Home/BlogAs I spend more time working on a research project, the more time I have to reflect on things that others have simply assumed to be true. And in the process I sometimes have an epiphany than clarifies my thinking on a subject.
As I continue to investigate how to quantify urban heat island (UHI) effects for the purpose of determining the extent to which land surface temperature trends have been spuriously inflated by urbanization effects, there is one recurring theme I find has not been handled well in previously published papers on the subject. I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s so important, it deserves its own (brief) blog post.
It has to do with the common assumption that “urban” thermometer sites experience spurious warming over time, while “rural” sites do not.
Obviously, at any given point in time urban environments are warmer than rural environments, especially at night. And urbanization has increased around temperature monitoring sites over the last 50 to 100 years (and longer). Yet, a number of studies over the years have curiously found that urban and rural sites have very similar temperature trends. This has led investigators to conclude that temperature datasets such as the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), especially after “homogenization”, is largely free of spurious warming effects from urbanization.
But the conclusion is wrong…all it shows is that temperature trends between rural and urban sites are similar… not that those trends are unaffected by urbanization effects.
Instead, studies have demonstrated that the greatest rate of warming as population increases is for nearly-rural sites, not urban. The one-fourth power relationship found by Oke (1973) and others (and which I am also finding in GHCN data in the summer) means that a population density increase from 1 to 10 persons per sq. km (both “rural”) produces more warming than an urban site going from 1,000 to 1,700 persons per sq. km.
Thus, “rural” sites cannot be assumed to be immune to spurious warming from urbanization. This means that studies that have compared “rural” to “urban” temperature trends haven’t really proved anything.
The mistake people have made is to assume that just because urban locations are warmer than rural locations at any given time that they then have a much larger spurious warming impact on trends over time. That is simply not true.
This is an important insight. I’ve always thought that industrialization might be more apt than urbanization. Actual, on the ground rural sites can be quite industrialized, and even engineered deliberately to optimize thermal effects. A plowed field or an unpowered grain elevator will have quite different thermal signature, varying seasonally, from a pasture or a woodlot. A dirt path, gravel, concrete or tarmac paved road are all different from the surrounding countryside, and proximity, and wind direction, will affect instruments.
A calculation or index of topology and land use might be of use, but brings in infinitely more layers of complexity.
“Yet, a number of studies over the years have curiously found that urban and rural sites have very similar temperature trends. This has led investigators to conclude that temperature datasets such as the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), especially after homogenization, is largely free of spurious warming effects from urbanization.
But the conclusion is wrongall it shows is that temperature trends between rural and urban sites are similar not that those trends are unaffected by urbanization effects. ”
Urbanisation creates a temperature difference between the urban average and the average of the adjacent rural areas. If there is an overall warming trend, surely you would expect this to increase both averages equally. This a graph of the two temperature records against time would show a constant difference and the would show a constant gap and the same slope for both lines.
This two adjacent stations, one rural and one urban, with a UHI of 1C might look like this.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2013/to:2023/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2013/to:2023/trend/offset:1.0
And it might not. Your speculation isn’t science.
I’ve put forward a hypothesis. Perhaps you could suggest how to test it.
One can say, up until time we were measuring global temperature from space and measuring the ocean heat content from ocean buoys there was significant inaccuracy in measuring global air temperature- and one factor related to this was inability to accurately measure UHI effects and other local factors effecting the effort to measure global surface air temperature.
For instance the long Central England temperature record could have had various factors effecting it, in terms of getting an idea of changes in global average temperature. And further improvement was add more land areas in the world- and many these site made little effort in terms a proper way to measure global air temperature.
Such bad measurement “allowed” such criminal effort as in denying that Little Ice Age even existed. And permitted the silly idea of measuring global air temperature with tree ring data.
Or if you had reliable temperature record it would discouraged
these “criminals” from trying everything they could to “get rid of the Little Ice Age”. But point is these “professionals” knew it was a poor temperature, and they could adjust it.
This same bad record allow NYT and other corporate media to sell the idea that we were entering an Ice Age.
Which is silly because we had been in Ice Age for millions of years- but what they meant was it going to get colder than the Little Ice Age. Or such fraud can’t happen if you had accurate temperature record- but in 1970’s, we didn’t.
CO2 evenly blankets the earth, the quantum mechanics of a CO2 molecule does not change due to location. There is no way CO2 can explain the differences between the various weather stations, they are all exposed to 410 CO2. The fact that different stations show different warming trends proves that CO2 isn’t the cause.
“The fact that different stations show different warming trends proves that CO2 isnt the cause.”
TOTAL BALONEY
Temperature changes at any weather station are the NET result of many global, regional and local causes of climate change. CO2 is one of many.
And the effect of CO2 is not even. CO2 does not warm most of Antarctica — it cools most of Antarctica because of the permanent temperature inversion there. There are also temporary temperature inversions in the Arctic with the same effect.
Total Baloney? You clearly don’t understand the basics of science and modeling. The back-radiation of CO2 is 1) only 13 to 18 micron LWIR 2) associated with -80 C 3) Constant regardless of location, altitude, latitude, and longitude. In a Y =mX + b Model, CO2 would be the b or constant. Every location on earth is exposed to the identical back-radiation from CO2. N Pole, S Pole, Equator, N Hemi, and S Hemi all face identical changes to their backradiation due to CO2, and because CO2’s back radiation is a log relationship, you have to change CO2 a whole lot to change the back-radiation by a small amount.
At best CO2 could cause a slight parallel shift upward for all stations. There is no way CO2 can explain the large differences in trend between N and S Hemi, N and S Pole, Deserts, Cities and other. CO2 simply can’t explain trend diferentials. If you think it can, please explain how a constant can cause a difference.
Anyway, the real scientific question is what is causing the differentials if it isn’t CO2. That is the real question. BTW, look at NOAA USA Data. The entire USA has shown no warming over the past 140 years. How can the globe be warming and not the USA?
While you are at it, CO2 absorbs 100% of LWIR between 13 and 18 Microns. How does adding more CO2 absorb more than 100%? In reality, and any gas cell will prove this, more CO2 simply lowers the height at which 100% gets absorbed, and that is measured in cms, and is no big deal. If CO2 could actually cause warming, we would be insulating our homes in CO2 filled bubble wrap.
Hey, you’re on to somethingCO2-filled bubble wrap. We could make a fortune.
Well actually that might be exactly how UHI works. CO2 isn’t evenly distributed in the atmosphere at all! It only is if you don’t measure it with high resolution. One of climate sciences biggest sins was to average everything. If you sample CO2 with 1Hz instrumentation and faster you will see amazing detail, especially close to emission sources. If you average it for a few minutes, you won’t.
As people urbanise, air quality goes down. Particulates and aerosol (like smoke) will be more effective insulators than CO2.
Towns could easily create ‘CO2 bubbles’ of smog and pollution over them as the boundary layer traps pollution in. If I’m right, stations with higher average windspeed will show lower UHI. But in my experience, people rarely study wind speed and direction because it’s hard to analyse with other variables. (if the limit of your analytical ability is overlaying wiggly lines!).
Adding more CO2 to the troposphere ALWAYS impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself. The exceptions are locations with temperature inversions: Most of Antarctica at all times, and some of the Arctic at times in the winter.
Why do all weather statins not show this?
Because each weather station is affected by many different natural and manmade causes of temperature changes, including measurement errors and deliberate data tampering.
The temperature change at any specific weather station is the NET result of ALL climate change variables that affect that location.
CO2 is just one of many climate change variables.
Therefore, the temperature at any specific weather station does not have to correlate with the global average CO2 level.
I typed slowly and tried to explain this simoly, so you woulld understand.
But when I read your FALSE statement that the US has not warmed in the past 140 years, I note that you completely reject all temperature compilations. Including the supposedly accurate USCRN, that does show the US warming since it was created in 2005.
By contradicting all measurements of the US average temperature since 1880, with no attempt to prove why they are completely wrong, you have proven yourself to be delusional.
Adding more CO2 to the troposphere ALWAYS impedes Earths ability to cool itself.
100% totally wrong, radiation is by far the fastest way to cool a body, it literally moves at the speed of light.
1) You can only absorb 100% of outgoing LWIR, adding more CO2 doesn’t magnify the amount of outgoing LWIR.
2) At best, at lower altitudes CO2 might lower the level at which 100% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed, currently, it is near 10cm.
3) At higher altitude where the air it thinner, radiation greatly speeds the removal of energy from the atmosphere.
Other points:
1) The entire S Pole area, much of which is literally at sea level, shows absolutely no warming. Simply look at the data Dr. Spencer creates. Some months actually show cooling.
2) Show me any temperature models that adjust for all the exogenous factors impacting individual weather stations. You can’t, so like that BBC reporter that got toasted by Elon, you are making claims you can’t even hope to defend.
3) Once again, to prove your point you would need to have models to acound for all the exogenous factors per measuring statement and then demonstrate that there is a parallel shift for all weather stations. You don’t have that data, you can’t make that claim. You have absolutely no way to tease out the impact of CO2 and the impact of natural factors. Problem is, no one is even looking. They just manufacture warming trends and blame them on CO2. Look at the absurd graphic created by Michael Mann that literally shows a dog leg starting in 1902. Nothing about the trend in CO2 or the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule support a dog leg or sudden rapid trend in temperatures. CO2 has a log impact, not a linear impact, and that is a log DECAY.
4) Until you can prove to me you can account for all the exogenous factors PER STATION your delusional comment is better directed at yourself. You are making claims you have no possible way to prove. I can point to almost every dry and/or cold desert as natural controls for exogenous factors that isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures and guess what? Most show NO WARMING.
4)
“100% totally wrong, radiation is by far the fastest way to cool a body, it literally moves at the speed of light.”
Take two swords and heat them in a brazier until both are glowing red-hot.
Immerse one in a bucket of water, hold the other one in the air.
Now which one is hotter?
richard green…”And the effect of CO2 is not even. CO2 does not warm most of Antarctica it cools most of Antarctica because of the permanent temperature inversion there”.
***
Talk about baloney.
Hey, youre on to somethingCO2-filled bubble wrap. We could make a fortune.
Just think about it. The claim that increasing CO2 by 100ppm can increase the temperature of the entire globe by 1 Degree C is easily proven to be complete nonsense.
CO2 Bubble Wrap Insulation:
400ppm CO2 Baseline Temperature
500ppm CO2 +1 Degree C increase
1,400ppm CO2 +10 Degree C Increase
2,400ppm CO2 +20 Degree C Increase
3,400ppm CO2 +30 Degree C Increase
4,400ppm CO2 +40 Degree C Increase
5,400ppm CO2 +50 Degree C Increase
6,400ppm CO2 +60 Degree C Increase
7,400ppm CO2 +70 Degree C Increase
One could simply create CO2 bubblewrap insulation using 7,400ppm CO2 and you could warm your home to +70 Degree C when it is 0.00 Degree C outside.
If you believe that would work, you will believe anything.
“The claim that increasing CO2 by 100ppm can increase the temperature of the entire globe by 1 Degree C is easily proven to be complete nonsense.”
No one ever made that claim.
It is a strawman argument you invented for the purpose of ridiculing consensus climate science. You told a lie for the sole purpose of refuting it. Shame on you.
You should at least observe that the large increase of atmospheric CO2 since the 1970s has NOT made Antarctica warmer.
While you are entitled to debate te cause, the lack of warming there as CO2 increased remans REALITY.
Below is one logical explanation that is not baloney.
If you want to assert another cause of the lack of Antarctica warming, please do so. The single word “baloney” is not an argument.
