for climate observation. Those people had a need, and the installation of the station met it. Scientists later realized they could compile the various surface station records into a wide network for climate observation, and later discovered they needed to address systematic bias in the network imparted by non-climatic effects such as station moves, time of observation bias, or siting issues. This is no shade at the original maintainers.
This is certainly a thing you all keep saying.
We don’t drive around in Model T Fords, so we aren’t stuck with old temperature stations.
“adjustments adequately address systematic bias in the network.”
Even a complete moron can “adjust” when you have a reference number to adjust to.
It just a matter of variables and “fakery”.
But that doesn’t mean they know what they are doing..
… nor does it mean they would be able to adjusted away Urban heat effects if they didn’t have a reference to match to. (ie.. the rest of the world)
You are creating a total strawman argument.. and FAILING !!
Using ClimDiv and USCRN is a complete fallacy and shows absolutely nothing.
Hallelujah!
There is no global climate. People care about their local/regional “climate”.
And airport weather stations were never intended for long-term climate modeling. They are there to provide pilots with the instantaneous OAT so that the take-off roll can be calculated and the power set properly.
My mobile gives me the temperature in our town. I have no idea where it is measured, but it is never right at our house.
Given the supposed impact of climate change new sites should be built on a regular basis. The federal government should have suitable land in every state, even highly urban states.
Why do that, the data already shows what they want to see?
Bringing in more data just means more data to cook every day.
Building a state of the art climate observing network with modern equipment in pristinely sited locations across the US is absolutely needed, and that is exactly why the US Government initiated this very project (the US Climate Reference Network) in the early 21st century.
re: “the USCRN”
We already know/knew that; IOW, not “news”.
And the use that data to adjust the end-product fabrication called ClimDiv.
It is not “accounting for Urban heat”…. it is just mathematical fakery using “adjustment” variables to match to a reference number.
Who knows what the temperature might be in the USA now if USCRN hadn’t been implemented. !
You can bet it would be significantly higher.
The USCRN is not used to adjust the full station network.
Look at the data comparison, moron.
USCRN is most certainly being used to adjust the ClimDiv end product !
Scientists are free to do as they wish with modifying official data. Publishers of official data are not. The attention of official record keepers should be providing the absolute best data measurements possible. That includes the best maintenance of official temperature stations which includes routine calibration.
Fair enough, no disagreement there.
Real science continuously tries to improve methods and data collection. If you’re going to ask us to spend hundreds of trillions- you had better have a more ideal science methodology and data.
Again.. conned by the horsefather.. How GULLIBLE are you, AlanJ !!
That is just one version of the global fabrication against another.
Show us the “raw” data they used for say , Reykjavik…
… I bet it was just some version of GHCN manic adjustments.
You really have been CONNED and BRAIN-WASHED by the climate scammers that produce the global surface fabrications, haven’t you. !
All that mindless yabering ..
to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING REAL. !
You have not shown ANYTHING, except that ClimDiv end-product is being adjusted to match USCRN.
How stupid would they look if they allowed them to diverge !!
Homogenization fixes nothing only takes bad data and makes it worse. Banks can’t Homogenize deposit accounts thank God. Data is Data change data removes it from the data column to the guesstimate column. Most jobs that would end you up in jail.
“Banks can’t Homogenize deposit accounts . . .”
________________________________________
Sometimes they do. Just ask Bernie Madoff.
The same should apply to the climate crooks.
+100
Most mathematicians play with numbers for the sake of playing with numbers. They have no training nor appreciation of using math only as a TOOL to accurately determine a physical attribute.
When I obtain a batch of precision resistors I measure each of them because even a 1% resistor value can upset the input impedance of an amplifier. I don’t care about the average. A mathematician says well let’s find the average and standard deviation of the mean. If that is unworkable, let’s get 1000 of them and we’ll know the value even closer. They never recognize that isn’t the ultimate purpose.
“..adjusted to remove systematic bias…”
Hmm. I could believe that if records of the changes to recorded temperatures indicated some type of reasonable correction. The GISS record shows that most of the reported temperatures prior to 1970, back to 1880, have been reduced while virtually all of the reported temperatures after 1970 have been increased. Why not throw out all records made by thermometers in existence a year or two before 1970 and those a year or two after 1970 and just believe, without adjustment, records from thermometers in service during that interval? Those seem to be the only thermometers that NASA finds to be correct, and think of the money saved by not employing the “adjusters.”
NOAA’s record shows a similar pattern but centered on about 1940. What could possibly explain such a difference between NASA and NOAA temperature adjustments. Do you guys use different thermometer data?
If you are interested, climate4you shows the changes.
From the link I cited earlier in the discussion, this is untrue. The adjustments applied by NASA reduce historical trends and result in less global warming:
ROFLMAO.
CONNED yet again, but the horsefather… you poor gullible twit !!
Those lines are just different variation of their own fake fabrications.
