NOTE: This will be the last post before we go into MAINTENANCE MODE Wednesday to update WUWT as mentioned this past weekend. – Anthony
I somehow missed this, but I find it very interesting. From the 2018 paper: “Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature” by Frank Lansner*, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen
Abstract
Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.
Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.
We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.
100Frolly writes on X:
Here is an accurate global thermometer dataset – VERY hard to find these days with all the activists altering data. It shows we have only natural variability and ZERO effect from any so-called ‘greenhouse’ gas. Global land temperatures are now LOWER than the 1930’s. Lansner and Pepke Pederson (2018).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Published in Energy & Environment. Of course.
If I’m reading the paper correctly, the authors make no effort to account for sample distribution. This means at the most basic level they are not representing “OAA” and “OAS” stations, but regions in each grouping with the highest concentration of stations. This error should have been caught immediately in peer review.
They also say, “Since we do not expect that temperature adjustments have a bias toward OAS or OAA stations, we do not expect that working with original temperature data will introduce a bias in in the present results when evaluating differences between OSS vs. OAA trends.” This is a massive assumption, with no justification whatsoever offered. The authors could have performed straightforward analysis to verify this. This omission should also not have passed peer review.
The same pattern, with the 1930s,40s being as warm or warmer than the first 2 decades of this century, are found around the globe.
We know the NH had a warmer period around than now in the 1930s,40s, but here is South Africa.. 4 sites
And here is one from South America
I have many such graphs from all over the world, but I have already posted them many times.
Is there any reason to trust adjusted records?
It depends on the recording artist. 😉