Home/Blog
AP photo/ Ty O’Neil.
Summary
- Previous research has shown the temperatures recorded at Death Valley National Park (DVNP) have curious warm biases on very hot days, possibly due to instrument deficiencies or proximity to mounting structure apparatus and other manmade structures.
- Here it is shown from 21 years of summertime (June, July, August) data that DVNP has many more days when temperatures are much higher than those at the nearby Stovepipe Wells station, than when Stovepipe Wells has hotter days than DVNP station.
- These lines of evidence suggest that the hot summer daytime temperatures reported at Death Valley National Park have potentially large biases, and should only be used for their entertainment value.
In our continuing examination of the world record hottest temperature of 134 deg. F recorded at Greenland Ranch (now Death Valley National Park station) on 10 July 1913, we are finding some curious behavior in recent summertime temperatures there. (The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society [BAMS] has accepted my proposal for a BAMS article showing the evidence that the 134 deg. F world record was 8 to 10 deg. F higher than what actually existed on that date [10 July 1913]).
Previous Work on Excessively Hot Death Valley Temperatures
Climatologist, weather observer, and storm chaser Bill Reid has blogged extensively over the years on the evidence against the 134 deg. F world record. A good place to start is his most recent post (Part 6) that deals with the Greenland Ranch foreman who made the excessively hot temperature measurements in the first half of July 1913. Bill has agreed to co-author the BAMS paper with John Christy and me.
There was also an experiment carried out with a variety of temperature instrumentation placed next to the DVNP weather station during 2021 and 2022. This revealed that on the near-record hot day of 9 July 2021 (130 deg. F), the “official” DVNP sensor produced temperatures a few degrees hotter than the other instruments (AMS conference poster here). The photo in Fig. 1 shows that the older-style DVNP instrument (which is not aspirated) is mounted next to a lot of metal structure and a small solar panel.
Fig. 1 Death Valley National Park weather station, with additional instrumentation added by Dirk Baker (Campbell Scientific, Inc.) and co-investigators to compare to the ‘official’ temperature readings in 2021 and 2022. (Figure adapted from this AMS conference presentation).
The experimental setup in Fig. 1 used several temperature sensors, some with aspirated shields, others with no aspiration. The data shown in their AMS conference presentation suggests to me that the near-record 130 deg. F reading on 9 July 2021 was 2-3 deg. F too hot partly because of the non-aspirated design of the sensor. There was some additional warm bias that could have been due to all of the mounting structure seen in Fig. 1, including a small solar panel next to the DVNP station sensor.
More Evidence: DVNP vs. Stovepipe Wells Temperatures
For the last 21 years there have been two stations in Death Valley: the DVNP station next to the Furnace Creek Visitors Center, and a climate reference network (CRN) station at Stovepipe Wells, 29 km northwest of the DVNP station.
Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the daily maximum temperatures (Tmax) recorded at these two stations for every day in June, July, and August in all years from 2004 through 2024.
Fig. 2. Comparison between daily high temperatures (Tmax) recorded at Stovepipe Wells and Death Valley National Park, for all days in June, July, and August for the years 2004 through 2024. The dashed red line represents the median difference between the 2 stations (2 deg. F, DVNP warmer than Stovepipe Wells). Gray lines connect the days in chronological order.
The median of the Tmax differences between these 2 stations is 2 deg. F (DVNP warmer, represented by the dashed red line), while the average difference is 2.3 deg. F. The expected difference based upon elevation alone is 1.3 deg. F (DVNP station is 278 ft lower in elevation than Stovepipe Wells).
Note in Fig. 2 that there seem to be more outliers to the left of the dashed red line than to the right. That is, there are more days where DVNP is much warmer than Stovepipe Wells than there are days when Stovepipe Wells is much warmer than DVNP station.
This can be better seen if we look at a frequency distribution of these station differences, adjusted for the 2 deg. F median difference between stations (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Frequency distributions of how many days where one Death Valley station is hotter than the other. This is after shifting of the distributions to account for a 2 deg. F difference in their median difference.
As shown in Fig. 3, DVNP station has many more days where it is hotter than Stovepipe Wells, than Stovepipe Wells has days that are hotter than DVNP station. For the 3-4 deg. F hotter category, the difference is 2X, for the 5 to 9 deg. F hotter category the difference is 3x, and for 10 deg. F or greater the difference is 7.8X.
This suggests there is something wrong with the Death Valley National Park instrumentation itself or the immediate environment around the temperature sensor that causes some days to be biased too hot. Bill Reid, who has researched this issue extensively, suspects that days with low wind have excessive heat build-up at the DVNP thermometer site, both in the general area around the instrumentation, and due to the non-aspirated design of the temperature sensor used there.
The difference in exposure at DVNP station and Stovepipe Wells is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Google Earth imagery of Stovepipe Wells station (top) and Death Valley N.P. station (bottom), stations circled in red. The inset photo at top is of the Stovepipe Wells Climate Reference Network station, courtesy of William T. Reid. The E-W distance across these images is just over 0.5 km.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, the Death Valley N.P station has quite a bit of development surrounding the station, with parking lots, a paved campground, the Visitors Center, solar panels (black) and trees just to the south. The Stovepipe Wells site has almost no development and no vegetation. It is possible that during the prevailing southerly wind flow during the summer, the structures and trees to the south of the DVNP station lead to stagnation of air flow around the temperature sensor.
Conclusions
The evidence presented here, along with evidence presented previously by Bill Reid, Dirk Baker, and others, suggests that Death Valley National Park temperatures should not be relied upon for accurate daytime readings, and that near-record temperatures there are biased too high. The reasons for the biases are not obvious, but the evidence suggests poor sensor ventilation during the daytime when various structures in the vicinity heat up: whether the shield of the sensor itself, its supporting structure, or various manmade objects around the station site. It is also possible that the trees and other structures to the south of the station restrict air flow, further reducing effective convective heat transport away from the solar heated desert surface.
It is my opinion that “official” Death Valley temperatures should use the Stovepipe Wells site data, which come from state-of-the-art Climate Reference Network instrumentation. The traditional site near the Death Valley National Park Visitors Center should only be used for entertainment purposes.
Maybe the National Park Service should investigate adding a CRN station; a good location would be about 1.6 km southwest of the current station, well away from the Furnace Creek tourist area.
The ” AMS conference presentation” linked to has a chart that shows spiky one minute sample values. Worse for the sensors with the shortest time constants. Spikes for the “beads” show worse than + or – 2.5 degrees C, wasting that 0.05 uncertainty possibility.