They use already mal-adjusted GHCN numbers, and pretend it is raw data.
Show us the data the con-man uses for say, Reykjavik.. I bet you can’t.
That is incorrect, the unadjusted series is compiled using GHCN-raw values. You could check this for yourself by simply doing your own analysis, perhaps then you’d have a leg to stand on.
Again.. you really are a gullible little twit if you believe that.
You are legless as well as mindless. !
Raw data around all the NH and many places around the SH all show a warm peak in the 1930s and 40s.
Zeke’s propensity for FAKERY is well known…
… and only completely brain-washed zealots still fall for it.
Zeke’s analysis is consistent with my own that I produced using GHCN raw values (it is land-only, no SST data):
https://imgur.com/TbtHeLB
There is no warmer peak in the 1930s or 40s as you insist. And you are unable to provide your own analysis showing anything different.
So it is still made up of massively inconsistent and mal-adjusted data.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Show us where all the data from say 1880-1920 came from.
Certainly doesn’t match any raw data from the NH, or most places that have data in the SH.
And of course it doesn’t remotely resemble reality, either,
.. it is the FAKE reality they want gormless twits like you to “believe”.
ROFLMOA.
NOAA, BEST, CRU etc etc all use the highly mal-adjusted and tainted GHNC faked data.
I’m sure you are aware of that fact…
… so yet again, making a deliberately deceitful and LYING post.
My analysis is the series represented by the heavy black line. It was made using GHCN raw and applies no adjustments to the data whatsoever. I show it compared to the other indexes to illustrate the consistency between them all.
Nobody gives a stuff about your analysis.
You have proven time and time again you are a mathematical moron !
Nobody gives a stuff about your analysis.
You have proven time and time again you are a mathematical moron !
And everybody knows that the surface data is massively corrupted and warmed by urban expansion and densification.
ANY fabrication that uses it is totally unfit for the purpose of comparing temperatures over time.
You need to catch up on the science of UHI,
Summer warming 1895-2023 in U.S. cities exaggerated by 100% from the urban heat island effect
LINK
New paper submission: Urban heat island effects in U.S. summer temperatures, 1880-2015
LINK
This is all fine and well, but the paper has not been published, nor undergone peer review, and is unavailable for us to evaluate. Spencer fails to address the agreement between USCRN and nClimDiv in his blog posts, which alone should cause any serious readers pause. He also does not seem to address the impact of biases other than urbanization (such as time of observation changes, instrument changes, or station moves), nor describe how the adjustments applied to the GHCN adjusted dataset might impact his analysis as a result.
re: ” (1) has not been published, (2) nor undergone peer review, and is (3) unavailable for us to evaluate … (4) in his blog posts”
Your argument would appear prima facie to contain inconsistencies; Point (4) negates points (1) thru (3).
Blog posts are not substitutes for research journal articles and blog comments do not substitute for peer review. But the salient point is that Roy’s blog posts neither detail his full methodology nor his full conclusions, and they do not come close to addressing the issues I raised above. If we had his full manuscript, even unpublished, we might have some basis for critical evaluation, but we do not.
re: “Blog posts are …”
Yawn.
What is it that prevents the assembled (or unassembled) multitude from addressing his points? This isn’t 1980 anymore, and rigid, formal ‘peer review’ has failed more than once AND on more than just a single front on or in science as well.
Again, this isn’t the staid, stagnant environment we had in past decades in ‘the sciences’; Get used to it, this (blogs et al) ARE the ‘new normal’.
As presented, Roy is missing critical components of his analysis. I am generously assuming they are in the manuscript he has submitted for review, but we do not have a copy of the manuscript so can do nought but speculate.
They are not, science is still done in the peer reviewed literature. Blogs are just sometimes useful tools to help laypeople understand some of the science a little better (and sometimes vehicles for misinformation).
re: “They are not, science is still done in the peer reviewed literature.”
You have lost the PR battle on this. A so-called ‘review;’ by friends-of-your-cause is hardly a robust, cross-checked review WHICH is supposed to pick at the piece and find or note the potential cracks or deficiencies, and the clima-strologists are NOT doing that.
Merely verifying the mathematical preciseness of a paper which is in turn based on a flawed premise is what – would you still call that science, or call it the synthesis of a fraud?
Is the splicing of tree ring temperature-proxy ‘data’ to adjusted and homogenized USHCN ‘data’ and other world-wide temperature ‘data’ a valid premise for a paper – or no?
I do not care much about the PR aspect, scientists are still publishing their work in the peer reviewed literature, and no scientist who is serious about their field is not doing this. So functionally, whether you like it or not, science is still done in the refereed literature.
Having had my own work completely ripped to shreds by “friends of my cause”, with every crack or deficiency so carefully dissected and picked apart you can only conclude the reviewer found sadistic pleasure in the act, I can call bullshit on this one.
This isn’t the premise of any paper I’m aware of.