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools most of Antarctica
Local weather conditions, altitude to blame for counterintuitive trend
“In a world where most regions are warming because of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), central Antarctica has been cooling slightly in recent years. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 typically trap heat radiated back toward space from the planet’s surface, but large swaths of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (the broad pink mass on the right side of the image) are, on average, actually colder than the upper layers of the atmosphere for much of the yearthe only place on Earth where that’s true.
https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.aad7529/full/sn-antarctca.jpg
When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters. And adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in the short-term triggered even more energy loss from the surface and lower atmosphere there, the team’s climate simulations suggest. The topsy-turvy temperature trend stems, in part, from the region’s high elevation; much of the surface of the ice sheet smothering East Antarctica lies above an elevation of 3000 meters, so it is much colder than it would be at lower altitudes. Moreover, that region often experiences what meteorologists call a temperature inversion, where temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere are cooler than those higher up. For the lower-altitude fringes of the icy continent, and for the rest of the world (even Siberia and Greenland), the greenhouse effect still works as expected.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:
https://www.science.org/content/article/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica
:
The claim that increasing CO2 by 100ppm can increase the temperature of the entire globe by 1 Degree C is easily proven to be complete nonsense.
No one ever made that claim.
It is a strawman argument you invented for the purpose of ridiculing consensus climate science. You told a lie for the sole purpose of refuting it. Shame on you.
I’m pretty sure that almost every climate scientist on the government payroll (not Dr Spencer and a very few others) claims man is responsible for 100% of the extra CO2 and 100% responsible for 100% of the warming. If that is true, a 100 ppm increase in CO2 results in a 1 degree C according to the corrupted data of NOAA and NASA.
Are you now saying that man isn’t responsible for the extra CO2 and accompanied warming? If not, your data shows CO2 increase 100ppm and global temperatures increasing by 1 degree C, or is the Hockeystick a big lie?
This is a further response to CO2 is life although probably not worth my time.
The 50% increase of CO2 since 1850 was entirely (100%) from manmade CO2 emissions.
Nature (oceans, land and plants) have been NET CO2 absorbers, and absorbed perhaps half the manmade CO2 emissions since 1850
The average temperature increased since 1850 by what is claimed to be about +1 degree C. I have great doubts about the accuracy of pre-1920 global averages. But it is safe to assume there was some amount of warming. Not cooling. And those are the only two “choices”.
The open question is how much warming was caused by CO2
The right answer is an unknown amount.
Very unlikely to be zero
Vert unlikely to be 100%
The evidence available shows the increasing greenhouse effect since the 1970s was small and, we know it was harmless. The increase of CO2 since the 1970s is the best explanation for an increasing greenhouse effect since the 1970s (upwelling and downwelling infrared radiation measured with satellites).
Until a few years ago, the IPCC claimed a majority of warming since 1950 was manmade. That is a puzzling claim because there was no warming from 1950 to 1975. And the warming after 1975 probably had CO2 emissions as one cause, but no one knows exactly how much. We only know exactly what CO2 does in a laboratory.
Only in recent years has the IPCC been almost completely dismissed natural causes of climate change.
I have never read anywhere, in the past 25 years, of anyone claiming +100ppm of additional CO2 would cause +1 degree C. of global warming.
You are making up that claim, which is delusional.
UHI is where you find it. Not where you believe it to be.
The question is with all the Oke references in other works. . . .why was the most important paper passed over?
Thanks for your courage and efforts Roy.
It is still too early to plant vegetables in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/ZBJxjxD/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-09-091612.png
https://i.ibb.co/SRQJyjQ/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f072.png
This latest post basically goes back to your first UHI investigations on WUWT all those years ago. You were obviously on the right track back then.
The rainfall on the west coast of North America is not over.
https://i.ibb.co/q1grNk1/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-09-160434.png
https://www.sfchronicle.com/weather/article/california-sierra-snow-melt-fastest-17877951.php?fbclid=IwAR0iv71Hf3-JdQOi_f3b1-MaELBXC2TmUhSyYZXdqjz1xkJQzqKIm7dIcE0
The aggregate UHI is one thing that calls into question the validity of any climate model built on the assumption that greenhouse gassed are driving a global warming trend.
While all computer models of chaotic dynamical systems (esp. ones likely to have unknown and therefore necessarily unmodelled inputs) are rubbish for long-term prediction, it would be interesting to see what a model that properly accounts for aggregate UHI, deposition of soot and other light absorbing particulates on the cryosphere, greenhouse gas emission, the Svensmark effect and (of course) other well-known natural climate cycles would look like. In particular how much of the warming we’ve seen would it actually attribute to greenhouse gasses? How much to each of the other inputs listed?
I personally have a suspicion that a lot of the warming is anthropogenic, but that it’s largely via aggregate UHI and particulates changing the albedo of the cryosphere, rather than greenhouse gasses.
I don’t know if it can be put to good use, but the UHI has a “fingerprint” so to say. As it is predominantly warming summer nights, it should be possible to identify it independently of an overall warming trend. Eventually, with a statistical approach, this could help to split up warming between UHI and the overall trend.
Measurements from semi-urban areas should be averaged from several stations around cities. Measurements in the urban zone should not be taken into account. The troposphere is so thin that in the absence of water vapor in the air, concrete surfaces can absorb most of the solar radiation.
Palmowski
Here is GISS’ previous explanation we could find on the page
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
” One of the improvements introduced in 1998 was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming:
The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas. ”
I found it using the Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210101010155/https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Today it is, like all other infos, absent from the page, which now contains only data references.
*
However, it seems that according to the eternal Skeptics, UHI is ‘everywhere’, even in rural corners.
Perhaps rural/urban changes are driven more by changes in water and drainage which is almost universal.
RLH
Perhaps its the fact that vegetation is removed from the surface and water transpiration which would give the cooling effect is reduced. This would be most effective early evening when excess water is lost as the photosynthesis drops off.
the larger effect on rural locations is simply because no matter how many more people you add to a city you cannot pave over what has already been paved over.
Clearly, a temperature measuring site has to have some amount of development, even if that is just a farm house or barn. Has anyone every put a data collection station in the middle of a forest or corn field?
Apt question.
Tim S
Sorry, no: this is not an ‘apt question’.
Because – as Roy Spencer tries to explain since months – the world dramatically changes, due to population and correlated built-up increases.
A simple example: in the good old GHCN V3 worldwide station set (deprecated since around 2018), consisting of 7280 stations, 1336 contain the word ‘CROPS’ in their metadata.
But… These attributes were introduced for these stations at the time they entered the station set, and possibly never updated.
In 20 years the least, the most pristine US stations belonging to the USCRN station set might well be invaded by newer built-up, possibly even those located ‘in the middle of nowhere’, like
26563 60.7237 -150.4484 86.0 AK_Kenai_29_ENE
https://www.google.com/maps/place/60%C2%B043'25.3%22N+150%C2%B026'54.2%22W/@60.7237,-151.5690054,242545m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d60.7237!4d-150.4484?hl=en
And your explanation (other than specific site issues) for the difference in the USCRN ‘paired’ sites is….?
Blindsley Hood
Again, your bossy, opinionated blah blah about one and only one of these pairs.
You have been shown last year already how ridiculously small the effect has been in space and time, but you can’t stop pointing to this minuscule effect.
As I noted in the previous thread, you obviously only remember things written by others when what they wrote fits your personal narrative. Otherwise you silently ‘forget’ them.
*
Best of all, while you’re trying to come across as a data processing expert, you just can’t show that tiny effect on the blog.
Instead, you insinuate things you can’t (and won’t ) prove.
*
Let’s have a closer look at the huuuuge difference.
The USCRN pair in question is Kingston:
54796 41.4911 -71.5413 35.1 RI_Kingston_1_NW ‘Plains’
54797 41.4782 -71.5417 32.3 RI_Kingston_1_W ‘Peckham Road’
The distance between the paired stations is 1.44 km.
I stopped downloading USCRN in Jun 2021. What should differ more since then?
Here is the graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cu2DIG-O4tCNt-Q6roRBL4QHN0rc7hlJ/view
The maximal difference during the period 2001-2022 is 4.89 C; as the next lower maximum is 1.34 and the median diff is 0.18, it is clear that the difference you are talking about is an outlier.
*
A propos: I recall to have invited you to do the very same job for the other USCRN pairs.
And? Did you do the job, Blindsley Hood?
I was waiting for you to explain (other than specific site issues) for the differences in the USCRN paired sites is?
All you did was observe that there was differences. Kinda makes the difference between ALL sites more than just extrapolating between the figures you get in each site and make any infilling more than just mathematics.
Looks like there is a great deal of uncertainty in there as well.
P.S. See this blog for the known differences between USCRN and USHCN.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/spurious-warmth-in-noaas-ushcn-from-comparison-to-uscrn/
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/130984.pdf
“One of the new levels of knowledge that has come from having three separately housed and power aspirated CRN thermometers is that their sensed temperatures depart from each other for minutes or sometimes a couple of hours as the relative humidity decreases from a saturated (100%) condition. This differential or separation phenomenon is caused by the unequal rate of evaporational cooling of the moisture collected on the temperature sensors during a fog
condition or saturated state. The graph in Figure 2 shows the reported 5-minute temperatures from each of the three thermometers.”
It was James Hansen who first proposed satellite measurement. Why is there so much resistance to it today? It is pure science without the need for statistical gymnastics. If the current administration at NASA GISS does not like the way calibration drift is accommodated, they certainly have the resources to improve on the work done by UAH, but they make no effort. Why? Could it be that satellite data shows the true story and UAH has a better program than RSS? Why do people put so much effort into making surface observation data sets? Do they prefer something with an inherent error that can be manipulated?
Blindsley Hood
Now you become as so often either dishonest or stubborn – or both.
1. The distance between the paired stations is 1.44 km.
2. The maximal difference during the period 2001-2022 is 4.89 C; as the next lower maximum is 1.34 and the median diff is 0.18.
1.44 km distance between two stations, and you expect a median monthly difference between them being less than 0.18 C?
What explanations do you need here?
Are you kidding us? Or simply so opinionated that you try to deny reality?
*
3. A propos: I recall to have invited you to do the very same job for the other USCRN pairs.
And? Did you do the job, Blindsley Hood?
1. ” P.S. See this blog for the known differences between USCRN and USHCN. ”
What is the sense of talking here about USHCN?
*
And what did you want to tell us with this USCRN paper?
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/130984.pdf
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/us-historical-climatology-network
USHCN
The point was that there is an observed difference over just 1.44km and yet simple interpolation (without an uncertainty) is used over 100s of km. This matters not how you do this maths.
See THIS blog (a few years ago).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/spurious-warmth-in-noaas-ushcn-from-comparison-to-uscrn/
Blindsley Hood
I close this discussion until the moment you show results of own work, instead of boasting superficial blah blah.
You have not a bit of an idea of how e.g. Met Office treats uncertainties, but throw a completely ridiculous
” … and yet simple interpolation (without an uncertainty) is used over 100s of km “.
You are and will always be a perverted, sissyish lover of unproven insinuations.
I don’t like such people.
And I don’t like you. You assume hat I am unable to do simple statistical analysis of the 14 stations in question. Things take time, a lot longer than just posting to a blog. As I said, a central statistic alone says NOTHING about uncertainty at all.
I bet Blinny didn’t even read
“One of the new levels of knowledge that has come from having three separately housed and power aspirated CRN thermometers is that their sensed temperatures depart from each other for minutes or sometimes a couple of hours as the relative humidity decreases from a saturated (100%) condition. This differential or separation phenomenon is caused by the unequal rate of evaporational cooling of the moisture collected on the temperature sensors during a fog
condition or saturated state. The graph in Figure 2 shows the reported 5-minute temperatures from each of the three thermometers.”
which essentially says that even the USCRN ‘accuracy’ is not absolute.