This day and age the reasons for slow sampling rates are gone. More samples means easier removal of outliers and easier exponential averaging to produce a glass equivalent two pole response time curve. A long time ago memory and fast processing was expensive. The combination of slow sampling rate and fast time constant in 2024 is as dumb as it gets. Doing that in a fast screen is just collecting errors. Ten samples in a row can randomly have the same sign. The time constants of screens and sensors would be more interactive at lower wind speeds.
Averaging 10 of these over ten minutes improves the average accuracy by ten but introduces a difference in effective response time when compared to old glass thermometers, making long trends over both methods meaningless. Averaging 3 beads over ten minutes makes a 30 times accuracy improvement but the trends are still confused.
The time constant of a thermometer varies inversely with the square root of wind speed, and WMO recommends that the time constant be 30 to 60 seconds for a wind speed of 5 ms-1.” JMA.
The table shows two have less than symbols and one has a range. The “109” sensor is rated as 30 to 60 seconds at a fixed wind speed. That does not make sense. 30 to 60 being curiously the same as that WMO spec the JMA quote.
To convert from 1 MS-1 to 5MS-1 SQRT of 5 = 2.236.
Converting the CS215 max time 120S @ 1MS-1 / 2.236 rounds to 54S. The Hygro,58S. The 109 stays at 60S. The beads 3S.
The beads are well away from being comparable to a self recording glass thermometer. Lance Pidgeon.
Hi Lance:
How do your points relate to the conclusion that the standard DVNP sensor produced a hotter time-averaged temperature than all of the other sensors?
Good question Dr Roy. There is an answer. Biasing effects of noise not averaging out to zero. Noise having a non symmetrical randomising effect.
I think your conclusion quoted below here is correct.
“The data shown in their AMS conference presentation suggests to me that the near-record 130 deg. F reading on 9 July 2021 was 2-3 deg. F too hot partly because of the non-aspirated design of the sensor.”
Your regression line difference method between the two sites is also a good easy to understand method(Fig2). Did you notice a lack of slope variation from 45 degrees? That is more B and less M than normal for inglass differences. (Y = Mx + B). The difference between sites often has a diurnal range change (M) as well. This could indicate a near linear bias offset or a sloped bias that neatly counteracts the normal (M).
“partly because of” allows for the many differences between the two sites and assorted screens. So does how they handle and generate noise. The noise can be divided into two components, thermal and electrical. Both randomise the results but with differing potential for bias. The averaging and recording method may convert noise to bias subtle and different ways. The electrical noise can be internal (system) and external (EMR) in origin. Your picture of Stove Pipe wells shows the telemetry antenna higher up. Further from the sensors than the one right near the gear at Furnace Creek.
The diurnal cycle of temperature normally shows more noise at max than min. We would expect a bias caused by noise or the handling of it to have more effect on maximums. Increasing the averaging time reduces diurnal range until eventually averaging for 24 hours leaves you with no range. If the old glass thermometer exponential averaging for 63.2% change was 30 seconds and for 99% therefore closer to 2.5 minutes. Then ten minutes should increase minimums and decrease maximums. All the different sensors have a sampling rate too infrequent to properly track 30 second time constants. This means the noise bias, worse in the afternoon cannot be filtered out and the different sensors have differing amounts of it.
A little extra about the diurnal range slope. Obviously you did not also show a comparison from minimum to minimum to see the full extent of the slope. If you did the slope should turn out to be the same. Both slopes are created by the the same pair of instruments in the same locations.
In the old days the slopes could be different because max temps came from mercury in a slightly different location to where the min temps came from alcohol. Alcohol and mercury thermometers have different time constants to each other. So a modern electric or electronic thermometer time constant needs to be corrected sample by sample differently to produce data with the same response to make a trend line. This correction to a data stream is much like processing audio data through an equaliser. The response is adjusted.
It cannot be done from just two min and max values for the day. Every sample is needed even if they were taken 48Khz. A lot of data.
Seems obvious that if a Stevenson screen is heated enough externally, the material of which the screen is made will conduct heat to the thermometers within. May even radiate energy to them that is converted to heat.
Even if the screens are painted white they will absorb a certain amount of solar radiation that is converted to heat in the material of the screen. If the screens have dust on them, especially dark-coloured dust, that will negate the effect of the reflective white coating, allowing the screen to heat up.
You could test the hypothesis that a difference in sheltering matters by regressing the max temperature differences on the prevailing wind speed and direction at the time of the maximum. Wind speed and direction is available from the CRN data.
Relevant to this discussion is [McKay 2024, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.264].
Why does this blog still arbitrarily block so many posts?
I want no more than to expand bdgwx’s info!!!
*
Meteorological data from Badwater, Death Valley National Park 1998 to 2019
Christopher P. McKay (2024)
https://tinyurl.com/Mc-Cay-Death-Valley-2024
Data access for McCay’s Badwater stuff
https://zenodo.org/records/11264245
Gordon Robertson the thermometer screens would as you say internally conduct and radiate. Don’t see a Stevenson there. You left out internal convection micro climate, important to the theory of Bill Reid’s low wind days. Low wind (long time constant) and the ground albedo reflection and re radiation from underneath which is a problem for all those disc screen types.
At low wind speed and low temperatures there may be an internal stratification and stagnation of air movement. As the screen temperature goes up this resistance to air movement may suddenly break into internal rolling oscillations. Using Reynolds and Nusselt numbers etc to for this may be too complex.
The period doubling bifurcation steps of the logistic map may a simpler way to see a relationship between micro climate temperature and overturning oscillations. If Feigenbaum temperature steps of rolling oscillation rate occur at low or zero wind speed. What I am saying is that the theory of Bill Reid’s low wind days is good especially if that combines with the stagnation of the convection until enough energy difference exists to overcome the surface tension and cause a roll over or the outside air suddenly blows to move it. If the dust you mention is related to road traffic there may be a seven day cycle.
siliggy…thanks for interesting post.
I had not looked very closely at the diagram but on closer inspection there is a mini-Stevenson screen device. It is noted as #7, referenced as a passive shield with CS215. I looked it up and it led to this…
https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/de/product-brochures/b_met20_met21.pdf
Apparently there is a screen with larger dimensions which they admit gives better performance in certain conditions. However, neither appears to have the volume of a Stevenson screen. Whereas these devices may serve well in moderate climates, I can see problems with them in the desert with temps in excess of 100F (37.8C). When the temps rise to 125F (51.7C) I foresee possible more serious problems.
I may be all wet on this but the heat conduction and convection is not dealt with it surely must add to the temperature of the environment within the smaller enclosures. I am basing my concern on the heating effect of the enclosures and support mechanisms.