Your own work would be shoddy, slap-together garbage… at best !!
You do know that “peer-review” is only for journal publication.
ie… does the journal want to publish it. !
Irrelevant to scientific accuracy.
“science is still done in the peer reviewed literature”
WRONG…. propaganda is done in pal-review literature. !
Another EMPTY and meaningless post from AlanJ.
How do you manage to type so much .. with ZERO content !!
HA HA HA HA HA does this mean you will stop taking the claims of realclimate website seriously after all it is drumroll……… BLOG!
You are full of evasion baloney………
It’s a rather big leap to go from “blogs are not peer reviewed journals” to “you can’t take anything on a blog seriously.” You’re just being a clown now.
Straight man.. as opposed to your emulation of low-level slap-stick farce.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
How stupid do you want to be after all you denigrated a website because it is a blog now when I point out that realclimate is a blog you suddenly sputter nonsense because you are a source bigot
Give it up Alan no one here thinks you are worth the time decoding your red herrings and your commonly shallow math approaches.
Over and over in this thread you make clear you don’t understand Dr. Spencer’s work at all.
Nowhere did I denigrate Spencer’s blog. I said blog posts do not constitute peer reviewed scientific research articles, a sentiment which Spencer himself would seem to agree with, given that he submitted his paper to a journal for peer review.
If I’m not worth your time then stop spending so much of it with me.
You are LYING yet again since I never claimed blogs were a place for peer review, while you didn’t even realize that Dr. Spence ANNOUNCED the publication of their paper on his blog which is understandable, but YOU are being a hypocrite since realclimate has done this many times and you are quiet, this is why many here think you are another brainless AGW acolyte who is not consistent or rational in your comments heck I can almost predict which thread you come to clown around in and completely avoid other threads.
FACT: There is NO Hot Spot
FACT: There is NO Positive Feedback Loop.
FACT: There is no evidence that Chmip6 EMISSION scenario models cover all warming/cooling factors know and unknown.
Which is why they are junk science as it is well known that CO2 warm forcing at the 425 ppm level is negligible.
It is my understanding that the USCRN presents unadjusted temperature data (and many other parameters) from the 120 or so climate measuring machines distributed quite uniformly about the Lower 48 US States in locations apart from human activity. I also understand that the nClimDiv adjustment process has been changed to make it agree with USCRN (since USCRN has to be correct, no?) Also, USCRN has only been around since January 2005 and so far, through May, 2024, June is not out yet, shows ~ no change since 2005 to my eye. Unfortunately NOAA doesn’t give us a least squares or such line to compare with other temperature reports and I am too inept to make one myself.
Your understanding is broadly correct, except that nClimDiv is not arbitrarily adjusted to match, it is adjusted to remove biases from the network, and the agreement with USCRN is a byproduct of that. If the two records didn’t align, scientists would indeed re-visit the adjustments being applied to make sure they were working as intended.
USCRN does show a positive trend over its period of record, although I do not know if the trend passes statistical significance tests given the brevity of the series:
Those El Ninos have it.
No warming from 2005-2015, then cooling since the 2016 El Nino to the beginning of the current El Nino
The agreement between USCRN and ClimDiv is because…
…. THEY WANT THEM TO BE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
Why is that so hard for you morons to grasp !!
He doesn’t need to comment on any of those other things.
Combined or singly they mean that the surface data is…
… totally unfit for comparing temperatures over time.
LOL, it is obvious you didn’t read the links I supplied, why not stop LYING instead.
You can see the comments I left on the WUWT post when Roy initially published it.
No-one takes any of your comments as having a single bit of scientific worth.
They are all just alarmist mantra gibberish and lies.
You spend an inordinate amount of time fretting over my comments for someone who thinks they have no worth.
People need to realise that your comments are all part of the AGW scam.
As science or reality goes, they are utterly worthless.
Red herring. That’s not the point of the paper. Dr. Spencer says, “We are using NOAA’s V4 of the GHCN monthly dataset.”. If you have a criticism, make it about the data set he is using.
Another red herring. Dr. Spencer says, “It is interesting that the spatial (inter-station temperature difference) UHI effect is always stronger in the homogenized GHCN data than in the raw version of those data in Fig. 1.”.
Why don’t you criticize what he has done with the data rather than throwing out other uncertainties. If you want to deal in uncertainty why don’t you provide an uncertainty budget that can be used at each station.
Some categories are:
A sample.
“UHI effect is always stronger in the homogenized GHCN data than in the raw version of those data”
Yep, homogenisation, by design, increases warming.
He’s talking about urbanization of the sites, which are shared between nClimDiv and GHCN.
This is exactly what I am referencing, thanks for quoting it. The homogenization doesn’t merely address urbanization, it addresses any discontinuity in the station series (e.g. station moves, instrument changes, TOBs, etc.). TOBs, for instance, imparts a significant cooling trend into the US network, so it is unsurprising that the homogenized series is substantially warmer than the raw data. It is extremely unclear whether Spencer has considered this in his analysis.