I think the point is that every thermometer is located where people can read it, or in the modern world connect it to the internet. So the important question is how to account for growth in different environments. It seems plausible that a rural post office with dirt roads would experience a bigger impact from new paved roads and parking lots than an area that is already developed. It is also possible that farming and ranching practices over the years may have evolved to cause more warming.
See the above question for Blinny. If the difference between USCRN paired sites is so great, why should you just use simple extrapolation to infill between the sites that you do have?
” If the difference between USCRN paired sites is so great… ”
Where are the numbers about your claim, Blindsley Hood?
And where is your software engineering work doing the same as
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cu2DIG-O4tCNt-Q6roRBL4QHN0rc7hlJ/view
for the other USCRN pairs?
Well the data would be much more significant if you did not include the irrelevant approximate 27 degrees C full range data but only showed the differences. Are you claiming that the differences in the other sites is not at least significant or just that you have not done the work?
Why, also, do you use a central statistic (median) rather then the range distribution which is of much more interest as uncertainty is what is under consideration. After all a normal and high/low distribution could have the same central statistics but much different range and uncertainty.
Why does this Blindsley Hood always
– criticize the owrk made by other people
and
– ask to do what they are themselves absolutely unable to, because they lack scientific competence and technical skill?
Stop stalking and trumpeting, Blindsley Hood, and start working!
Richard rightly criticized you because your understanding of science and math are slim to none.
“start working!”
I assume that you are doing the same.
tim s…”It is also possible that farming and ranching practices over the years may have evolved to cause more warming”.
***
Or maybe it’s because we are still re-warming from the 400+ year Little Ice Age.
NASA-GISS has a global UHI adjustment
I studied it in 2019 for an article I wrote on my climate blog.
I found the NASA-GISS UHI adjustment to be very suspicious.
First of all, it was very small — their UHI adjustment would lower the global average temperature only 0.05 degrees C. in a century
I investigated to find out why.
Most people would say economic growth / UHI increases the temperature, so a UHI adjustment should be done to LOWER the measured temperature.
NASA-GISS did not believe that.
They said most of the adjustments for UHI were down, but many were up, offsetting much of the down adjustments.
They are saying for many weather stations the UHI effect was reduced. They did not have any explanation I could find.
My best guess is that moving weather stations from inside towns or cities to airports reduced the UHI. I find it hard to believe being surrounded by tarmac, and hot jet engine exhausts, that the UHI effect declined by much, if at all. Especially as airports became busier over time.
My bottom line was that NASA-GISS wanted to claim they did a UHI adjustment, but wanted it to be so small that it barely mattered.
One of the problems with UHI measurement is the inability to locate urban weather stations, and outside the urban area rural stations, to compare. You want to see if the warming in the city was faster than the warming in the rural area outside the city. There are plenty or urban weather stations with long records, but many rural stations have short, or truncated, data, especially for nations outside the US.
This is the most important point.
Very few of the actual adjustments match the theoretical adjustments in the papers that describe their use.
R Greene
” One of the problems with UHI measurement is the inability to locate urban weather stations, and outside the urban area rural stations, to compare. ”
When I read such a sentence, I have the impression that you just jumped into a discussion which started… here:
Urbanization Effects on GHCN Temperature Trends, Part I: The Urbanization Characteristics of the GHCN Stations
January 14th, 2023
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/
I did a lot of such comparisons, reported e.g. here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-iii-using-population-density-1880-2015/#comment-1462612
*
The major problem, till now somewhat eluded by Roy Spencer, is that when you operate a multiple regression on temperatures and population, it is hard to make a trustworthy distinction between a lower trend due to regional climate in station’s near, and a lower trend due to less local, human-made warming aspects around it.
The only way to bypass this is to analyze the surroundings of the observed stations, by comparing their departures from a common mean.
binny…”The major problem, till now somewhat eluded by Roy Spencer, is that when you operate a multiple regression on temperatures and population, it is hard to make a trustworthy distinction between a lower trend…”
***
I have seen some of your arguments on statistics with Richard (rlh) and you are the last one who should be critiquing Roy’s understanding of statistics.
Robertson
” I have seen some of your arguments on statistics with Richard (rlh) … ”
Firstly, you don’t have a bit of a clue about what Blindsley Hood incorrectly claimed (he has never been able to technically disprove my results).
Secondly, an arrogant twat like you should refrain from stalking me with his completely brazen and dumb stuff.
Here are some infos for you (I could find a lot more when downloading all your egomaniacal comments since beginning into my database) showing the level of your arrogance and ignorance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472342
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472350
*
Why cant you stop posting your superfluous, redundant trash, Robertson?
binny…”Firstly, you dont have a bit of a clue about what Blindsley Hood incorrectly claimed (he has never been able to technically disprove my results)”.
***
I have taken a course in advanced probability and statistics for engineers. I know enough to tell that RLH was right and you are wrong.
“he has never been able to technically disprove my results”
He, Blinny, has not claimed that my results were wrong, just that he had different figures. Using the median (a central statistic) to display a range of uncertainty is just wrong though.
I didn’t read the two prior Spencer articles.
I waited for the part three conclusion.
UHI could not affect 70% of the planet that is water.
But for the 30%. I expected to see an honest analysis or the honest conclusion “we don’t know”.
The NASA GISS UHI adjustment methodology seemed biased to me. And I wrote about it at the link below.
I don’t mind having a network of mainly rural weather stations like NOAA’s USCRN. But there can be economic growth near those stations too. recalled that Dr. Spencer wrote about UHI affecting rural stations in 2010 and mentioned his article about that in my 2019 report, which is at the link below.
Note that I have a vision disability and typed the 2019 report with an unusual format that made it easier for me to read. It may not look very good on a smart phone:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/urbanization-bias-adjustments-are-tiny.html
“NASA-GISS did not believe that”.
***
Why do you waste your time investigating these charlatans? Steve McIntyre of climateaudit caught them quietly switching 1998 with 1934 as the hottest year in the US historical record. GISS has no business changing historical temperatures to suit their alarmist meme.
When NOAA release their chicanery about 2014 being the hottest year ever, they hid the fact they had claimed it based on a 48% probability of it being true. They were outdone by GISS, who claimed a 38% probability. No serious scientist would ever present a statistic based on a 48 or 38 percent probability.
I investigated NASA-GISS only because no other organization had a global UHI adjustment.
The NASA-GISS adjustment was claimed to be so small that no other organization bothered with their own UHI adjustment.
I found the NASA-GISS adjustment to be very small BECAUSE their methodology was very suspicious.
I expected the global UHI adjustment to be small only because 70% of the planet is water. I didn’t expect it to be that small — like a rounding error.
The “disappearance” of the significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975 is the biggest science fraud in my opinion. Cooling the US in the 1930s to make 1998 the hottest US year was small potatoes science fraud compared with that.
I have always said it is impossible to predict the future climate.
It is also difficult to know the past climate, because the past climate keeps getting revised, or haphazardly measured (pre-satellite data).
Since 1973, when I became a libertarian, my rule of thumb was “never trust the government”: NASA-GISS never disappoints me!
Once more, this ridiculous insinuation wrt 1934 vs. 1998…
Let’s have a look at what Gavin Schmidt wrote in 2007:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
*
1934 and all that
10 Aug 2007 by Gavin
Another week, another ado over nothing.
” Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.
This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.
The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).
There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data [As it existed in Sep 2007]). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant. ”
*
Typical scienceless, pseudo-skeptic ankle-biting by clueless dogs.
The fact that you, Binny, accept such a lame excuse from Schmidt, reveals your abject naivete. That’s why you are an alarmist, you are terminally naive and gullible.
BTW…when Schmidt’s buddy, Michael Mann, had his cheating trick revealed in the Climategate email scandal, Schmidt dismissed it as a misunderstanding. No misunderstanding, Gavin, the trick was devised to hide declining temperatures in proxy data.
As if that was not bad enough, Phil Jones of Had-crut, and a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews, bragged about using Mann’s trick.
How dare you insult dogs !
richard…try to figure out if you re an alarmist or a skeptic.
From your site…” There are NASA-GISS
adjustments to remove
urbanization biases
from station data,
but the net adjustment
is ridiculously small
— roughly 0.05 degrees C.
per century of global warming
is assumed to be caused
by urbanization, and deleted
from the global average”.
That’s about what one might expect from the alarmists at GISS. This is the same GISS who were caught trying to replace 1998 with 1934 as the hottest year in the US. They also proclaimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 38% probability.
GISS is now run by Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician. Engineer Jeffrey Glassman revealed that Schmidt could not explain positive feedback mathematically even though positive feedback is used as a driver of global warming in models. It’s simply not possible to have that kind of PF without an amplifier and there is no amplifier in the atmosphere.
I am definitely not a Climate Howler Global Whiner.
Being one would be embarrassing.
Like being a village i d i o t.
Some conservatives get confused by me because I do not reject 100% of consensus climate science. I reject about 90% (the CAGW fantasy, which is really just a wrong prediction, not science at all).
But I accept most science behind AGW, which I consider to be good news (warmer winter nights in Siberia), and at worst, harmless.
This year I decided to criticize conservatives who deny the greenhouse effect, deny CO2 is part of it, deny AGW (which includes UHI and other variables) and claim manmade CO2 emissions are responsible for only 3% to 5% of the 420ppm CO2m when the correct percentage is about 33%.
I have defended the basic climate science about AGW, and that makes some conservatives angry.
Even if you deny AGW in private, doing that in public is counterproductive. Yu become a leftist fact choker’s dream.
About 99.9% of scientists believe there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it. To change their minds, you’d have to convince 999 of 1000 they are wrong. That will never happen.
But with CAGW, 59% of scientists are believers, per a 2022 poll done by libertarians, who don’t seem to have a climate science bias.
To change their l minds, you would only have to convince 59 of 100 scientists they are wrong. Since CAGW has NEVER happened, and only exists in predictions that have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report, that should be possible to do.
59 out of 100 for CAGW refuting is a much essier target than 999 out of 1000 for AGW refuting.
Note that in 25 years of climate reading, mainly the writings of “skeptic” scientists and authors, 100% of them believed there is a greenhouse effect. I used 99.9% in my comment to be conservative.
There is a greenhouse effect
CO2 is part of it
AGW is real, small, and harmless
But CAGW is leftist propaganda USED TO CREATE FEAR AND CONTROL PEOPLE.
I have a climate science and energy blog, since January 25, 2023, where I recommend up to 20 articles a da by conservative authors that try to refute CAGW, and the Nut Zero response to the imagined CAGW.
It replaced a prior climate science blog. Together, they had over 300,000 page views. I always promote articles by a large variety of conservative authors. Once in a while I write my own climate rap, ranting and raving about leftist climate scaremongering, in the style of Floyd. R. Turbo, a Johnny Carson comic character.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Since 1997 I have advocated for 800ppm CO2 to improve C3 plant growth (85% of all plants).
I voted for Trump in 2020 and think Biden is a far leftist crook, with early dementia. And he was not bright to begin with. I have not voted for any Democrat since 1972, when I voted for McGovern to protest the Vietnam War.
I think that makes me a CAGW skeptic.
But I prefer the term Climate Realist.