The CS215 is a semiconductor-based temperature probe. It’s never a good idea to expose such devices to high temperatures unless they are specifically designed to operate in extreme environments. To someone who has spent his life in the field of electronics, it makes no sense to install such a device without a heat sink and without air blown onto the heat sink to increase heat dissipation via convection.
To put it more succinctly, semiconductors and heat don’t get along well. In my experience, there is no way around that, the hotter it gets, the worse it gets for semiconductors. That problem is dealt with by providing heat sinking that reduces the effect of heat on the semiconductor.
Of course, that is the opposite of what you want in a screen and they appear to be designed to lower the effects of wind as well as direct solar radiation. I would think a well designed screen would shield direct solar radiation while providing a still-air environment for a thermometer. I don’t know if extreme temperatures have been taken into account.
Gordon,
The specifications of the CS215 probe exceed the temperature variations that occur in Death Valley.
So the temperatures in Death Valley are not too extreme for the use of the CS215 probe.
bob…specifications in electronics are generally specific and over-rated. For example, with a electronic amplifiers, they generally amplify best around 1 Khz. Unscrupulous manufacturers will rate their amplifiers with a high power rating at 1 Khz when in reality the amp cannot sustain such a power rating across the frequency band. When the amp is properly rated at a 3 dB point below max, the overall power rating could be 1/2 or lower below the rated power rating.
I am not claiming this manufacturer is unscrupulous but I am sure they have not factored in operation of the their semiconductor temperature devices for the conditions in the Death Valley desert. A semiconductor is rated power-wise at 25C provided proper heat sinks are employed. I think the manufacturer is stretching the truth somewhat to rate their device for 70C.
Gordon,
All the temperature measuring devices I have used professionally come with certificates of calibration which indicate that the device functions within tolerance at the specified range of temperatures.
Otherwise we could not use them.
Gordon Robertson
I think there should be no electronics at all especially Pn or Np junction semiconductors inside the thermometer screen. Meaning a separate screen would be used for humidity etc. These things self heat. Even a platinum resistance thermometer which is a simple electric device not electronic produces some small self heating due to it being a resistance. If self heating is minimised then the correction algorithm to compensate for it is simpler and more accurate.
That is not a Stevenson either. Two obvious differences. Both would be important if one was involved in the Furnace Creek comparison. A Stevenson is a rectangular box not ever round. It is a re-design from back when people were smarter and spent less time in a prescription drug induced stupor. Around the year 1878 from Stevensons’s original single roof box to have a ceiling with holes in it under a separated roof and a floor with a wide air gap between overlapping slats. That means a Stevenson has some good uncomplicated near straight line vertical air flow past the thermometers, through a large open space when there is no wind.
The screen you linked to is called simply a “Radiation Shield” It seems to have very small holes for vertical airflow if any(Cross sectional view last page of PDF). It also looks like EMR(light) reflected or radiated up at about 45 degrees from the ground could directly hit the rear of the black inside louvres.
A Stevenson looks more like this. Notice it has holes in the floor not open slats unlike older wooden ones.
https://www.esands.com/pdf/Meteorology/ESS_METSPEC_InstrumentShelters.pdf
Gordon Robertson re:
“I would think a well designed screen would shield direct solar radiation while providing a still-air environment for a thermometer.”
NO no no. The aspirated screens do better because a faster air flow allows the outside air temperature to change the temperature of the thermometer. Still air means the actual outside air temperature which is what you want to measure has the least effect on the thermometers temperature. The faster outside air moves in past the thermometer then out again the better because the thermometer is then less affected by the screen temperature and most affected by the air temperature.
The aspirated screens also have a more predictable time constant because the rate of air flow is more stable.
Not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. I think the Stevenson screen would be a better choice for the desert conditions.
I don’t think the air flow in the smaller unit will be as good as in a Stevenson screen therefore the temperature will read higher in it than in the Stevenson screen.
Gordon Robertson
Just trying to help you grasp what a Stevenson screen actually is. An aspirated Stevenson would cope better than non aspirated with the low wind speed, insanely slow sampling rates, dubious time constant figures, suspect error detection, excessively long averaging, dodgy installation, careless siting, badly positioned solar panels, exposed concrete, radio interference, etc etc, Both the claims of a record and all the comparisons are an exercise in public self embaressment. No one knows what the temperature was there and ten meters away it would have been different anyway.
Bear in mind the solar radiation could have been many times higher than this figure.
“Temperature differences up to 2.1 C were observed between the aspirated and non-aspirated screens with a mean increase of 0.46 C following 30-min periods of mean global radiation greater than 200 W/m2 and mean wind speed less than 2 m/s.”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5453
I have pretty well grasped that a Stevenson screen is a ventilated housing designed to protect a thermometer from direct solar rays and to prevent direct wind currents from contacting the thermometer housed within.
What interests me is the physics and thermodynamics between the ambient air surrounding the thermometer, the air surrounding the screen, and the thermometer. In particular, how would the size of the screen and the material of which it is composed affect those parameters?
I suspect the smaller the screen the more it affects the temperature of the thermometer. How does conduction, convection, and radiation affect the thermometer.
A well defined Stevenson is a sub type of what you describe. I suggest you research yourself the difference between a cotton shelter and a Stevenson. As a start.
Here you go. As you will see the Cotton region shelter and the modern Stevenson are both major improvements over the original Stevenson screen which was problematic and not around for long. They are both different to these round beehives and each other. There are also differences from country to country. For example the Spanish Stevensons have a long skirt. The Australian Stevensons usually have a stupid steel pole and chassis underneath. Likely to pre-heat the vertical airflow and reflect/radiate into the wooden box through the gaps in the floor slats. It is being replaced by a plastic one. Have not seen if that is better or worse.
https://www.weatherbriefing.com/weather-blog/2016/8/21/cotton-region-shelter
https://www.esands.com/pdf/Meteorology/ESS_METSPEC_InstrumentShelters.pdf
Improved accuracy!
barry…re Argo bouys. I pronounce bouy as ‘boy’ whereas Yanks, in their strange vernacular, call them boo-ehs. Hate to imagine how Ozzies pronounce it.
The Argo bouy serves two purposes. It remains underwater most of the time measuring ocean temperature at a certain depth and surfaces every so often to measure air temperature. I regard that as unsatisfactory. When it surfaces, the thermometer unit will be soaked and/or subject to sea spray.
Furthermore, there is only one bouy on average for every 100,000 square km of sea surface area.
The correct spelling is “buoy”.
And the ARGO devices are “floats”, not buoys. Argo floats are free to drift with currents and buoys are typically anchored.
clint…I was having a bad hair day with the spelling but the buoys do spend most of their time submerged.