TOBS is provable a farcical excuse for introducing more warming.
Of course the homogenisation routines introduce warming.
That is what they is for. !
You have just confirmed exactly what everyone has been saying
Urban temperature sites are totally unfit for the determining temperature change over time.
Manic “adjustments” are needed, which immediately makes anything produced absolutely meaningless.
Give us a paper that confirms a major error in the whole U.S. network for monthly averages. Remember, TOBS really only affects the month in which a time is changed. Once done, there should be little change. The TOBS change also is based on no auto correlation. That is if today is hot, tomorrow will be colder.
The largest problem I have seen is that the biases are in the range of millkelvin. That is, 0.001°. That is with min/max LIG thermometers where readings are integer! What a joke!
Karl, et al., 1986 and many other researches have shown that the time of observation bias can be quite large for US stations, as the shift from PM to AM readings was gradual and systematic across much of the 20th century. Karl et a;. 1986 state that the bias can be as large as 2 degrees C. Menne et al., 2009 show just how large the difference between TOBs adjusted and biased data is for the US:
This is not correct, because for the US, the change in observation times was gradual across the network, imparting a systematic bias toward overcounting cool days (and away from overcounting warm days).
Karl is a rabid alarmist concocting agenda driven non-science.
There is no difference in trend from different time of day reading.
TOBS is just another LIE invented to justify manic adjustments.
As you can see, it accounts for a large proportion of the FAKE warming since 1950.
UHI effects account for most of the rest.
It is correct. The whole concept is based on two days in a row COULD have the same temperature with the second day really having a lower temperature. This would make the entire temperature series warmer and require a “cooling” adjustment to “remove” the bias in the entire prior record. How convenient. Another mathemations’s method to create a long official record.
If TOBS created a real bias, the current record should have been stopped and a new one started. Simple as that. Modifying a recorded measurement in the official record is not ethical.
The concept is based on the idea that resetting the min/max thermometer once per day might cause an overcount of that day’s min/max, which is indisputable. If I reset the thermometer in the afternoon, it will immediately register the same “high” temperature as was present the moment I reset the thermometer. If the next day’s high is lower than the current day’s, the thermometer will count the current day’s high twice. If I reset the thermometer in the morning, the “low” will be set to the current low at the time I reset the thermometer. If the next day’s low is not as low as the current day’s, I will double count the current day’s low.
If, over time, a gradual shift is made from afternoon to morning readings across the entire network, there will be a gradual shift from overcounting warm days to overcounting cool days, and this will indisputably introduce a non-climatic negative trend into the network.
No one is modifying the recorded measurement in the official record.
The official record has the change! That IS exactly modifying the recorded measurement in the official record. When non-experts see the official record they understand and believe that the temperatures that are shown were actually measured. That is propaganda!
I understand exactly what the issue is. What you describe for max temps is more likely to occur when moving from summer to winter.
It is why the temperatures from the past are not fit for the purpose for which you are putting them. Those records should be stopped and not used. Trends using them have a very high uncertainty. Doing a long term “adjustment” is creating information.
The official record is held by the meteorological agency overseeing the observing network in the country from which the record originated. NOAA acts as a data steward and archives copies of these records, and they provide both a dataset comprised of the raw, unadjusted station records (GHCN raw) and a bias adjusted version, both of which can be freely downloaded by anyone.
seasonality doesn’t impart a long term non-climatic bias into the network. If the seasons are changing over time, that is climate change.
That shows the value of having good metadata (e.g. the time of the observation), n’est ce pas?
Is this a USA-specific problem? AFAIK, Australian recordings were taken at 9am local time.
I am not familiar with the history of observing practices in Australia, but in the US, COOP volunteers were directed to switch from taking afternoon readings to morning readings to allow for better precipitation measurements (i.e. to minimize evaporative loss). This practice was gradually implemented across the network over many years during the 20th century, and resulted in a pronounced time of observation bias in the US network.
One would hope that the time of the reading was logged as well as the readings themselves.
That should give a definitive per-site transition/step change.
This could be readily incorporated when rekeying (more likely scan + OCR) the paper records into the digital records.
It is a major lost opportunity and source of uncertainty if that information wasn’t recorded 🙁
The time of observation is recorded, this is an example of a coop observation form:
Excellent. The step change is known for every US site, so algorithmic adjustments over a multi-year period aren’t required.
Even better, it allows statistical comparison of neighbouring sites to quantify the effect.
Do you (or others here) have cites for the papers?
The timing of the change is known, but the magnitude of the impact can only be determined analytically. However, because TOBs shows up as a step change in difference series between a station and its neighbors, as you note, an explicit adjustment for it is no longer required, since TOBs is effectively dealt with via pairwise homogenization (this is how BEST deals with TOBs). However, explicit methods for identifying and addressing TOBs are still used by some orgs, and you can see Karl et al. 1986 for an introduction to the process.