How do you pinpoint a historical volcano eruption? Look at medieval writings about the moon, new study says
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/how-do-you-pinpoint-a-historical-volcano-eruption-look-at-medieval-writings-about-the-moon-new-study-says-1.6346738
Linked: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
” One of these was the estimated eruption time of the 1257 eruption of the Samalas volcano in present-day Indonesia, which researchers narrowed down to the spring/summer of that year, countering an argument presented by some experts that it could have happened in 1256.
Another eruption they were able to clarify the date for in this study was narrowed down to occurring between May and August 1171 a very specific time window for an eruption that occurred more than 800 years ago. “
You might read also
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
Sounds a bit more convincing to me…
Interesting in the article linked to by ctvnews:
Lunar eclipses illuminate timing and climate impact of medieval volcanism
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-05751-z/MediaObjects/41586_2023_5751_Fig2_HTML.png?as=webp
I found no reference to an eruption in 1171:
VEI | name | place | year
5 | Billy Mitchell | Bougainville & Solomon Is. | 1030
5 | Shiveluch | Kamchatka | 1034
5 | Lake Mashū | Hokkaidō | 1080
5 | Ubinas | Andes, Central Volcanic Zone | 1082
5 | Hekla | Iceland | 1104
5 | Mount Asama | Honshū | 1108
7 | Mount Samalas | Lombok Island | 1257
5 | Katla | Iceland | 1262
6 | Quilotoa | Andes, Northern Volcanic Zone | 1280
“Ice-core records from Greenland and Antarctica suggest the occurrence of nine low-latitude eruptions dated, according to the NS12011 and WD2014 timescales2,4, to 1108, 1127, 1171, 1191, 1230, 1257, 1260, 1276 and 1286 ce, seven Northern Hemisphere extratropical events (1115, 1137, 1182, 1200, 1210, 1222 and 1262 ce, identified by deposition signals in Greenland only) and four Southern Hemisphere extratropical events (1118, 1180, 1236 and 1269 ce, identified by deposition signals in Antarctica only) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. ”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05751-z
“These dates correspond with five major volcanic eruptions identified from traces of volcanic ash found in polar ice cores in 1108, 1171, 1230, 1257 and 1276. (Of these, only the location of the 1257 eruption is known, at the Samalas volcano on the Indonesian island of Lombok.) ”
-CNN
CNN link:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/world/medieval-moon-observations-volcanic-eruptions-scn/index.html
{I was having computer problems}.
gb…I hope you landed on the CNN site by accident. Viewing CNN propaganda can cause brain-damage. I don’t view CNN, hence my brain remains undamaged.
The brain-damaged will be along shortly to question my brain health. That’s all they are good for.
But gbaikie… I have read this article.
Now, I suddenly see that while searching yesterday night for ‘volcanic eruption 1171’, I overlooked a link:
Volcanic stratospheric sulfur injections and aerosol optical depth from 500 BCE to 1900 CE
Matthew Toohey and Michael Sigl (2017)
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/9/809/2017/essd-9-809-2017.pdf
You see the 1171 guy in Fig. 3 (page 819), in Fig. 5 (820) and in Table 2 (822).
Its location seems to be, like for many others, still unknown.
With a stratospheric sulfur intection of 13/18 Tg, it should actually have been in the list I posted yesterday: that is at least VEI 5.
It’s unknown, now- except ice core and observational notes of monks and what not, of the Moon. But seems a good chance they find it, though it could be impactor, rather than volcanic explosion.
1171 is referenced here…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05751-z
“Their estimated eruption years are 1108 ce (UE1; in which UE stands for unidentified eruption; see Methods), 1171 ce (UE2), 1182 ce (UE3), 1230 ce (UE4), 1257 ce (Samalas), 1276 ce (UE5) and 1286 ce (UE6). We consider these events along with 13 lesser HMP eruptions and seek to confirm or refine the existing estimates of eruption year and season and to discriminate between tropospheric and stratospheric aerosol veils”.
Robertson
Once more you show how completely brain-damaged you behave – even though keeping away from CNN. Truth Social very certainly damages a lot more.
*
You egomaniacally jump into a discussion – without having a clue of what it is about – with a link to exactly that article gbaikie pointed to in his comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/classifying-land-temperature-stations-as-either-urban-or-rural-in-uhi-studies-proves-nothing-about-spurious-temperature-trends/#comment-1472395
*
What you of course did not understand is that I was looking for articles proving the claim by Guillet & al. about the existence of deposits in Antarctica and Greenland, because 1171 was listed nowhere in large CE eruptions tables.
*
You are simply boring, Robertson. No one on this blog – except the other pseudo-skeptic troll Clint R – is as superficial as you are.
Why can’t you stop posting your superfluous, redundant trash, Robertson?
Sheesh!!! You can’t even be helpful to Binny without being ad hommed.
gb…”How do you pinpoint a historical volcano eruption?”
***
With a lot of guess work and inference???
It reminds me Saddam’s oil fires- did it leave record in polar snow?
Anyhow, I guess it has to a big volcanic event and have signature which matches what in the ice cores.
It seems someone should look that signature, first. And it might limit it, in terms regions of the world.
Of course, also the record also would be anywhere on Earth, as long you can date in with some precision.
But it seems, you start ice core.
All you need is a climate model.
And whatever it says, you have to wave your arms, get hysterical and claim: “It’s worse than worse than we thought”.
That is modern climate “science”
Within three days, cold fronts from the north will attack again in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/w7ZD7CM/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
A tropical storm from the northwest will reach the interior of Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
From Zharkova’s chart, the peak of solar activity in the 24th and 25th solar cycles should be similar. Now there will be a strong decline in the Sun’s magnetic activity until the end of the 26th solar cycle.
https://cfn-live-content-bucket-iop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/journals/0004-637X/795/1/46/revision1/apj501502f2_lr.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAYDKQL6LTV7YY2HIK&Expires=1681917751&Signature=ljrx4AiiQt37vk%2FhbpIqUAh8gkI%3D
“From Zharkovas chart, ….”
It seems to me, Zharkovas chart, says we going to get more active
than the last 18 years, fairly soon, then crash into long period with
lots of spotless day and/or low solar activity or lots of GCR or bad solar weather to go to Mars.
Or in next 6 months will have high solar activity.
Or April goes sideways, May is higher, June, July, August, and Sept
higher, by winter lowering, and 1/2 year later, low and stays low for many years {high GCR, the longer it goes [will break records in low activity].
Solar wind
speed: 388.7 km/sec
density: 2.38 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
Updated 12 Apr 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.9% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.9%
At spaceweather:
—McIntosh and colleagues have studied termination events for many solar cycles, and they have discovered that its timing can predict the future. “Our latest work pinpoints the Termination Event between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 25 at mid-Dec. 2021,” explains McIntosh. “This tells us about the size and date of the next solar maximum.
According to their paper, Solar Max is coming between late 2023 and mid 2024, with a peak total monthly sunspot number of 18463 (95% confidence). This means Solar Cycle 25 could be twice as strong as old Solar Cycle 24, which peaked back in 2009.
I think it starts earlier- Or solar Max peak upon us at June perhaps highest peaks in July- and I would say it’s weaker than Solar Cycle 24 despite having higher sunspot months and/or have black out from flares- in short term one could call it worse than 24.
And it will get even worst for crew going to Mars.
But I doubt it can be predicted, it’s worst than predicting our monthly temperature. But I like guess the monthly UAH temperature, so, ….
gb…”density: 2.38 protons/cm3…”
***
I did not know that protons come in parts. 0.38 of a proton is just a little one.
How about the electrons? How do they tell the protons apart from the electrons and why are the electrons not counted? After all, the solar wind is comprised of electrons and protons.
Maybe it’s measured in terms of cubic inches.
Though instruments cross section probably vary and want express it
in standard form of cubic cm
“How about the electrons?”
Not sure, but I believe they are called charged particles, which suggests the protons lack electrons.
But would is more certain as far as I know, the solar is plasma, meaning electrons aren’t, anchored to a proton. And getting back to maybe, the proton speed can be measured and speed of electron is sort of meaningless or chaotic??
gb…”Not sure, but I believe they are called charged particles, which suggests the protons lack electrons”.
***
I was just kidding. Both are charged particles, the electron carrying a negative charge and the proton a positive charge. The proton has about 1800 times the mass of the electron.
The source of both is hydrogen, which has a proton nucleus and an electron orbiting it, theoretically. The hydrogen atom is obviously stripped of its electron and both get ejected into space at times. That becomes the solar wind. You would not want it to hit you and we are protected on Earth by our magnetic field. When the charged particles encounter it they are diverted but in doing so they induced voltage and currents into our atmosphere, oceans, and solid surface.
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
12.04.2023
SSN (EISN estimate): 133
Solar flux F10.7 observed: 154; URSI: 139
11.04.2023
MgII Bremen: 0.16492
Oulu NC (corrected): 6231
ren…what is the meaning attached to the negative peak of cycle 26 circa 2030? Does Zharkova think it could be as bad as the Little Ice Age?
I think she says it could as bad as 1970’s.
And after it, is a Grand Solar Max- worse then what got in 20th Century- so going to warm back and then, some.
But also she said could extreme winter conditions in cycle 26 {also in 25].
Like most people for most of her life, she wasn’t interest in the global warming religion.
At first she said was going to get quite cold, but obviously she got a lot a flak for saying that- and had to do some homework on this boring topic.
It is certain that major changes are taking place in ozone production and winter circulation in the stratosphere and troposphere at mid-latitudes. Climate change will take many areas of the world by surprise. ENSO will persist in the neutral zone.
yes…but not the climate change many have been expecting.
SOI is already neutral.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
roy…good stuff.
A reason for UHI may have been revealed by R. W. Wood circa 1909. Wood was a world renowned expert on gases and Neils Bohr consulted him about sodium vapour. Bohr, of course, was investigating his quantum theory related to gases and their absorp-tion/emission.
Wood claimed a better explanation for the GHE was the inability of nitrogen and oxygen to release heat they had scavenged from the surface, or perhaps heated structures (my addition). If we are heating the air with our exhausting of heat from heated devices, like car engines, the heat will be absorbed by nitrogen/oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere. Once absorbed, according to the prevalent theory, N2/O2 cannot easily dissipate that heat until the heated air rises to an elevation sufficient for it to dissipate naturally due to a reduction in temperature and pressure.
The energy budget diagram offers a very low number, in w/m^2, for the dissipation of surface heat by such convection and I think they are wrong. N2/O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere whereas CO2 makes up only 0.04%. On each part of the surface globally, where atmospheric gases touch it, they are absorbing heat.
In his article on the GHE, Lindzen claims most of the heat in the Tropics is transported poleward by such convection.
tim s…” If the current administration at NASA GISS does not like the way [satellite] calibration drift is accommodated, they certainly have the resources to improve on the work done by UAH, but they make no effort. Why?”
***
Several reasons…
1)Gavin Schmidt, an uber-alarmist, now head of NASA GISS, has whined in the past about lacking the resources to do an honest assessment of global temperatures.
2)the same Gavin Schmidt runs the uber-alarmist site realclimate with his buddy Michael Mann, who claims to be a Nobelist due to some remote connection he has to the IPCC. John Christy of UAH could make the same claim but John, who has actual experience with the IPCC as a reviewer and a lead author, has an integrity which is seriously missing in Mann’s character.
Over at realclimate, they take every opportunity to denigrate the UAH satellite-based temperature series. They have no interest in honesty and integrity, only in spreading propaganda of anthropogenic warming/climate change.
3)the orbital issues were worked out between UAH and RSS circa 2005. The main error was in the Tropics and it was revealed the error was well within the stated margin of error. Anyone using that argument today against the UAH record is a liar.