From NOAA…
“Argo is an international program that collects information from inside the ocean using free drifting profiling floats. These floats drift with the ocean currents and move up and down between the surface and a mid-water level”.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/argo/
Another point, suppose the land thermometers also relocated with the weather.
Show this to your therapist, gordon.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/hot-death-valley-days-dont-trust-those-temperatures/#comment-1695840
Your entire life is a “bad-hair day”. Maybe he can help you.
Sorry gordon, but making lame excuses for your incompetence is just more incompetence.
A buoy (/ˈbɔɪ, buː. i/; boy, BOO-ee) is a floating device that can have many purposes. It can be anchored (stationary) or allowed to drift with ocean currents. Smart buoy with solar panels, LED light, and corner reflectors for radar.
Generally buoys always float at the surface, anchored or drifting.
Floats is a broader term that includes floating at different levels in a medium, including the surface. A weather balloon can float at an assigned altitude, it’s buoyancy is determined by the relative density of the medium vs the balloon.
One can never rule out human error or human interference. But to blame local temperature differences on the above one needs to rule out albedo and geographical effects that might explain some or all of the difference.
Or humidity.
I agree. I was lumping air current changes in the geographical effects category along with foehn winds. Micro climates are a big deal. I live on the coast and while the NWS model projections are typically actually reasonably correct for my locale, my actual climate is significantly different though if I moved my house as little as 150 feet in a certain direction it wouldn’t be.
For dealing with micro-climates one has to go 4 dimensional at a very fine scale in mapping out climate zones. For example natural phenomena such as trees can have a very large microclimate effect. Availability of water also has huge effects. For instance the Colorado River valley is much different than it was before humans became so populated in the southwest of the US. . .and there are not many people actually living in the Colorado River Valley.
“For example natural phenomena such as trees can have a very large microclimate effect.”
But at 2m there is no ‘tree effect’ in the measurements taken. So the temperature differs quite a bit!
Explain what you mean.
Microclimates are not considered in the measurements, AT ALL.
thanks, I agree
What percentage is that? That is the most important thing.
Water vapor absorbs UVB radiation, which increases in the troposphere when ozone production in the upper stratosphere decreases.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Daily temperature anomalies in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/X3cpZwg/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20241222t1800-41n74w-1.jpg
Current snow cover in the northern hemisphere. Hudson Bay is freezing fast.
https://i.ibb.co/fHBqfmf/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
About time!
Too bad old Henry Hudson was not aware of how cold it got in Hudson Bay, then unnamed. He was looking for the NW Passage and got into an inlet that led to the bay bearing his name. Of course, HB looks much like an ocean to anyone entering it and he sailed south as far as James Bay at the bottom.
He had to winter there and I recall from another story that they found James Bay to be inhospitable. After the winter, Hudson wanted to press on west and the crew was having none of it. They cast him adrift in a lifeboat and that was the last anyone heard of him.
The point is, despite any global warming, HB will continue to freeze over every winter due to its proximity to the Arctic. Reduced sunlight to no sunlight equals frigid conditions despite any trace gases in the atmosphere.
Any Canadian lands north of the US border and sufficiently inland are subjected from December onward till spring to temps ranging from -20c to -50c. Meantime on the southwest coast temps hardly ever go below 0C. That shows what an influence the oceans have on global temps.
Was this silenced because the propaganda wasn’t working?
clint…sure hope the condition that relegates you to a sourpuss clears up soon. Now that we have proved the Moon cannot possibly rotate on a local axis, how about proving Pluto is as much a planet as any other planet?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_the_Divine_Heart#/media/File%3AMaria_Droste_zu_Vischering_and_the_Sacred_Heart_of_Jesus.jpg
La Nia.
https://i.ibb.co/XFk6Trh/IDYOC007-202412.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
But it is getting warmer, every year! /sarc
RLH, what on earth are you talking about? Ren’s graphs don’t cover even one year, and the second graph is detrended anomalies. And as absolutely no one claims it’s getting warmer every single year, the comment is apropos of nothing at all.
bill h…”Generally buoys always float at the surface, anchored or drifting.
Floats is a broader term that includes floating at different levels in a medium, including the surface”.
***
Hey, Bill, how’s it going?
Not quibbling with your comment, just adding to it. The point is, the Argo floats/buoys spend most of the time submerged then rise to the surface occasionally to measure surface temperatures. The important point for me, however, is that the floats are free to move with ocean currents.
Several points….
1)During the transition from submerged to floating, what assurances do we have that water and sea spray are not dramatically affecting the surface temperature measurement? Sea spray and related water will be at ocean water temperatures and cannot represent the air molecules needed to ascertain atmospheric temperature. Air molecules near the ocean surface will be super-saturated with water molecules and that will vary with latitude and ocean conditions.
Also, a buoy floating on the surface is subjected to altitude variations according to wave height that might vary up to 100 feet. Meantime it is likely being pounded by ocean waves.
2)The floats are free to move with ocean currents. What the heck good is that for measuring surface temperature? Suppose land stations moved with the wind so that the thermometers were measuring in different locations day by day?
3) it appears obvious that the oceans, making up 70% of the planet’s surface are not covered adequately with surface floats. Based on the number of floats and the surface area of the oceans, there is roughly 1 float for every 100,000 sq. km of ocean surface. Now we are told the floats cannot be depended upon to remain in that area.
4)it remains clear that the only means of accurately measuring surface temperatures are the satellite telemetries. It is not clear how anyone arguing an equivalence between surface thermometers and sat telemetry can possibly justify such an equivalence.
5)it’s equally clear that what we regard as an average global temperature is a fabrication based on statistical arguments that have no basis in physics. It is equally obvious that the concept of climate change, which is reliant on a change in the wildly fabricated surface temperature average, is just as fabricated.
Gordon Robertson
I think you fail to understand what is being looked at with global warming. You believe you need an actual complete measurement of a global temperature to determine if the globe is warming or not.
You doubt statistics and averages. Not sure why. Do you know that statistically human height in industrial nations is increasing. You don’t have to measure every human to determine this. I think you do not understand statistics at all and its use in modern science when dealing with large numbers of individuals.
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
If you only had one thermometer in your area of where you live, as long as the readings were consistent and done honestly you could determine a long term trend. You could assess if your area was getting warmer, cooler or showing no change.
As long as the readings of ocean temp are consistent and honestly taken, a valid trend can be determined.
Look at Roy’s previous post at his monthly temperature update. You can see a clear upward trend in his global temperature readings. You seem to think you need every square meter of surface air to be measured before you can determine a trend in data. I think you should take a course in statistics so you have some rational comprehension of what statics is and what it can do.