Is this the Karl et al paper? https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/25/2/1520-0450_1986_025_0145_amtett_2_0_co_2.xml
It is, yes.
Thanks. I’m not very far into it yet. The end of month temperature bias adjustment (equation 1) is “interesting”, to say the least 🙂
They do like their spherical cows, don’t they (Fig2, Table 2)?
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!
nClimDiv agrees with USCRN, because that is what they what it to do.
It is absolutely no mystery !
Just fakery.
https://x.com/orwell2022/status/1810294073003041140?t=_ucySolZwy04xqHTukoLNg&s=19
This fellow has developed a system of investigating the urbanization growth around weather stations.
What Hokum. If UHI is included in a temperature database, that is a built in warming bias for determining CO2 caused warming. That bias destroys any correlation between temperature and CO2.
If anomalies are considered accurate to 1500 km then few stations are needed to see what is occurring. Observing individual local trends should reveal hockey sticks similar to the globe.
Here are two rural state’s average temperatures from NOAA. Explain exactly where CO2 warming has generated a hockey stick in either.
The purpose of a temperature database is to provide temperature observations, not to generate a correlation between temperature and CO2.
you’ve presented two time series that appear to exhibit warming trends, you might want to cherry pick more carefully.
re: “you’ve presented two time series that appear to exhibit warming trends, you might want to cherry pick more carefully.”
Where do you see a warming trend? Be specific, please. I’ve an eye for ‘grading’ plots like this for trends, and I don’t see a warming, nor a cooling trend. A more accurate numerical means of evaluating a trend is needed beyond your or my Mark II eyeballs. (Actually, I’m on a pair of Mark III eyeballs, after having had cataract surgery a few years back.)
Here’s where I see a warming trend:
Plotted as the anomaly makes it even clearer:
I just downloaded the data from your source and plotted it in Excel, feel free to verify it yourself.
But as usual, you miss analyzing why you calculate what you do.
Winter temps are where the increas is.
Look at your first graph. Do you see more 80°F temps in the 2020’s than at 1900’s?
Now look at the winter temps. Do you see as many -10 temps in the 2020’s as in the 1900’s.
You tell me what makes your regression show an increase, winter or summer?
Do you realize that the increase in winter temps does several things? How about less energy in heating? How about less winter kill on the hard winter wheat fields? How about fewer deaths?
Do you see why I say you are more interested in the math than in diving into why you are seeing what is physically occurring?
You might like to look for some empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
Total FAILURE so far. !
🤡
You must be joking. If you think that 2024 summer temps are vastly different than the start of either states temperatures you are blind!
If there is any warming it is in the winter months temperatures. If that is what you are calling global warming it should be no wonder to you why more and more people think CAGW is a scam and place it low on their concerns!
Or course urban areas need to be sampled- but because they are urban, they heat up and contribute to rising temperatures. If nothing else, we can conclude that CO2 isn’t the entire cause of warming. And of course UHI is one variable we know about- while many more are unknown. Time to stop thinking it’s all about CO2. Yet, anyone who says it’s not all about carbon is called a denier.
Both of your points are not only silly, but dishonest.
Re. 1, if a surface station is affected by bias from any issue, it should simply be eliminated from any attempt to measure ‘climate change’, because there’s absolutely no way to accurately determine or eliminate the bias.
Re. 2, yes, urban areas are part of the global land surface, but so what? Presumably, if you are really making an honest attempt to ascertain the effect of (repeat after me) mankind’s well-mixed CO2 emissions on surface temperatures, you would only look at pristine rural stations that have not been corrupted by UHIE.
If you were at all honest, you’d admit that given the existence of unbiased, pristine and well-sited stations, the ONLY ‘utility’ obtained through ‘adjustment’ and ‘homogenization’ of biased stations is to corrupt the former.
Your point 1 is unsubstantiated conjecture. Research has shown that adjustments effectively remove systematic bias from the surface station network (see, e.g. Menne et al. 2009, or the comparison between USCRN and nClimDiv I presented above).
To your point 2, all that scientists are trying to do by compiling a surface temperature index is to produce observations of how the climate is changing. Determining the cause(s) of the observed change is a separate effort.
You use of the intentional matching of ClimDiv to USCRN is not proof of anything except that they have the “adjustment parameters” somewhere near correct
It is not “removing UHI bias” it is “adjusting” to a known value after the fact.
A simpleton could do that.
The surface data is TOTALLY UNFIT FOR PURPOSE when it comes to figuring out temperature change over time.
‘Research has shown that adjustments effectively remove systematic bias from the surface station network…’
Nonsense. Again, why bother when one could simply analyze data from untainted sites to determine temperature trends over time? Are there not a sufficient number of these sites? Or is it just a ‘problem’ that the temperature trends determined from many of these sites do not support climate alarmism?