Gavin Schmidt posted on RealClimate –
“The SST comparisons have popped up on twitter in the last few months, led by Roy Spencer who didnt point out the obvious bifurcation in models, and then repeated by a number of wannabe contrarians who dont know what they are posting and care even less. Maybe these graphs will be useful for adding some clarity?”
Gavin doesn’t define the “bifurcation”, of course, because some “bifurcations” would place him in the situation of claiming he can peer into the future – ie determine the future state of a fully deterministic chaotic system.
Here’s a quote from a university lecture, about a particular type of bifurcation –
“This bifurcation is often called a blue sky bifurcation because the appearance of equilibria appear out of nowhere.”
I suspect Gavin Schmidt’s “obvious bifurcation” either appears “out of nowhere”, or he pulls it out of his ass.
Gavin admits as much when he writes “Unfortunately, when you have an ensemble that has fifty runs from a single model and then a handful of models with only one or two runs, then its hard to know what’s best.” Solution? Pull an excuse (a bifurcation, perhaps?) out of your backside!
Schmidt and Mann are delusional. When the “models” are shown to disagree with reality, they just keep producing more “ensembles”, until they can point to one which reflects the past!
The atmosphere is chaotic and unpredictable, whether you depend on chaos theory, or quantum electrodynamic theory. Gavin Schmidt grumbles mightily when his “modelling” does not reflect reality. He’s obviously not a big fan of Richard Feynman who said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
No, Gavin, computer models are not “experiments”.
Swenson,
Why do you keep saying stuff like this?
“determine the future state of a fully deterministic chaotic system.”
It only shows that you do not know what you are posting about.
You want people to know you are an ignorant fool?
tim s…”Has anyone every put a data collection station in the middle of a forest or corn field?”
***
I asked a similar question of the official poobahs here in Canada at Environment Canada. It seemed to baffle them, they could not understand why I’d want to put a thermometer on a local mountain at 3500 feet.
The name of Environment Canada was recently changed to Environment and Climate Change Canada. They are quite obviously now a propaganda site for catastrophic climate change propaganda and it doesn’t suit them to place thermometers in locations that are colder. They seem to think that a local mountain top, even though skiers can ski near the top, is not on the planet’s surface, hence not suitable for surface temperatures.
Even though NOAA has over 100,000 temperature stations in their GHCN database, they revealed that they use less than 1500 stations globally to determine their temperature series. Naive people posting here act as apologists for NOAA, claiming it isn’t true, even though NOAA has printed it in black and white. Even NOAA presents a lame excuse, claiming it really doesn’t matter.
No…if you are going to cheat, it doesn’t really matter how it’s done.
“Even though NOAA has over 100,000 temperature stations in their GHCN database, they revealed that they use less than 1500 stations globally to determine their temperature series. ”
What do you regard as the optimum number of stations for determining a global average temperature?
How did you calculate that number?
Entropic man
The Robertson twat didn’t calculate any number: he wouldn’t be able to calculate anything related to weather stations, like any real engineer actually should be.
One more proof that his engineering past (and eventually present) are 100 % invented.
*
What he means is far more perverted: he tries since years to claim that NOAA dropped 4500 of 6000 stations, thus leaving only 1,500 worldwide – as indeed indicated on a document saved into the Wayback Machine in… 2010.
But Robertson the eternal dishonest liar dissimulates each time the fact that on the very same document, NOAA indicated
– to have dropped these stations out of GHCN for technical communication reasons (no automated data transfer)
and
– to have added many partly historical stations until then not available.
*
Also, he belies this blog’s readers by insisting on the fact that NOAA communicated this in 2016 – though it is visible on Wayback that it is in 2016 exactly the same document as in 2010:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
versus
https://web.archive.org/web/20160120200804/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
*
Fact is for anyone like me who had to do with GHCN V3, the successor of GHCN V2 in 2011: V3 herited of V2 exactly 7280 stations worldwide and these did not change until 2018, as it was replaced by the far bigger dataset V4, derived out of the GHCN daily dataset I still used because it is the rawest one.
GHCN V3 contains by the way lots of USHCN stations heavily used since years by… John Christy in person.
*
Robertson is not only a persistent liar: he also never admits being wrong, and always restarts somewhat later the same stories from scratch again – regardless how often he was contradicted.
binny van der klown…”The Robertson twat didnt calculate any number:”
***
Your unwarranted venom reveals a deep underlying psychological issue. It also reveals an ignorant attitude toward Roy when you use vile language to release your inner demons. Roy gives us a great deal of leeway but we also know he has religious convictions which you assault with your vile language.
——-
“… he tries since years to claim that NOAA dropped 4500 of 6000 stations, thus leaving only 1,500 worldwide as indeed indicated on a document saved into the Wayback Machine in 2010”.
***
This reveals your abject ignorance. You admit NOAA made this statement yet you call me a liar for being the messsenger.
Here, again, is the article, which the modern Democratic government has suppressed…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record”.
***
This kind of NOAA double-talk will appeal to alarmists. On the one hand, they freely admit to using less than 1500 stations to determine the global average yet on the other, they claim the record has grown. Of course, alarmists grasp desperately to the lie that the record has grown, while completely ignorig the obvious as admitted by NOAA that they use less than 1500 stations to determine the global average.
If rural and urban sites reveal similar warming, then should we consider the possibility the Land warming is real and widespread? Is this perhaps the epiphany Dr. Spencer should consider?
Yes, due to population growth and measurements in built-up areas, the trend may be even greater in suburban areas. It will be greatest in summer night temperatures, much less in winter temperatures.
You rightly pointed out that the sea surface temperature in the tropics cannot exceed 31 C in the open ocean.
m d mill
” If rural and urban sites reveal similar warming… ”
Sorry: they mostly don’t.
When you compare for example 133 of the 137 pristine, best located USCRN stations with 920 GHCN daily stations located within the same 1 degree of latitude and longitude, you see that the TMIN average of the USCRN stations keeps, for 2007 till now, below that of the GHCN daily stations.
This remains even if you drop the 92 airport stations out of the GHCN daily list.
But surprisingly, the USCRN TMAX average is above that of GHCN daily.
Why?
*
The fundamental question thus remains of how to prove that when TMAX is higher within the USCRN average, the TMIN difference is due to UHI, and not to climate like TMAX is claimed to be.
*
Yes: 2007-2022 is a short period, of course; but unfortunately, USCRN was not launched before 2000.
What a pity!
“1 degree of latitude and longitude”
About 69 miles (111 kilometers) for longitude and from that to 0 as you get close to the poles for latitude.
Mind you, USCRN paired sites says it could be just 5 degrees C (occasionally) for just 1.4km which makes that little more than just a guess I suppose.
richard…”About 69 miles (111 kilometers) for longitude and from that to 0 as you get close to the poles for latitude”.
***
Yes…69 miles is almost 60 nautical miles and the nautical mile is defined as 1 degree. There are 360 degrees around the Equator which is 60 x 360 = 21,600 nautical miles, which is 24856.836 miles.
I got caught with this the other day, forgetting that lines of latitude are true parallels and lines of longitude converge at the poles.
A friend, who is a pilot, was explaining how pilots flying in the North must adjust for the converging lines of longitude.
Also, found an equation to determine the number of longitudinal nautical miles per degree longitude at a line of latitude.
p = 60 cos theta (nautical miles)
There are 60 nautical miles per degree. Therefore, at the Equator, you are at 0 degrees latitude…
p = 60 cos (0 degrees) = 60 nautical mile/degree longitude.
At 30 degrees latitude either way, cos 30 = 0.866, therefore…
p = 60 (0.866) nautical miles = 51.96 nautical miles per degree longitude.
At 60 degrees latitude, p = 60 (0.5) = 30 nautical miles/degree
at 89 degrees lat, p = 60 (0.0175) = 1.05 nautical miles/degree
Guess I’ll have to scrap my suggestion of making lines of longitude parallels as well.
“Guess Ill have to scrap my suggestion of making lines of longitude parallels as well.”
Depends on which map projection of a globe you prefer.
“But surprisingly, the USCRN TMAX average is above that of GHCN daily.” You seem to make the point that we should consider the possibility the Land warming is real and widespread.
Also, I said “similar”…not equal. And I am speaking of trends (of course), not absolute differences, of the average temperature.
What is the percentage difference in trends of the average temperature … you did not indicate, but I would like to know.
Dr Spencer seems to indicated the urban heating phenomenon makes little difference to the land average trend.
Don’t be “sorry”, I am not making a statement, just asking a question.
m d mill
When I write
” But surprisingly, the USCRN TMAX average is above that of GHCN daily. ”
Like you, “I am speaking of trends (of course), not absolute differences, of the average temperature”.
Only incompetent persons compare the begin of a time series with its end and say: ‘No warming’ or ‘No cooling’. That is sheer nonsense.
*
” Dr Spencer seems to indicated the urban heating phenomenon makes little difference to the land average trend. ”
No he doesn’t. He rather means that in areas with dense population and built-ins, TMIN trends are higher than in areas with less population.
And he is right.
Dr Spencer seems to indicated the urban heating phenomenon makes little difference to the land average trend. . Yes he does seem to say this, specifically,
Dr.Spencer:
“Eventually, all of this will lead to an estimation of how much of the land warming (say, since 1880) has been spurious due to the Urban Heat Island effect. As I have mentioned previously, I dont believe it will be large!!!…”
But surprisingly, the USCRN TMAX average is above that of GHCN daily. You do seem to make the point that we should consider the possibility the Land warming is real and widespread.
I ask specifically for:”What is the percentage difference in trends of the average temperature you did not indicate, but I would like to know.”
Make your point by providing this data of USCRN versus GHCN.
I am open to being convinced by the data. Dr Spencer seems to think it is not much.
“should we consider the possibility the Land warming is real and widespread?”
***
Depends on whether you consider the warming to have an anthropogenic cause or whether it is re-warming from the Little Ice Age. And it depends what you mean by warming. Would you seriously consider a global warming of 1C over 170 years to be significant?
My question does not “depend” on the cause of the warming.
And the definition of warming should be obvious.
And I did not question the “significance”.
Would 0.33 C over 40 years be significant (which I think is the NOAA estimate over global lands for the last 40 years). That is a judgement call.
“And the definition of warming should be obvious”.
***
It is obvious, it’s due to re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
“It is obvious, its due to re-warming from the Little Ice Age.” This is not obvious, and it really does not make sense.
The NOAA estimate trend over global lands for the last 40 years is .33C/decade. This is 33C per thousand years!!
Do you really think the average temp Of the land increased by 33C in the last 1000 yrs? Or will continue to increase by 33C in the next thousand years? Even if NOAA is off by a factor of 2 the implied results would seem to me to be absurd.
It is possible some natural but unknown warming forcing is at work throughout the 20’th century, which has “boosted” the GHG warming more than is realized.
Correction:
Would 1.33 C over 40 years be significant (which I think is the NOAA estimate over global lands for the last 40 years). That is a judgement call.
Hohe Warte in Vienna is one of the longest urban temperature records and dates back to the 18th century. Then Vienna was already a big city and surrounding buildings did not change. So the change in buildings makes a uhi trend.
Hans Erren
Thanks for the hint, I’ll spend some time with this station:
https://www.data.gv.at/katalog/dataset/wetter-seit-1872-hohe-warte-wien
looking at its data:
https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/ogd/vie-bdl-ecl-wea-1872f.csv
*
I also want to compare the local Austrian data with what I find in NOAA’s GHCN daily global station set:
AU000005901 48.2331 16.3500 199.0 WIEN GSN 11035
*
You wrote in your comment about the 18th century. Are you sure? The Austrian data starts in April 1872.