“You could assess if your area was getting warmer”
but not if it is in a microclimate!
norman…”I think you fail to understand what is being looked at with global warming. You believe you need an actual complete measurement of a global temperature to determine if the globe is warming or not”.
***
norman…long time, no see. How’s thing going?
I am not questioning a 1C average warming since 1850, I am questioning what it means, how it is measured, and the inferences offered by alarmists re trace gases.
A 1C average warming is a figured arrived at statistically and literally means nothing. That’s partly because parts of the planet have warmed up to 5C while other parts have cooled almost the same amount. Otherwise, we would have to state that the planet had warmed 5C or so since 1850.
Look at the UAH temperature contour maps and you see temperatures anomalies ranging from +5C to about -5C. With such a disparity in temperatures seasonally, ask yourself how the powers that be arrive at a current global average specified in 1/10ths of a degree C. It’s all statistics, applied totally out of context.
Then ask yourself, how they can possibly measure to such accuracy using thermometers spaced, on average, to cover 100,000 km^2 for each thermometer. Then ask yourself about the statistics of taking two-a-day readings and averaging the readings to get a daily average.
Meantime, the planet has been rewarming from a 400+ year mini ice age (LIA) that coincidentally ended circa 1850. I mean this is so blatantly obvious as a major contribution to the 1C warming, through rewarming, yet the IPCC, with a mandate to find ONLY evidence of anthropogenic warming dismisses the LIA as a local phenomenon to Europe only.
That’s what my post was about Norman, nothing to do with me arguing that no warming has occurred.
richard…re microclimates…
As I have described several times, here in the Vancouver, Canada region we have a few microclimates within 150 miles of Vancouver. We even have them in the vicinity of Vancouver.
In the Canadian prairies, in the city of Regina, the weather conditions around the city are pretty much the same as you will find 50 or 100 miles down the road. You might get local disturbances due to thunderstorms in spring and summer but other than that summer is pretty well summer and winter is pretty well winter all over the prairies.
Not so in the Vancouver region.
We have oceans surrounding us on one side and mountains on the other. To the east we have a long, relatively flat valley, the Fraser Valley, that extends some 70 miles east along the US border (soon to become the 11th province of Canada) before entering mountains again. Those conditions produce a good amount of precipitation that can vary significantly and which can have an effect on temperatures.
There are also altitude variation. That is noticeable even over a 600 foot rise in elevation from sea level to 600 feet at the eastern boundary of Vancouver. I have a friend who lives in the municipality immediately east of Vancouver and she is at about 600 feet. We compare notes often and she has temperatures 1C to 2C warmer or colder in summer and winter respectively.
The further you go east of Vancouver, the colder it can become in winter. The ‘Valley’ is known for its wind storms in winter about 50 miles east of Vancouver. I was just watching a program of a towing company responsible for keeping the roads clear in winter. They are located at Hope, about 90 miles east of Vancouver and in the mountains.
Temperatures there were reaching -25C whereas we in the Vancouver region seldom get below 0C. If you follow the Fraser River north from Hope for 100 miles, you are suddenly in a full desert climate. That desert-like condition has been there for at least a century and is not changing despite global warming.
Gordon Robertson
I just quit posting because of the constant 403 error. I try it and see if that problem was fixed maybe once a week.
I do not know what your source of information is on the land coverage. The actual sources (not some blog opinion) state that the Global temperature comes from multiple sources and uses many more stations than you claim.
Here:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
“Todays temperature data come from many sources, including more than 32,000 land weather stations, weather balloons, radar, ships and buoys, satellites, and volunteer weather watchers.”
You keep claiming they use only about 1000 stations but the actual source says they use 32,000 land stations and then other sources.
The article shows how using raw data 4 different research groups come up with similar warming.
They have links to all the raw data (which is not changed) and you could write a program and analyze it yourself since you are so confident these scientists are frauds and liars you can do important work and show how they are being deceptive by analyzing the raw data and proving fraud. It is easy to call them fraudsters, much harder to prove.
You have your opinion but it is not based upon any facts. You read opinions on blogs and you then think it is reality. What is your source of scientists using only a few stations to get some global average?
Gordon Robertson says:
During the transition from submerged to floating, what assurances do we have that water and sea spray are not dramatically affecting the surface temperature measurement? Sea spray and related water will be at ocean water temperatures and cannot represent the air molecules needed to ascertain atmospheric temperature. Air molecules near the ocean surface will be super-saturated with water molecules and that will vary with latitude and ocean conditions.
——————-
The buoys don’t measure air temperature at all. At the surface the temperature sensor remains below the surface. So global mean temperature via the climate science compilators is a composite of underwater near surface water temperature of the ocean and near surface air temperature.
========================
Gordon Robertson says:
its equally clear that what we regard as an average global temperature is a fabrication based on statistical arguments that have no basis in physics. It is equally obvious that the concept of climate change, which is reliant on a change in the wildly fabricated surface temperature average, is just as fabricated.
—————
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that.
It is pretty clear however that the efforts to learn something from the surface temperature record has been done in a very amateurish way. A bunch of guys sitting in an office in NYC trying to outthink retired or now dead weather station managers and trying to get the record to reflect their religious belief system.
The system was never designed to reveal global climate but it remains the only pre-satellite instrument record there is. The value of the record is probably best in indicating climate change for the actual instrument. But Roy here lays out an argument that perhaps could apply to any two instruments in the surface instrument record.
The focus on airports is especially concerning. Whereas the airports might best meet instrument record standards, the reason why might be attributed to the fact airports were pretty much situated outside of population centers with so many of them either being since engulfed by population or in the process of becoming so.
All that said there has been warming over the past 44 years as testified by both the surface record and the satellite instrument records. However there has been warming astronomical forces in play now. Neptune will hit neutrality in 2027 leaving none of the gas giants creating a warming influence for the first time since 1944.
Jupiter and Saturn create a warming effect that has changed the warming rate over the last several solar cycles from 0 warming to as much as a 1/2 degree/decade (according to HC3); but the known effects of these planets is ignored because they are not climate change length variations, though even NOAA does acknowledge a 900 year cycle of Jupiter and Saturn in astronomical models that apparently only include Jupiter and Saturn that gets gradually ”burned” in in time with longer termed Milankovic cycles of somewhat questionable provenance. My own rough estimation of gravitational parameters indicates that Uranus and Neptune could provide a long term variation of up to about .375C raw sans climate term feedback over half its 170 some odd year cycle which is more than an order of magnitude greater than the other Milankovic effects over the same period of time.
But nowhere is any of this supposition documented anywhere I have been able to find.