‘…all that scientists are trying to do by compiling a surface temperature index is to produce observations of how the climate is changing.’
Nonsense. Data from untainted sites constitutes ‘observations’. Compiling an ‘index’, especially if it includes observations from tainted sites, is a contrivance and dishonest.
‘Determining the cause(s) of the observed change is a separate effort.’
This is dishonest. Climate alarmists have long theorized that human emissions of CO2 will increase surface temperatures. Compiling indices using data from sites tainted by UHIE is a necessary step to ‘support’ their theory given a substantial number of untainted sites that do not show warming.
Systematic bias does not necessarily arise from “taint” in the station record, most often it arises from change in the composition of the whole network over time, and this cannot be easily reduced by simply carefully choosing stations. Thus, the ideal approach is to identify and remove the systematic bias from the network.
This sentiment is trite and pointless. There is nothing dishonest about performing an analysis and presenting the results of that analysis along with your methodology. There is nothing “contrived” about attempting to separate the climate and non-climate signals from a station network containing both, in fact it is the fundamental aim of any effort to use historical data for long term climate monitoring.
Ocean temperatures and satellite observations show warming.
Ocean temperature and satellite show warming ONLY from NATURAL events.
There is no evidence or rational science of human causation in either.
The separation of UHI from any natural warming is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY CONTRIVED.
The fundamental aim is to adjust urban temperature data to fit the AGW narrative.
You know that. !!!
Everyone knows that.
Pretending otherwise is a complete FARCE.
The ideal approach is to identify and REMOVE any bias at the time of measurement. If it is caused by a physical change, i.e., a “different device” in repeatable measurement uncertainty terms, an entirely new record should be started.
Your whole argument is based on making the official temperature records appear to be a continuous long record from 1850 to present. That is not an adequate excuse for the change in the official recorded temperatures. If individual researchers wish to do that in their studies, it is their decision and each must show the methods used and the uncertainties involved.
You need to tell everyone (and probably even yourself) WHY you want the official recorded temperatures to be changed.
The bias wasn’t known at the time of measurement, because the bias is arising due to changes in the composition of the observing network over time. “Starting new records” as you prescribe would not alter the situation at all, the same work would have to be done either way. All it does is just modify labels.
No, it’s about making the network as a whole homogenous through space and time.
Complete garbage from AlanJ, as usual.
Urban areas take up about 2-4% of land surface, and a massively disproportionate proportion of the surface thermometers.
Homogenisations more often than not alters the non-urban data far more than the urban data, creating spurious warming in the rural data.
Do you actually believe this bilge you pump out? Or is this all just an act?
How are they adjusted? Separating out the UHI effect at a specific location seems difficult.
They are adjusted via pairwise comparison of each station record with all of its neighbors. If a discontinuity can be positively identified (either as a sudden jump or a gradual trend divergence), then an adjustment is performed to bring the record more into line with the neighboring stations. This is an automated algorithm that seeks to apply a set of mathematical rules consistently to all stations in the network. You can read more about how it works (along with proof that it does work) here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/7/2008jcli2263.1.xml
And it a totally BOGUS way of introducing warming trends where none existed before.
As you say.. it is all just computer gaming to bring rural stations into line with urban stations.
This is what must happen if urban stations out-weigh rural sites… which they do by a large number.
Thanks for showing that it is all just FAKERY !!
It’s easy enough to compare UAH_TLT’s estimate of temperature change in the US (USA48, here) against both ClimDiv and USCRN over their joint period of measurements, since 2005.
Both those above sources use the 1991-2020 anomaly base period but you will have to use the deg. C option in the ClimDiv/USCRN table and transfer it to a spreadsheet; the CSV they supply only does F.
You may be surprised (and probably a bit upset) to know that ClimDiv and UAH have an identical warming rate since 2005, both +0.31C per decade; whereas the ‘pristine’ USCRN is warming a little faster than that, at +0.38C per decade.
Having previously sung the praises of the UAH data, would you care to comment on these observations?
Thank you.
TFN
As somebody who spent most of his life living on the Canadian praries I always looked with wonder at folks living in Phoenix, how could they stand it, but yet the presence of so many folks says it must be a reasonable place to live. People gravitate to heat – that is a fact, so I don’t feel any need to worry.
They have water from the Colorado. It could be worse.
One word explanation: Acclimatization. I grew up in an area that hardly ever got up to 90°F in the summer, snowed plenty in the winter. Back in the 1990s while attending school in Phoenix, I thought I’d never stay in such a hot area. Without divulging what hot area of the country I live in now, I’ll simply note that I later began working in an open garage door facility with barely adequate swamp cooler relief, my car’s air conditioner stopped working, and my wages were so low that I couldn’t afford to have it fixed and had to accept a higher temp A/C setting at my apartment to keep the electricity bills down. Did that for more than two decades. Ya get used to it. These days in a different hot area, I now turn on the heat for any temp going below 74°F, and I think about putting on a long sleeve shirt for any temp below 80°F. 110°F is annoying — yeah — but to me these days, anything below 60°F is downright irritating.