NOAA’s data starts even earlier, in February 1855; but I don’t see any data before 1800.
There is a link to the spreadheet.
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/europese-temperaturen-een-update/
This was exported from NASA GISS station list before they truncated the data.
Thanks again Hans Erren.
But.. you talk about NOAA and GISS
“… before they truncated the data. ”
But, where is your data prior to the original Austrian data, please?
I repeat: the Austriaqn data I directly downloaded from there started in 1872, i.e. 17 years LATER than NOAA’s data in GHCN daily.
It was downloaded from NASA GISS stations before 2005, then the complete historic data was available. see the readme tab in the spreadsheet.
The WI tab in https://klimaathype.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/europe_pub_2017.xls
Contains all monthly data from vienna hohe warte starting in 1781.
> The observations are tracking below the RCP8.5 scenario,
They’re tracking about RCP4.5, however, so I’m not sure I’d get all luckwarm over that kind of judgment.
Wrong tab:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/co2-budget-model-update-through-2022-humans-keep-emitting-nature-keeps-removing/#comment-1473028
Come on Wee Willy, get your tabs straight.
That will be hard, Bordo.
You are now on both.
Yup. Ive been trying to point this out for almost 2 decades. Your previous post illustrates this nicely (Thank you!)
I posted on it.
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1642337896349745153
The temperature affect of urbanization is far stronger in more rural areas. From 0-400 people per 10km^2 there is twice as much warming as from 700-2100people. The affect also decreases over time. (linked dr spencer post)
This makes sense for several reason.
1. Economic activity & technology become more efficient over time.
2. There are diminishing returns to amount of heating an additional person can do in an area.
3. Urban areas have shifted to service based economies.
4. Greenhouse Warming & feedbacks.
The diminishing difference is between rural & urban urbanization is probably due in good part from the greenhouse effect & feedbacks (increased plant respiration from CO2 fertilization, increased nighttime humidity from increasing transpiration in rural areas, dew & fog releasing latent heat near the surface at night.) The warming in urban areas probably exceeds the temp to balance radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.
This has several implications:
1. The effect of urbanization is not well accounted for in models or surface temperature adjustments. Adjustments that warm rural areas are spurious. Adjustments that cool urban areas are inadequate.
2. The removal of truly remote rural stations due to budget cuts in the 90s likely strongly biased the data upwards.
3. Early warming may have more of an urbanization bias depending on population growth near record sites.
The warming from urbanization decreases with time, but the greenhouse effect and feedbacks also likely reduce the difference between rural and urban areas.
re urban heat island effect…
I came across a statement in an old NOAA article which has been relegated to the Wayback machine for obvious reasons. This is the same document in which NOAA admits to slashing global temperature monitoring stations from 6000 to 1500. To hear alarmists talk here on Roy’s blog, one might get the impression they use more than a 100,000 stations.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Could stations located in potentially warmer locations near buildings and cities influence temperature readings?
Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations adhere to all of the established monitoring principles and are located in unpopulated areas. They are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change.
***
On the face of it, NOAA seems to be doing the right thing, However, a closer look at the fine print reveals it is being done to prove climate change. They are only placing these stations in areas away from urban areas rather than in the urban area as well, so a comparison can be made.
What good does that do wrt assessing the UHI effect?
When the Trump admin ordered NOAA to release internal documents, they outright refused. What does that tell you about their administration’s chicanery?
More NOAA cheating from the link above….
“Q. What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?
Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.
***
So, NOAA has simply gone into the past records and deemed some were right and some were wrong. How could they possibly know? And what was the reason for thinking they were wrong?
Worse still, NOAA seems to have considered the record temperatures in the 1930s in North America as one huge error. Modern record temperatures are based largely on starting the records from the 1960s, completely bypassing the record heat and heat waves in the 1930s.
****
“The most important difference globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures. In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it. Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does.
The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data”.
***
It is obvious from the above that NOAA’s sole interest is in decreasing warmer temperatures and increasing cooler temperatures. They seem to think that a ship, which is a large heat island can give more accurate ocean temperatures than a bucket dipped in the ocean in ambient atmospheric conditions.
It does not seem to occur to NOAA, that intake pipes made of steel will warm to the temperature of the hull. When the ships were designed, were they designed with a thermometer housing in mind and to ensure it was not affected by a heat island effect?
To demonstrate the inherent danger in this kind of thinking, NOAA used it recently to add a trend to temperatures between 1998 and 2012 that the IPCC had declared flat. The irony is that NOAA’s own records showed the same flat trend until NOAA retroactively re-studied the SST and came up with a positive trend.
The chicanery here is obvious. How the heck can you take water temperature from a heated ship that is moving on the ocean? What possible meaning could it have and why has NOAA ignored the thousands of Argo buoys currently in the ocean and focused on the water intake temperatures of a few ships?
Surely the IPCC statement of a flat trend from 1998 to 2012, some 15 years, took in all the factors. Where does NOAA get off over-looking those factors. Moreover, the UAH record, an independent source of temperature data using satellites, reveals the same flat trend.
Gordon,
“It does not seem to occur to NOAA, that intake pipes made of steel will warm to the temperature of the hull.”
Why does that occur to you?
The intake pipes are at the temperature of the water flowing through it.
There is too much water flow for the heat from the ship to matter.
NOAA does not give us that information, they only claim the water from intakes is more reliable than water in a bucket drawn directly from the ocean in ambient conditions.
How can we prove the location of the thermometers on the intake pipes are not reading water temperature that has been warmed by the superstructure? And, no, we can’t trust NOAA on that.
Gordon,
Because the water flowing through the intake pipes is there to cool the ship, usually engines and other necessary equipment.
Nope, the burden is on you to prove the superstructure is actually heating the intakes.
The pipes are insulated, I can safely assume you have never been on a ship and measured the temperature of the intake pipes.
Guess what, I have, and no the superstructure does not heat the intake pipes.
In a paper I published a decade ago in Climatic Change:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0793-5
I argued that people who were using rural/urban or windy/calm comparisons to dismiss the surface data contamination problems had set up tests that were all but guaranteed to fail to find the problem. Specifically:
“suppose there are only two weather stations in the world, one rural and one urban. Suppose also that there is zero climatic warming over some interval, but there is a false warming due to local population growth. Suppose also that the effect of urbanization on temperature is logarithmic and that the economic growth over a given time period is indicated by the horizontal run of the respective arrows. A sample split according to the rural/urban distinction would apparently show that the rural station has a faster warming trend than the urban one. Far from proving that there is no urbanization bias in the overall average, this difference emerges easily in an example that assumes there is nothing but such a bias.”
I showed how the tests should be done and confirmed the presence of significant warming bias in several temperature data sets where conventional testing would erroneously find no evidence of warming bias.
entropic…” What do you regard as the optimum number of stations for determining a global average temperature?
How did you calculate that number”?
***
It depends how accurately you want to determine the fantasy of a global average surface temperature. Would it not be better to start by defining what it means?
As it stands, the land surface area is roughly 150 million km^2. If you use 1500 thermometers to cover that, you have 1 thermometer every 100,000 square km. Do you think that even comes close to giving an accurate land surface average temperature?
How about the oceans? They account for roughly 70% of the total surface area of 510 x 10^6 km^2/. That’s around 360 x 10^6 km^2. There are about 4000 Argo buoys taking measurements and I doubt that any are employed in the Arctic or Antarctic oceans. I’d be willing to bet that most are employed in Equatorial regions.
Anyway, 360 million km^2/(4 x 10^3) = 90 x 10^3 km^2. That’s one buoy per 90,000 km^2, about the same as land surface coverage. These devices submerge between readings and re-surface to take each reading. Are they serious???
So, would you call the present coverage anything more than a lottery? I think they must be looking at the sat data and adjusting their data to show some warming. That’s about as close as they can get.
Even if you increased the number of thermometers to cover 100 km^2, you couldn’t get an accurate reading. There are too many variables, such as altitude and local climates to make it feasible.
Let’s face it, the surface record is a charade. They are all climate alarmists who have no interest in science.
“Do you think that even comes close to giving an accurate land surface average temperature?”
Yes I do, and try removing one at a time randomly until your answer starts to radically diverge.
You actually need less than 100.
“You actually need less than 100.”
How much difference do you think that being in sunshine or under clouds makes to the recorded temperature? What proportion do you think is in sunshine.
Doesn’t matter
A swing of some 10s of degrees doesn’t matter? Do you think that troughs and highs are unimportant or don’t last for days at a time in some cases?
And don’t get me started on how accurate 2m temperatures are for a true sample of bulk air temperatures from 0m to the edge of space.
Yet most of the energy calculations are done for that and not for 2m.
Nyquist would have a field day about sampling theorem in a chaotic skin boundary conditions that 2m represents (yes I know that outside/above that things are a lot less fluid and much more consistent).
When you are talking about sampling temperatures for the whole year and longer, small swings of minimal duration don’t matter.
Your 100s of stations would mean just one representing England/Wales, Scotland and Ireland despite their rather obvious differences in rainfall/humidity.
“small swings of minimal duration”
Care to predict the portion of the year that is in sunshine/clouds for the UK?
I am talking about a global average temperature, not the rainfall and temperature in local environments.
A delusional true believer might write something like “I am talking about a global average temperature, not the rainfall and temperature in local environments.”, hoping that others would accept his stupid utterings as fact.
However, a “global average temperature” is an imaginary notion of idiots who believe in a “greenhouse effect”, which also exists only in the imaginations of its retarded cultist believers.
Terrestrial temperatures vary between magma around 1600 C, and recorded surface temperatures of around – 90 C.
These “global average temperature” nutters can’t even describe what temperatures they are averaging! Surface? Near surface? What about the 70% of the “surface” covered by water? Or Antarctica, largely covered by ice?
A pack of fools, trying to appear intelligent – who couldn’t even agree on the “global average temperature” right now – or at any other point of time. And the point of this imaginary “global average temperature”?
There isn’t one, of course.
bob…”When you are talking about sampling temperatures for the whole year and longer, small swings of minimal duration dont matter”.
***
I could agree with you if the number of samples increased to a point where they accurately described an area and the discrepancy was measured in tenths of a degree C. However 1 thermometer to cover 100,000 km^2 cannot even begin to do that. Furthermore, I have described differences in swings of temperature, summer to winter, that vary over 20 degrees in difference over a distance of 150 miles.
Heck, there is sometimes a difference in temperature of a degree or more across town. And between town and 150 miles away there can be a difference of 20C, yet you think 1 thermometer per 100,000 km^2 can accurately measure that? It varies 10 degrees between sea level and the top of local mountains.
Gordon,
“However 1 thermometer to cover 100,000 km^2 cannot even begin to do that. Furthermore, I have described differences in swings of temperature, summer to winter, that vary over 20 degrees in difference over a distance of 150 miles.”
Just making an assertion are you?
That’s what I thought.
Most of the locations sampled would have such wild swings in temperature, but the point is to determine a global average temperature by taking lots of measurements.
100s are not lots of measurements, nor are 1000s for that matter. CLT does NOT apply as these measurements are not RANDOM which CLT requires. Do some statistics.
Not interested in doing statistics when others more capable than me have already done the dirty work.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32981/1/hawkins_jones_2013.pdf
I think this link is better
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32981/1/hawkins_jones_2013.pdf
Bob…you are getting goofier all the time. Radically diverge from what? Who established the mean from which to diverge?
As I claimed, I think the surface bean counters simply look at the UAH sat record and up it a bit to make it look like there’s more warming than there actually is.
I have relayed what goes on around my locale. On the coast, we have winter temperatures that seldom go below 0C in winter or above 25C in summer.