Academia is great but you always need some entrepreneur to come along and show if can actually fly.
A different answer – how about another weather station between DVNP and Stovepipe? Something out in the middle of no where.
Facts – Better to have a few more data points. Another weather station or two would be nice.
Yes, in this high tech interconnected world, I’m frustrated with “interpolation” instead of measurements. Historically people have “stumbled upon” the unknown fact or phenomenon about as often as they have looked for it.
It’s not as if the interpolation has significant meaning. It is done between stations up to 1200 km apart then the interpolated temperature is used to determine the temp of a pseudo-station that can be 1200 km from the other two.
I have related several times how temps in my part of the world near Vancouver, Canada can vary wildly over 150 miles. They can be 20C higher than Vancouver in summer and 20C cooler in winter.
Not only that, temps can vary several degrees in the city alone due to differences of 600 feet in altitude. That’s not to mention nearby mountain that rise to 3500 feet. People can ski on the mountains in winter and play soccer lower in the city.
TechnoCave
Why are you claiming about ‘interpolation’ – a technique which after all was not mentioned at all by Roy Spencer within his four posts on Death Valley.
You’d better have noticed that the poster nicknamed bdgwx wrote a little, hopelessly cryptic comment somewhere above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/hot-death-valley-days-dont-trust-those-temperatures/#comment-1695718
And like me, you’d then at least have read Chrstopher McCay’s paper and maybe also have downloaded the data he collected at the Badwater station.
*
Here are the results.
Since Stovepipe Wells started operation in 2004 and Badwater’s last July data was in 2018, I had to concentrate the comparison of the three on the 15-year period 2004-2018.
1. Absolute temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jhTi8vaKoQAP4t7fKftL_nUl_EnNQIaw/view
This not stricto sensu a daily time series whith data from January till December: it is the concatenation of the Julys in 15 consaecutive years.
At a first glance, it looks as if Death Valley (DV) would stay above the others, and Stovepipe below.
Many won’t notice how often DV data flirts with lowest values in the chart: simply because while ‘hotter’ is for ‘skeptic’s nearly always questionable, ‘colder’ is… nearly always OK for them.
*
2. Daily July baselines
By averaging in each station data all July days from 2004 till 2018, we obtain this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7gR74IUABZMp6LKBxGeVO0j_noyBmMc/view
You can see that the ‘distance’ between Badwater and DV is smaller than that between DV and Stovepipe.
*
3. Daily departures from the local baselines
By subtracting, like is done in UAH data at monthly level, each baseline day value from the absolute data in the same day, we obtain daily departures (anomalies) from the baseline values:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hnlhd4dlsh7PV6urHbaJ7mFU3Xajt8JC/view
You now can see that DV is everywhere, and by no means solist at the top.
And looking at the linear trends of the three time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19nFUH6a5veUjgMn5_woLQeHsBCeYV33X/view
you can see that they are so extremely similar that you see Badwater’s and DV’s trends below Stovepipe’s only because the trend lines were drawn in dash mode.
*
Draw your conclusions.
Trump started cooling the planet already
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Co2 is overwhelmingly beneficial to the planet
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/12/24/science-shock-co2-is-good-for-the-planet-peer-reviewed-studies-suggest/
All things in moderation.
If I deprived you of water you would die of thirst in 3 days. If I held your head underwater you would die in three minutes.
Ditto CO2. Remove it all from the atmosphere; anything larger than a microbe would die and temperatures would decrease by 33K.
Increase CO2 concentration to 90 bar and you would get Venus conditions with 730C temperature and no life either.
Where’s your sweet spot?
8oo – 1200 ppm
ent…no one dies of thirst, it is merely a sensation that we instinctively develop to indicate we need water. We die due to a lack of water because water is an essential part of the biochemical reactions required to sustain life.
Comparing water for humans to CO2 in the atmosphere in the same manner is ingenuous. Sure, CO2 is an essential element for some organic life but there is no way it has raised the global average 33C. It has been the entire atmosphere which is 99% oxygen and nitrogen that is responsible for such warming. Also, the oceans are required.
The 33C figure is based on a highly theoretical temperature based on a planet with no atmosphere and no oceans. It’s base is a temperature derived from S-B and inaccurately at that.
It’s going to be a frosty January on the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/mSNyg2h/ventusky-temperature-2m-20250110t1200.jpg
As always, Robertson tells us stupid stories that come from his sick mind, for example that the American NOAA administration only uses 1500 weather stations worldwide, from whose data they artificially calculate the temperatures around the world by interpolation.
*
This nonsense comes from Robertson’s intentional misinterpretation of a NOAA document
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
in which it still was written in 2008 (oh Noes !!!) that they could no longer use 4500 of the 6000 GHCN stations worldwide at the time because these stations did not deliver their data automatically.
*
Since NOAA’s GHCN V2 verifiably began operations with 7280 stations before the first web archiving on August 11, 1997:
https://web.archive.org/web/19970811212340/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.inv.Z
the NOAA document that Robertson deliberately refers to incorrectly must already refer to the period before 1997 (version GHCN V1 (1990-1997), with aha look: 6039 stations):
https://daac.ornl.gov/daacdata/global_climate/CDIAC_NDP41/comp/temp.statinv
*
As one can easily see, at the time this station list from GHCN V1 was stored in Oak Ridge, no station had data after 1990; that is thus the point in time from which the 4500 stations that had become unusable must have been removed one after the other.
*
But those blog readers who love to read the stupid lies of 360 degree deniers like Robertson, do not have to worry about preserving their permanently everything discrediting source.
Robertson ignores all refutations of his daily lies and will certainly repeat them ad nauseam!
How many of those are at sea level (or compensated to be so) as are 70% of the planet.
As always, the little, old contrarian Brit Blindsley H00d wrote a small, redundant, sentence-like line – with no explanation as to how exactly it relates to the comment he unnecessarily replied to.
Don’t think he would count the number of stations at or near sea level, e.g. in the over 27,000 units long GHCN V4 station list! He would never do that, he’s just too lazy.
It’s so much easier for him to try to appear as one of the most experienced commenters on this blog, even if he’s light years away from that.
*
Langer Rede kurzer Sinn: Stop asking stupid things, Blindley H00d, and give us YOUR answers to YOUR nonsense instead.
As usual Blinny misses the vital point “(or compensated to be so)”.
The correct answer is “none”.
Thank you, Blindsley H00d, for confirming to all of us that you had nothing relevant to ask, let alone say.
Unfortunately, you will never stop leaving your little egomaniacal, irrelevant piles everywhere – just like your denial friend Robertson constantly does (with posts mostly horrifying longer than yours, however).