Same for me. Been in 50 below and 72 hours of nothing warmer than -22. I will take yesterdays 110 plus over that any day of the week. Yesterday evening was nice to be out at 110.
Second that – I’ve lived in -20F, and +105F. Prefer warm to cold.
And generations upon generation have lived in that 105F every summer.
re: “As somebody who spent most of his life living on the Canadian praries I always looked with wonder at folks living in Phoenix, how could they stand it,”
.
Well, it can be explained (in short form) as it being a dry heat. A low RH/a dew point of 60 deg or lower makes sweating much more effective and such an environment is a more pleasant human experience.
it’s as if an entire generation never walked outside barefoot
Barefoot walking speed could be a good temperature proxy.
It’s hot, damn hot.
So hot you could do a bit of crotchpot cooking
Didn’t Obama’s Secretary of Energy once say we could just paint our roofs white?
Yes, but the flaw in that simple scheme is that there’s no way to skim money off of it.
Unless you are the one selling the white paint.
Isn’t that the same guy who didn’t drive but wanted gas prices to rise to the level of Europe’s?
O’biden’s almost there!
White roofs?
That would be RAAAACISST!!
“Bermuda roofs are made of limestone, which is white in colour. In the past, lime mortar was used; however these days, roofs are painted with a lime-based whitewash.”
I used to live in Bermuda and all the roofs are white. Must be the most racist place in the world.
Back in the 1960s, where I lived, car owners used to spray-paint the roofs of their cars white to avoid being cremated on hot sunny days.
Of course, no aircon in cars back in those days.
Also, we weren’t subjected to a constant bombardment of wokeism where every thought, word and deed was scrutinized for overtones of raaacism!
During the time I was there they repaved the roads and of course painted the center lines. That summer the pavement got so hot it started to melt and the center lines got all wavey.
For those that have never been Bermuda roads are very curvy and hilly so the pavement looked like squiggles in some places going around corners on hills.
The left will want rainbow roofs.
and they’re welcome to them.
(might be a sizable loss of property value though 🙁 )
Many cities have ordinances against that. A good friend of mine, who taught environmental studies at San Jose State University, had to get an exemption from the city to paint the roof of his demonstration home white.
Yet the politicians in the city still want to ban anything that isn’t electric.
Not in our HOA.
Will a solar panel still work if it’s painted white?
I was on an IT project during July – September in Scottsdale in ’98.
I remember seeing motorcycles parked on asphalt with wood under the kick stands. The purpose is to prevent the kick stands from getting sucked in to asphalt when in softens in the heat.
The lucky riders had their rides fall over.
The unlucky ones came back when the asphalt re-hardened and had a heck of a time getting pried out.
I also remember Shy Harbor airport closing because of the heat. Somewhere between 120 – 125f/49 – 52c, planes at the time weren’t certified to generate enough lift for the run ways to take off safely.
So, yes, it gets hot in Phoenix.
Just because we are more aware of the temps and impacts doesn’t make it worse than it’s ever been.
After all, I was a lot more content before I knew I was supposed to be miserable!
It is unprecedented. (Have you noticed that we don’t hear that word very much anymore – maybe it was overused?)
“It is hard to think of a worse place to measure temperature trends.”
Well yes, if you are an actual scientist.
OTOH, if you are an alarmist looking for more authoritarian control over other people’s lives … then it is the perfect place to measure temperature trends.
Samuel Clemens was right, SF 68° & Portland 104° today.
Article says:”…asphalt absorbs 95% of the sun’s radiation.”
The article tells what causes the problem then turns around and says climate change. Painting everything white will help alleviate the problem.
I lived one year in Phoenix. Worst decade of my life.
You don’t like swimming in your backyard pool when the water temperature is 104 deg F?
Things “grow” quickly in water at that temperature. !
And like most airports, when it was opened, it was surrounded by undeveloped land.
I live in Mesa about 20 miles from Sky Harbor, last summer I went out with my point and measure cooking thermometer and check the temp of the asphalt in front of my house 160 degrees, the concrete was on about 140. There a reason why we dog owner tell other dog owners not to walk they dogs midday in the summer. The door handles that get sun are wrapped and the Brass Minor and his burro have a warning about burns on at the Superstition Springs shopping center. Yes Sky Harbor is a poor place to try to tell something something about climate since fifty years ago the Phoenix metro area had less than a million people Mesa Scottsdale and Tempe we not attached to Phoenix. Now were are at five million, mesa itself is over six hundred thousand. Now if I drive west it 70 miles before I get past Buckeye and that where the houses end and the desert remains desert, east it 20 miles for that to happen. If you were to drive from North to south you have over 50 miles of city and Sky Harbor is nearly in the Middle of all of that. The only thing the Sky Harbor will tell you anything about climate is UHI if you want to do some serious study.