Go inland a few miles and the temperatures drop in winter and get a lot higher in summer. Cross over a mountain range, about 200 miles inland, and immediately the climate changes to one with desert conditions. Temperatures in summer exceed 40C and in winter average about -15C.
Yet you insist an accurate global temperature can be derived using 100 thermometers.
I’ll give you this, Bob, you are a comedian.
Gordon, the science has been done to support my claims, yours not so much.
By assuming that large numbers mean that you can use CLT despite its observation that it only should be used on purely RANDOM data.
I think you have the RANDOM in the wrong place.
bob,
I see it, but I don’t believe it!
You wrote “Gordon, the science has been done to support my claims, . . . “.
What claims are these? In the past, you have gone to some lengths to deny having claimed anything at all.
I suppose you are going to be as unhelpful as possible, and come up with some excuse to justify not posting your “claims”, so I can point out how stupid they are. Feel free to prove me wrong.
You idiot.
The science that support your views is clearly fraudulent and for some reason you are not willing to check that out.
Swenson,
It doesn’t matter if I post them or not, you won’t read them or understand them either.
You don’t understand the greenhouse effect, so you got that going for you.
Gordon,
I thought you took some advanced statistics course.
If you had you might understand when Gavin claims a 38% chance of a year being the warmest means.
Clearly you never passed such a course and are just gurgling in your Maypo again.
“If you had you might understand when Gavin claims a 38% chance of a year being the warmest means”.
***
It’s clear what it means, there is a 38% chance they are right. It is chicanery of the highest order.
With the uncertainty being +-1C at least for those measurements.
Show me how you calculate that uncertainty.
“Its clear what it means, there is a 38% chance they are right. It is chicanery of the highest order.”
No, it’s honesty.
Other years also have a probability of being the highest. Due to being closer than the uncertainty in the measurement.
Are you saying you have a more accurate figure? Calculated how?
Wait,
You are the one who claimed a value for the uncertainty, how did you calculate it?
Blundering bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
It doesn’t matter if I post them or not, you won’t read them or understand them either.
You don’t understand the greenhouse effect, so you got that going for you.”
Another pointless excuse for not posting anything at all that can be examined. As with the “greenhouse effect”. The retard keeps claiming he has “described” the GHE to the past, and is prepared to spend inordinate amounts of time refusing to show his “description”!
Just like he is making retarded excuses for not saying what his current “claims” are.
He can’t even explain why the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years!
What a retard!
Swenson,
I am following your lead.
And mikey the moron who likes life cereal flynson Swenson,
I actually made a claim up thread.
Maybe you could find it if you took your head out of your donkey.
Bumbling bob,
As I said, you can’t actually bring yourself to repeat your “claim”, can you? Have you made more than one, perhaps? Which one are you referring to?
Just like your “descriptions” of the greenhouse effect, I suppose. You can’t be open to criticism if you don’t actually provide anything verifiable, can you?
Is that what passes for extreme cleverness in the retard world?
When you wrote –
“And mikey the moron who likes life cereal flynson Swenson,
I actually made a claim up thread.
Maybe you could find it if you took your head out of your donkey.”,
were you displaying your intelligence to the rest of the retards, or just losing control over your keyboard?
Keep it up.
what’s the matter Swenson mikey flynn?
Are you too stupid to find the descriptions of the greenhouse effect I specifically provided in response to your request?
Try searching the website.
Moron.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“whats the matter Swenson mikey flynn?
Are you too stupid to find the descriptions of the greenhouse effect I specifically provided in response to your request?
Try searching the website.
Moron.”
Why should I try searching the website for something which doesn’t exist, particularly when commanded to do so by a retard?
You could easily demonstrate that I am wrong by producing the non-existent description which agrees with observed fact, and I would appear foolish indeed! You could crow loudly, dance a jog, and point the finger of derision in my direction – if you could only produce the afore-mentioned description. But alas, it’s all in your imagination, isn’t it?
Stiff cheese, retard. Nobody seems to be helping you out. The Earth has cooled, dummy, and continues to do so.
Swenson,
Continue playing your juvenile games.
Swenson,
Here’s a sammich.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
Don’t ask again.
By factoring things in that are directly related to global T such as rainfall, humidity, wind direction, wind chill, as well as non CLT things like yearly and daily repeatability.
Claim by Blindsley Hood aka RLH:
” With the uncertainty being +-1C at least for those measurements. ”
Answer by bobdroege:
” Show me how you calculate that uncertainty. ”
*
bobdroege, Blindsley Hood has been haunting me for about two years with claims against what I calculate and present on this blog (particularly in terms of USCRN source data analysis), without ever having been able to technically contradict what I have been doing.
He was not even able to compute and present USCRN data in the usual anomaly form with respect to a reference period, like do all the people – Roy Spencer of course included at the first place.
*
So when Blindlsey Hood tells you about uncertainties related to anything, you’ll have to wait a very uncertain amount of time for his calculation for these uncertainties.
So Blinny what are your offerings for the uncertainties in rainfall, humidity, wind direction, wind chill, as well as non CLT things like yearly and daily repeatability on T?
Don’t say ‘none’.
Also Blinny thinks that having triple accurate thermometers means that the ‘average’ of all of them is the only thing that is of relevance. He kinda skipped over the note I showed earlier that showed that demonstrated this to be not the case.
By factoring things in that are directly related to global T such as rainfall, humidity, wind direction, wind chill, as well as non CLT things like yearly and daily repeatability.”
How are these things directly related to global temperature?
Be specific, and show your calculations, I’ll wait.
For your response or the heat death of the universe.
You know which one I am betting on.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/130984.pdf in case you didn’t get it earlier.
“How are these things directly related to global temperature?”
Global temperature is a summation of local temperatures and those are definitely connected to the things I noted (along with others as well).
Blindsley Hood
Stop asking for and insinuating vague things; start working about clear things you YOURSELF can show us instead.
*
Two years ago, you were proudly claiming that the entire temperature calculations since measurement begin were all wrong because based on the Tmean aka (Tmin+Tmax)/2 instead of the hourly median value.
I proved you wrong using DWD, USCRN and METEOSTAT, by showing that differences betwen ; you never admitted having been wrong.
And later on you stalked me during months about me having allegedly wrongly used hourly instead of subhourly USCRN data, though you never were able to prove that would make any difference when constructing MONTHLY anomalies out of such data.
But I know, Blindsley Hood: people like you never stop insinuating, and never start proving they would be right.
Oops?!
Something went wrong here:
” I proved you wrong using DWD, USCRN and METEOSTAT, by showing that differences betwen ; you never admitted having been wrong. ”
should read:
” I proved you wrong using DWD, USCRN and METEOSTAT, by showing that differences between means and medians where subject to major spatiotemporal biases ; you never admitted having been wrong in your unbacked claim that medians would be better. ”
*
Although you were shown clearly and unequivocally that a simple geometric transformation of a rectangular grid like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-MaBsaGBhEgMvFBLxoRtqzVzhrDOJIP/view
by using a Mollweide projection like
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/march/202303_Map.png
only changes the shape of the rectangle but not the values assigned to its cells, you stubbornly continue to claim that Mollweide projections automatically look right, what is wrong.
*
And when you start insinuating that a unique outlier in the difference plot of two paired USCRN stations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cu2DIG-O4tCNt-Q6roRBL4QHN0rc7hlJ/view
suddenly becomes something ‘occasional’, you no longer keep stubborn and opinionated: you become dishonest.
Especially because as always, you are technically unable to backup your insinuation with something real, by showing us how the other paired USCRN stations behave.
“Two years ago, you were proudly claiming that the entire temperature calculations since measurement begin were all wrong because based on the Tmean aka (Tmin+Tmax)/2 instead of the hourly median value.”
Many papers, including those by USCRN, have observed the same thing. USCRN even calculate the difference in their own figures.
Tmean, aka (Tmin+Tmax)/2, is NOT the same as the true average taken at higher intervals. The latitude weighting that this gives is shwon often.
“The traditional estimate of temperature at measuring stations has been to average the highest (Tmax) and lowest (Tmin) daily measurements. This leads to error in estimating the true mean temperature. What is the magnitude of this error and how does it depend on geographic and climatic variables? The US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) of temperature measuring stations is employed to estimate the error for each station in the network. The 10th-90th percentile range of the errors extends from -0.5 to +0.5 C. Latitude and relative humidity (RH) are found to exert the largest influences on the error, explaining about 28% of the variance. A majority of stations have a consistent under- or over-estimate during all four seasons. The station behavior is also consistent across the years.”
Remind my again how Mollweide projections use cosine squared, instead of a simple cosine weighting.
Blinny still thinks that a mean or a median (a central statistic) is useful when a range is what is needed.
“The results reveal statistically significant differences– both over- and under-estimation between the two methods of daily temperature averaging on monthly and seasonal time scales, and these differences show considerable spatial coherence.”
“The central limit theorem states that if you have a population with mean μ and standard deviation σ and take sufficiently large random samples from the population with replacement , then the distribution of the sample means will be approximately normally distributed”
So sayeth CLT.
My understanding of the CLT is that it must be applied in the proper context. That would mean the samples should be related. For example, if I produced batteries of a certain type and I had several million, I could take small samples and test them for errors. If I took enough of the small samples and tested them for mean and deviation wrt errors, after collecting enough small samples I could reach a confidence level that represented the quality of the larger number of batteries.
That does not mean that certain batches of batteries produced are not all bad, it just mans I have a confidence that they ‘should’ be good.
I am arguing that the current samples 9temperatures) taken to represent a global mean temperature are not a reliable representation of all possible temperatures globally.
Good grief, I’m starting to talk like my probability and statistics prof. He had a unique talent, he could write on a blackboard with chalk almost as fast as he talked.
The outdoors THERMOMETER doesn’t measure the outdoors air temperature!
–
The outdoors thermometers measure the outdoors TEMPERATURE, so we knew what to put on to get dressed accordingly to the outdoors temperature.
–
The outdoors thermometers give us some very valuable information about the outdoors thermal conditions (is outside the house cold or it is warm).
By experience we know what to put on according to the outdoors measured temperature.
–
The outdoors thermometers do not measure the actual air temperature. It is impossible for an outdoor thermometer to measure the outdoors air temperature.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Indoors the enclosed air is in thermal equilibrium with surrounding it walls. Thus the indoors temperature thermometer measures we rightly consider as the air temperature too.
When thermometer measures outdoors temperature, the outdoors air temperature is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
Thus it is impossible to measure the outdoors air temperature with thermometer.
Air is a thin medium, also air is known to be a good insulator. Even in the shade thermometer is subjected to the surroundings solar energy reflection or/and the surroundings IR energy emission.
When indoors thermometer (in a room) we remove the air from the room, the readings on thermometer will not change.
–
On the airless Moon, in shade, thermometer will read a temperature.
–
Conclusively, when we put a thermometer out of the window, thermometer doesn’t measure the air temperature.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos… they put outdoor thermometers in little houses called Stevenson screens. I suppose thy are trying to emulate indoor conditions but how can they?
For one, the average distance between the little houses globally is about 100,000 km^2. That does not include the oceans where they have no little houses to protect thermometers from the atmosphere and each thermometer covers 90,000 km^2.
For another, the little houses can be located at any altitude without any effort to adjust for altitude.
It’s all a bad joke aimed at hapless people who cannot possibly ever understand the charade.
That raises the question as to whether they are measuring the ambient conditions in which we live, like directly in sunlight, or whether they are measuring an artificial environments protected from the weather.
What is the real purpose for guessing an artificial average global surface temperature?