The only minuscule detail that sets you apart from him is that you are not stupid enough to deny globally accepted scientific findings such as the calculation of our Moon’s spin, or the benefits of vaccination.
So when is all the land/ocean data going to be brought to one standard?
As always, why is that needed?
Well if 70% is one one standard ands 30% is on another what validity do you claim for them?
The standard is both are measured at the surface, where people live. And the surface T TREND is of interest.
To ‘correct’ the land temperatures to a sea level standard requires a climate model, adding another layer of unnecessary uncertainty.
This is yet another of your faux controversies.
binny, in total denial of fact, a fact presented directly by NOAA, obfuscates the fact in a pathetic attempt to save face.
Binny provides a link that I posted in a form that cannot be used. Here is the proper link…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
At this link, NOAA clearly states the following…
“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”.
Note…the link is no longer available since the climate alarmists in the Obama administration had it and other ‘scientific’ sites obliterated. The US Department of Energy used to have an excellent objective site and it is gone too.
Even NOAA cannot resist obfuscating the fact. They go on to say…
“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”.
NOAA is inferring that the record has actually increased in size even though they have claimed it shrunk by more than 75%. Then, on the other (slight of) hand, they claim the record is actually larger.
They claim “…the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions”.
That’s where GHCN comes in. It is that pseudo-record of digitization of temperature records that no longer apply and cannot be used in real time as the less than 1500 stations can be used. NOAA is telling us they slashed the current record from 6000 stations to less than 1500, but not to worry since GHCN has over 100,000 stations on the books. What good are those records of past data? Anyone who is willing to buy that pseudo-logic is surely a dyed-in-the-wool alarmist.
GHCN also keeps a record of real-time stations and the question arises as to why NOAA is using less than 1500 of them when they have over 100,000 stations in the GHCN record. Based on what GISS claimed, they simply lack the resources to check more than 1500 stations per month.
GHCN = Global ‘Historical’ Climatology Network’. The emphasis is on historical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network
GHCN has nothing to do with the current global temperature record, it is intended as a historical database only. By the time GHCN receives the data, it is history and useless for determining global temps.
That does not stop Binny from blithely using the database to create his own propaganda. NOAA is not that dumb, they are climate alarmists who select data stations based only on how warm they are.
Here is an exhaustive research of GHCN courtesy of chiefio. Of course, Binny will attack chiefio rather than verifying his data.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/v1vsv3/
Binny cannot even begin to explain any of this so he resorts to ad hom attacks and insults.
At climate alarmist seminars, Binny can be found in the front row, dressed in his lederhosen, wearing an alpine hat, and yodeling till he is told to shut the eff up.
An excellent and exhaustive study of GHCN versions 1, 2 and 3 by chiefio…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
“In Conclusion
The patterns of the data do not match those one would expect to see from radiative driven warming via a Greenhouse Gas well distributed over the planet.
The patterns of the data do match those one would expect to see from data collection and processing artifacts.
Observed variation from one version of the data to the next are larger than the global warming signal being sought.
The computer programs that are asserted to remove those biases and changes have never had an audit, never had a benchmark test, never had a validation suite run; in short, they are untested in the ways that all other commercial software are tested and they have not been subject to the kinds of validation required for computer programs used for banks and drug companies. We are, in essence, told trust me I know what Im doing. Peer review is largely Trust me, my friends think I know what Im doing.
We are being asked to play Economic Chicken with our economy based on computerized speculation using data that are unfit for purpose. Those countries that have followed the suggested path (such as Spain) are on the brink of ruin. Those that have continued to exploit traditional energy sources (China) are thriving.
The story is being presented that the heroic thing to do is to Save the World via embracing what are at best speculative ideas about how to run the economy and to do so based on energy sources that are incredibly more expensive and less reliable. All based on one underlying data set that mutates rapidly and has issues.
Is it not the more heroic and responsible thing to do to stand up and simply say: I choose to save the American Economy for the American People. Then take the time to test the various theories and to see if there is any way to repair the broken data that underpins the warming case.
There has been no detectable warming for the last dozen years. The natural weather cycles have turned. We have at least a couple of more decades of this half of the cycle. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is use that time to do a more carefully audited and controlled study of the data, and with truly independent researchers whose careers are not already wedded to not being shown wrong.
Looking at the GHCN data set as it stands today, Id hold it not fit for purpose even just for forecasting crop planting weather. I certainly would not play Bet The Economy on it. I also would not bet my reputation and my career on the infallibility of a handful of Global Warming researchers whose income depends on finding global warming; and on a similar handful of computer programmers whos code has not been benchmarked nor subjected to a validation suite. If we can do it for a new aspirin, cant we do it for the U.S. Economy writ large?
In short, is not the heroic thing to do to stand up and say: The climate researchers have no clothes, their data are not fit for purpose”.
How is it, then, that the satellite temperature records of the lower troposphere are such a close match to surface temperatures? ‘Chiefio’ didn’t take an interest in that. Or in the global reanalyses that use many parameters besides temperature to build a global temperature time series.
No ‘skeptic’ seems to notice that the surface records are corroborated by other methods estimating the evolution of global temperature in the modern period.
UAH has always been an ‘outlier’ in global temperature calculations. Or are you disputing that now?
No need to reply to Robertson’s trash he endlessly repeats since at least five years, based on EM Smith’s (aka chiefio) incredibly incompetent posts like
Musings from the Chiefio – Techno bits and mind pleasers
GHCN Up North, Blame Canada!, Comrade
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
Posted on 27 October 2009 by E.M.Smith
*
Only pathological liars and technically ignorant people can credulously believe such tremendous nonsense.
*
But Robertson never will accept being wrong. So what…
Nevertheless, he can’t change the facts I mentioned in my post above.
*
And what helps him the most is that this blog is based on another fact: freedom of speech matters here more than truth, endlessly repeated polemical lies weight here more than their technical contradiction.
Otherwise he never would write even a single line here.
As predicted, Binny has nothing to offer but ad homs and insults.
E. M. Smith at chiefio has the talent Binny lacks. Smith can actually read GHCN data and interpret it objectively. All Binny can do is huff and puff, insult, and ad hom.
binny omits his tendency toward paranoid schizophrenia, one of his many traits which lends to his suspicious, mean nature.
“The buoys don’t measure air temperature at all. At the surface the temperature sensor remains below the surface. So global mean temperature via the climate science compilators is a composite of underwater near surface water temperature of the ocean and near surface air temperature.”
So sayeth the advocates of ARGO.