Several times I’ve hiked the White Tank Mountain loop west of the city when I was visiting my Mom in Sun City. It’s a pleasant ten mile hile in the winter and tolerable with a half galon of water in the spring and fall. It’s not something I’d try in the summer.
The whole population of greater metro Phoenix is dependent on water diversions and heavy fuel use for AC in summer. It’s one of the places on earth where for half of the year, you aren’t supposed to be there. Not unless you’re an ocotillo cactus or a lizard.
The thermometer at the airport should reflect the actual temperature including UHI if any. The pilots need to know.
But for input into “climate science” models? In my role as a teacher of computer modeling I balk at claiming a model of a chaotic system can be predictive 50-years out. Each data point for climate change is about a century weighted moving average. Like weather, climate change is a local phenomenon. There are various climates around the globe and they change very slowly. Except when they change quickly due to an asteroid strike, the Sun going micro-nova, earthquakes, and other huge catastrophes in the unknown unknown category.
I suppose it matters little in the long run. Our hubris to think mankind controls the climate change is collective stupidity. A madness of a crowd. This mind infection will take more like this site to cure. Freedom of speech required.
I just check the forecast for Mesa AZ, if the forecast is right it will be cooling to below 110 next Sunday. It should be back to the normal temperature of 107. sometime between I have to mow the HOA dog park grass, it should not be to bad at around 110. The only question will the mowers lithium batteries over heat, I know I will be fine, soaked but fine.
A weather group on Reddit is going nuts over this, proclaiming climate change. I attempted to explain UHI, NOAA’s 70% poorly sited USCHN weather stations, NASA’s research that a single building affects temperatures up to 600 feet away.
Arguing on reddit? I’d rather smash my brains out with a gold brick wrapped in lemon slices.
“It is hard to think of a worse place to measure temperature trends.”
Perfect if you’re a climatista!
Here’s a 2023 image from Google Earth. What all that grey stuff around the heat measurement site ?
Ground-up tire ‘gravel’ (like used on some kids playgrounds)? Kidding.
Probably aged asphalt.
“Surprisingly, the hottest land surface temperature within Phoenix was recorded not on a street or sidewalk but at Sky Harbor International Airport“. The fact that it surprised this writer shows how ignorant she is.
I live in Scottsdale, which is basically part of the huge Phoenix area. It hasn’t topped 115 F here. At 15-20% humidity that’s quite comfortable for short periods. Everywhere is air conditioned so it’s only dangerous if you are homeless or hiking with adequate preparation. At night, it’s really nice. Our pool is at 91 F — too warm for me but my wife loves it.
I am a fair-skinned guy of Celtic decent so I’m not build for the desert but I limit my exposure in the summer and I’m fine.
typo ?
or hiking without adequate preparation.
I see a lot of old news repeated these days. I remember 75 years ago in Winnipeg when on a 100+ degree day people would try eggs on the sidewalk.
I the 1930s you had yo be careful not to burn burn them 😁
A lot of intelligent people wonder why the temperature is referred to on radio as “at the airport.” I vaguely recall George Carlin asking “who lives at the airport?” (It may have been another comedian.) Ambient temperature is a vital number at airports, alongside barometric pressure. Both are needed to determine the air density on the runway, which in turn dictates the maximum takeoff weight and the length of the takeoff roll. Aircraft are the most weather-sensitive vehicles humanity has ever invented.
“It is hard to think of a worse place to measure temperature trends.”
If, on the other hand, you wish to keep the fear-mongering going:
It is hard to think of a
worsebetter place to measure temperature trends.I’ve been trying to better understand UHI for 30 years now, still far from it. It is affected by many variables including some not routinely recorded and it varies during each day so is hard to pin down. My patchy 40 page Draft is still a Draft because of incomplete story.
Problems abound, some being: 1. Many natural land surfaces are barren rock, especially after the last glacial retreat. Is sun heating these rocks so different to heating man-made concrete or tarmac? 2. What defines “pristine” location temperatures often subtracted from urban temperatures? Is there any common property to identify pristine? Does one pristine place have the same measurement profiles like rate of change of temperature over years, as another pristine place? Answer, no – Pristine candidates vary a lot even when close together, so basically no common properties have been found yet. So subtracting background temperatures from urban depends on which pristine is selected. 3. No doubt UHI exists and is large enough to distort but ways to measure it by an easy general method do not exist yet. Same with general “adjustments” sometimes applied, like night lights – all have fatal flaws that mislead.
Observations from satellites have potential to give adequate answers. Meanwhile, for purposes like temperature averages over regions, the only solution is to avoid including all data within (say) 50 km from any city centre. This is not being done as preferred practice. It should be. Further, re airports, I have yet to see if heat from fuels is significant because weather stations are seldom close enough to aircraft. {Links welcomed.)
Geoff S