The satellite do a far better job but alarmists are not interested in accuracy, they simply want proof the planet is warming, whether the proof is accurate or derived.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Most of the locations sampled would have such wild swings in temperature, but the point is to determine a global average temperature by taking lots of measurements.”
Unfortunately, neither brown-nosing bob, nor any of his fellow retards can say what the “global average temperature” is, at any given time, nor what it actually represents, nor why it might be the slightest use to anybody at all!
Lots of measurements? Or maybe lots and lots and lots? Plenty of opportunities for employment in bob’s sheltered workshop. Measure, measure, measure!
Keeps the retards happy, at least.
Yeah, I can, but the global average temperature has an uncertainty about 10 times that of the anomalies from the baseline, whichever one you want to use.
But you are too stupid and your head is too far up your donkey for you to understand that.
“Unfortunately, neither brown-nosing bob, nor any of his fellow retards can say what the global average temperature is, at any given time,”
Of course, no one can do that, that question can only be answered after the data is collected and the calculations done.
You really are stupid.
Bumbling bob,
I pointed out that nobody can actually say what the “global average temperature” is, at any given time.
You agreed, and wrote “Of course, no one can do that, that question can only be answered after the data is collected and the calculations done.”
And then you call me stupid? You witless fool, blabbering about data being collected, and calculations being “done”, negates your implication that a “global average temperature” has ever been calculated – which is my point.
If you really believe that nobody has ever calculated a global average temperature, how would anybody be able to claim that it has risen? Obviously you believe that at least two “global average temperatures” have been calculated, but of course you don’t know what they were, or when they were calculated. So which your beliefs is imaginary?
Go on, try and claim that you have already provided them – like everything else you claim to have done.
I’m happy enough to let others decide whether you are a lying retard, unable to provide any evidence that a “greenhouse effect” has ever been observed, measured, and documented, or whether you are simply mentally defective, disconnected from reality. My opinion is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. Yours?
Carry on bumbling, bob.
Sorry Swenson,
It’s been done, too many times to count.
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32981/1/hawkins_jones_2013.pdf
Was just an early one, several organizations do it regularly.
Here is one guy
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2023/04/giss-march-global-temperature-up-by-023.html
You are clueless, asking for it at “any given time” when you should know it’s calculated for a given month, not any given time.
God of the gaps are you?
“several organizations do it regularly”
Few statisticians would agree that you can just ignore one of the main planks of CLT.
“it’s calculated for a given month”
with an average difference between humidity, wind speed and direction, pressure, fronts, rainfall, etc. that differs year to year.
Those all affect measured T on a day by day, and hence month by month, basis (be that absolute or anomalies).
hey Bob, any articles by moyhu on the temperatures in winter that were significantly below 0C? Or, like other alarmists, does he have no interest in anything that contradicts his bs?
— Swenson says:
April 16, 2023 at 11:30 PM
Bumbling bob,
I pointed out that nobody can actually say what the global average temperature is, at any given time.
You agreed, and wrote Of course, no one can do that, that question can only be answered after the data is collected and the calculations done.
And then you call me stupid?…–
Earth global average temperature is roughly the average temperature of the ocean, which is about 3.5 C.
The heat content of ocean is about 1000 times the atmosphere.
And it claimed that more 90% of global warming [or any and all “net” heat added to all the atmosphere] is warming the ocean.
If you imagine that this roughly means more 90% global warming is disappearing into the ocean. You are sort of right- but you also don’t know anything global climate.
Like you don’t know we are living in an Icehouse global climate- but there other things relate to climate, you also clueless, about.
Say, that all past interglacial period had a warmer period of thousands of years in which the average temperature of the ocean was about 4 C [or warmer].
If our ocean was 4 C or warmer, we would have a much higher global average surface temperature.
And simple things, like 15 C air temperature, is cold.
A 5 C average ocean temperature is the end of world for the religious
of global warming.
But if we weren’t in the coldest time of our 33.9 million year icehouse global climate, our ocean would be about 5 C [or warmer].
Depending on what you want to call human, one could say humans have never had 5 C ocean. And you could say, if human have never had such a world- a human might say it’s the end of this “human world”.
“an uncertainty about 10 times that of the anomalies from the baseline”
Only if you think you can apply CLT despite the data not being random around a central value.
Are we measuring the same thing over and over, or are we measuring different things at different places and different times.
The CLT doesn’t prevent us from measuring an average global temperature.
Which seems to me, that that is what you are implying.
Is bollocks.
It’s the average kinetic energy of a set of atoms and molecules.
Of course it can be measured.
We are measuring T at different times under different conditions at the same place. We are just assuming that the other conditions do not affect things. Even though the latent heat of water is much greater that its sensible heat.
CLT only applies if the T measured is under the same conditions at the same places and are drawn at random from a measurement population. Neither is true. As any statistician will tell you.
So you are saying the CLT doesn’t apply, that’s good, we don’t need it to measure the average global temperature.
“we dont need it (CLT) to measure the average global temperature.”
First time I have heard that claimed. How are you calculating it then?
First of all,
I am not calculating it.
Go to the websites of those who do calculate it and see how they do it.
They even will provide you with the methods and programs to do it yourself.
“Go to the websites of those who do calculate it and see how they do it.”
They all rely AFAIK on CLT to go from specific sites to global figures. Hence the claim that only a few points are required to sample a diverse system. Nyquist would turn in his grave.
Make your case that the CLT applies then.
Statisticians turning in their graves is just speculation on your part.
The point being you can take random samples from thousand of temperature records.
Do you understand anything about CLT and what conditions it requires to be applied?
“The point being you can take random samples from thousand of temperature records.”
Only if there are no other variables that apply to the data.
Tell me why the CLT applies to a calculation of the global average temperature or its anomalies.
Do you even have identically distributed independent samples?
So why would you apply the CLT?
Others, including those you rely, claim that CLT is the way to go to calculate global T.
So what the F are you arguing, does the CLT apply or not?
You seem to taking both sides.
I am suggesting that CLT does NOT apply to global T. The sites that you quote rely on CLT to produce global T.
Not the way I understand how the calculations are done, maybe you can describe how they use CLT in their calculations.
I have never seen it mentioned, maybe I missed something.
The samples are not independent, there is a bit of correlation between stations.
“maybe you can describe how they use CLT in their calculations.”
CLT is used to reduce the number of stations that are used even though you have already agreed that these stations are sampled under widely different circumstances.
“a bit of correlation between stations.”
The only long distance correlation is above the chaotic surface boundary layer.
“The only long distance correlation is above the chaotic surface boundary layer.”
Now you are talking pure bollocks.
There is always correlation between any two data sets.
Goodbye.
“There is always correlation between any two data sets.”
There cannot be a correlation if chaos is inserted. Unless you want to re-write a whole load of statistics. That is what chaos means.
If rural and urban sites reveal similar warming, then should we consider the possibility the Land warming is real and widespread? Is this perhaps the epiphany Dr. Spencer should consider?
Dr.Spencer:
Eventually, all of this will lead to an estimation of how much of the land warming (say, since 1880) has been spurious due to the Urban Heat Island effect. As I have mentioned previously, I dont believe it will be large!!!
Why?
Ask Dr. Spencer…he said it.
Once again, temperatures are slowly dropping in the Nino 1.2 region.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
Another big cold high is beginning to work its way across the southeast Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/samer2/mimictpw_samer2_latest.gif
Have we entered the Bizzaro World where the Urban heating effect (trending over decades) is now just as large in the Rural regions…according to Dr. Spencer?
It seems Dr Spencer is trying to find reasons to ignore his own results.
Essentially he seems to be saying no ground based temperature data is un-corrupted and reliable.
But,
Dr.Spencer:
“”Eventually, all of this will lead to an estimation of how much of the land warming (say, since 1880) has been spurious due to the Urban Heat Island effect. As I have mentioned previously, I dont believe it will be large!!!…””
“Essentially he seems to be saying no ground based temperature data is un-corrupted and reliable”.
***
Roy is too classy to take shots at the surface cheaters. I don’t know Rpy’s view on the matter but he would be correct if he claimed that.
Or since we have a way to measure global air temperature, all the “surface cheaters” are doing “by cheating” is claiming more UHI effect.
Anyways it’s been about 9 years of no end of the world.
It been century of it. But if living in cities, your local govt has
caused where you living to be warmer. But in 15 C average temperature
world {an icehouse global climate] that local govt is keeping you warmer, is a good thing. If nothing else, lower heat costs.
Roy,
Australia provides a good test bed because of long duration data (some back to 1860s) and low population density. For many months now I have been trying to prepare a set of 50 Aussie pristine stations with Tmax and Tmin daily BOM temperatures and other observations like rainfall. The purpose is to create a pattern of baseline, weather/climate alone variations over 120 years in this part of the world.
I have selected the 50 stations and assembled adequate demonstration of lack of population effects. But there, it gets hard. This is mainly because of signal:noise limits in the data. Strange correlations appear, some being: long term trends by customary linear least squares fit are all over the place, from about -1 to +4 degC per Century for Tmax, (Tmin not all done yet); longer data sets (more years) show lower trends;
Trends correlate with distance from the nearest ocean; trends show some relation to station altitude; trends correlate with World Meteorological Organisation number.
There are known influences on trends that I am trying to remove to see residuals. These include metrication from F to C in 1975; change from liquid in glass to Platinum resistance in mostly 1996: change in screen size and shape now and then; station relocations; periods of recording to the nearest whole number C; data errors, such as cut and paste of blocks of data up to a month at a time; unusual data with strings of same consecutive numbers up to 7 days in a row; and more effects.
These raw pristine temperatures need correction for these effects. Some corrections are shown by colleague Dr Bill Johnston on Bomwatch blog, using corrections for rainfall that typically amounts to tens of percent of the total variation. If these effects were small enough to ignore, the 50 trends would match each other in magnitude and pattern. They do not.
In short, I am on the verge of dumping all this exploratory work on the unsuspecting scientific public, with a conclusion that the numbers, originally observed for purposes of early 1900s curiousity are not fit for the purpose of quantification of zero UHI.
Sadly, I suspect that your work will also find that, but at least we can say that we know why it failed, so that wheel needs no more reinvention.
Interestingly, the study I have done so far is entirely consistent with zero global warming at these 50 stations over the last Century.
Geoff S
Dr. Spencer,
I just now found this blog entry, which relates closely to work I did in 2020 on long-term instrumental temperature trends in remote, tiny towns in the continental US.
My paper is here: (https://aconversationwithachemicalengineer.wordpress.com/2022/12/28/no-greenhouse-gas-warming-in-tiny-towns-in-us/ )
This paper was presented at a world-wide meeting of AIChE, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, in August, 2020. That is, not published in a scientific journal, not peer-reviewed, but done as carefully as possible.
The premise is that if CO2 has a measurable warming effect, that effect should be apparent both in small towns and large urban sites. However, the data for my study show a distinct 60-year cycle, consistent with the variation of the AMO, Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. Therefore, it is inappropriate to apply a linear least-squares trend to a short segment of cyclical data. Instead, a best-fit sine wave with a linear component was applied.
Also, since urban areas are known to have spurious warming from several causes (asphalt, concrete, housing density, vehicle engines, home heating and air conditioning, etc) it is improper to include urban areas in temperature studies.
The results of this study show zero warming in the 82 remote, tiny towns. The sites have data from 1900 – 2019, population of 20,000 or less (as of 2010 census), almost complete data with no more than 4 percent missing, and are at least 30 miles distance from the nearest urban center. These sites are distributed across the CONUS, with a few more in Eastern states and a few less in the Western states.
Best regards,
Roger Sowell