“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 fundamental reason for the difference between the two methods is the assumption inherent in the traditional method, of a
symmetrical rise and fall of the daily temperature. However, at all of the stations studied, there is on average a rightward skew in the daily temperature curve; that is, the temperature rises more quickly in the morning than it falls in the evening and at night. There is variation in the shape of the daily temperature curve among stations, including the DTR and the number of hours spent in each quarter of the daily distribution of temperature. Our results support previous work indicating an important difference between the two methods of temperature averaging — agreeing with Wang (2015) and Li et al. (2014) that on average, the traditional method overestimates the average daily temperature”
A Comparison of Daily Temperature Averaging Methods: Spatial Variability and Recent Change for the CONUS
Jase BernhardtJase Bernhardt
2018, Journal of Climate
Has not been refuted!
rlh…”The fundamental reason for the difference between the two methods is the assumption inherent in the traditional method, of a symmetrical rise and fall of the daily temperature. However, at all of the stations studied, there is on average a rightward skew in the daily temperature curve; that is, the temperature rises more quickly in the morning than it falls in the evening and at night”.
***
Tried to point this out a while back. In our summers in Vancouver, Canada, once it has warmed on a hot day, the temps remain high for long period, even into the early hours. On a few nights, when day time temps have reached the high 20C range I have been out walking in the wee hours in a T-shirt.
I have experienced what is mentioned in the quote above, which is all the more reason for not using a simple average from two-a-day thermometer readings.
That is all there is for long term temperature readings. So that is used (poorly) to justify it.
What is the size of this effect on global temperature trends in the last 50 y?
At least 1 degree Celsius!
Nate
It’s New Year now, not the right time.
A more precise answer will follow, re:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view
Of course Blinny does not address anything in the article. No surprse there.
“Wang (2015) and Li et al. (2014) that on average, the traditional method overestimates the average daily temperature”
Others agree!
RLH
Your concern to get more accurate temperatures is noted. However that would have nothing to do with a noticed upward trend in global temperatures since all the readings from previous decades were taken in the same way. The trend is what is concerning to some. You can look at Roy Spencer’s monthly global temperature graph and see upward trend in the data.
So you have no problem relying on ‘old’ data that is, at least. suspect?
“You can look at Roy Spencer’s monthly global temperature graph and see upward trend in the data.”
So what would your comment be if the data failed to rise continuously?
“At least 1 degree Celsius!”
Where does this come from, aside from your imagination?
The effect on trend could well be zero.
“The effect on trend could well be zero.”
As could the future.
So your claim this effect on global temperature trend was ‘at least 1 deg C’ was simply BS?
Let’s face it, your endless complaints are pointless.
No suggestions as to what the future conceals?
Nate, Norman (part 1)
Slowly I sneak out of pretty heavy bronchitis.
*
RLH (my nickname for him: Blindsley H00d) almost four years ago claimed that the average of TMIN and TMAX would have historically led to excessive temperature values, without ever providing this with concrete figures.
At that time I downloaded and processed the hourly values of over 600 German weather stations.
The comparison between (TMIN+TMAX)/2, median value and precise average of the 24 hour values showed the following picture for the past 50 years:
– absolute temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/171kaog775MFB0JHQCN7PTYSU-IXP3FWA/view
– Anomalies regarding Mean of 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1foeq50ao5rfeppgqgvy1MTV56LAL0TME/view
All curves (temperatures, polynomial) resemble in such a way that they were generated in dash fashion, otherwise you would only see the top.
50 years trends for 1973-2023, in c / decade
– absolute temperatures
– (Tmin +Tmax)/2: 0.47 +- 0.17
– Median value: 0.49 +- 0.17
– 24h Average: 0.49 +- 0.17
– Anomalies
– (TMIN +TMAX)/2: 0.44 +- 0.04
– Median value: 0.46 +- 0.03
– 24h Average: 0.46 +- 0.04
*
It is interesting to plot the differences between
– 24 h average and (TMin+Tmax)/2
– 24h average and median value
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kwvfqy6t1j-wkzg62ctulwaqxa2pa10/view
Most blue values are negative because (Tmin+Tmax)/2 is above the 24h average. The median value behaves (here).
As you can see, a difference between +- 0.1 C, between precise means and approximation through (TMIN +TMAX)/2 or median value, no indication of their trends at all.
*
Note: The fact that the trend for (TMIN+TMAX)/2 here is something below the two is specific to the data discussed here. Elsewhere it can be something about it.
*
More in the next days about a similar but deeper evaluation of the data recorded by the pristine USCRN stations.
Blinny obviously did not read the paper where it clearly pointed out that the effect was site, region and season specific but instead produced a graph which shows none of them!
Of course I read the paper, you eternal simple statistics student perhaps in more detail than you.
*
The only reason for my comment was not about that paper; it just was to confirm Nate’s correct thoughts about your claim when he wrote:
” So your claim this effect on global temperature trend was ‘at least 1 deg C’ was simply BS?
Let’s face it, your endless complaints are pointless. ”
He was plain right, you were the one who brazenly ‘transformed’ the authors’ findings of (Tmin +Tmax)/2 being on average 0.1 C higher than the true hourly average, into your personal ‘evaluation’ based as usual on nothing real.
*
So you are, so you keep, Blindsley H00d: a person intentinonally misrepresenting and distorting the scientific results of others in order to let them fit your personal, scienceless narrative.
*
By the way, I wasn’t at all wondering about their results pointing out spatiotemporal biases in the differences they found. No wonder.
Uploaded in August 2021:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1egXNGmi4T-8rxh7PVMxH3Unq5agJmOIB/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oi8IUJWvaVn9xyFQZTMWgidzwTQRuEku/view
Sorry, I’m not saying interpolation is bad. I was calling for more data points. “Mo data, mo better” because of “_______” fill in the blank.
To your point, weather and air stratify. What is things are changing and Death Valley really is hotter. Not because of the visitor center but dust making the air heavier. Not saying that is the case. I am saying “we stumble upon discoveries as often as we look for them”
Take some more readings. We have the recording, measuring and transmitting technology.
One of these years I’m going to compare Weather stations to seismic sensors to show the “sensor gap”
Happy New Year!!!
CO2 – the greening gas
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.DjXgXpww.dpbs
https://notrickszone.com/2024/12/30/scientists-report-a-striking-global-greening-trend-over-the-last-42-years/
And increased humidity!
The American political scene continues to entertain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy53vz1qpx1o
From January 24th Kekius Maximus will be the power behind Donald Trump’s throne.
You couldnt make it up!
And the money!
Elon Musk – the next president of the universe
https://youtu.be/I254Aq8kAhI
Perry Mason…The Case of the Missing Posts.
Once again, as in early December, several posts have mysteriously gone missing. A case for Inspector Clouseau???