UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2017: +0.28 deg. C

August 1st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2017 was +0.28 deg. C, up a little from the June, 2017 value of +0.21 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.73 +0.38 +0.84
2016 02 +0.86 +1.19 +0.52 +0.99
2016 03 +0.76 +0.99 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.86 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.45 +0.71
2016 06 +0.32 +0.47 +0.17 +0.38
2016 07 +0.37 +0.43 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.53 +0.32 +0.50
2016 09 +0.45 +0.50 +0.39 +0.38
2016 10 +0.42 +0.42 +0.41 +0.46
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.36
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.23
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.33 +0.09
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 +0.39
2017 07 +0.28 +0.29 +0.27 +0.51

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through July 2017 is now +0.13 C/decade.

NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for July, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


1,953 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2017: +0.28 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Still high but in the range with still no signs of a breakout to the upside which has now been going on for some 20 years.

    If AGW was real and the true climate driver the global temperature average at this late date would be higher then .28c ,and this is against the backdrop of a neutral Enso much less no La Nina.

    On the other hand global temperatures for what I am saying are still high and the low solar conditions(although they just started this year) have yet to have a impact.

    Again my low solar/climate play is low solar will result in a higher albedo/lower sea surface temperature scenario, hence lower global temperatures.

    Global ocean temperatures still high .326c last check.

    One item I am not sure of is, are there low average solar average parameter values that will bring the climate to some sort of threshold?

    If true the global cooling IF it comes as a result of low solar will be more in a step like fashion rather then a slow gradual cooling fashion.

    I would say thus far the climate is not cooperating with the views of either side that being steady global warming or global cooling. It is neutral.

    Time I hope will tell.

    • Vladimir Paar says:

      For broader audience it would be more convincing to present two additional diagrams:

      A) departures from monthly means 1998-2017

      b) departures from monthly means 1979-1997

      Namely, between the 1979-1997 and 1998-2017 intervals there is an obvious “physical phase transition” (of unknown origin ?) so there is an argument for separate consideration of these two intervals.

      What is the linear temperature trend for 1998-2017 from diagram A? It is much smaller than 0.13 C!

      • David Appell says:

        Vladimir Paar says:
        “Namely, between the 1979-1997 and 1998-2017 intervals there is an obvious physical phase transition (of unknown origin ?)”

        I don’t see anything obvious, except the existence of a large El Nino. What are your criteria for a “physical phase transition?” How do you define that?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        vladimir paar…”between the 1979-1997 and 1998-2017 intervals there is an obvious physical phase transition (of unknown origin ?)”

        Thank you. I have been trying to point that out. To me it is obvious since I was trained extensively in engineering to do visual analysis of graphs.

        It’s obvious (using the red running average curve) that following the 1998 EN, there was a sudden, unexplained surge in average global temps of about 0.2C beginning around 2001. The same phenomenon occurred in 1977 when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was first observed.

        If both those surges are unknown then 0.4C of the claimed global warming is unknown. Combine that with the 0.5C which Akasofu claimed as re-warming from the Little Ice Age and you have explained all current global warming.

        Post 1998, almost everything is above the baseline and pre 1998 almost everything is below the baseline. Temps above the baseline are largely centred on the 0.2C of unexplained warming.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “To me it is obvious since I was trained extensively in engineering to do visual analysis of graphs.”

          The funniest thing is that you appear to be proud of this.

          Trends can only be determined mathematically.

          • GC says:

            David,

            “Trends can only be determined mathematically”

            Correct. BUT, trend per decade is about as useful as seeing the physicality of the real world trends in a time series of stochastic data as getting a child to get a ruler a stencil a line from point A to point B. But you’re all crazy mad on trend per decade that doesn’t tell you WHEN the warming occurred. i.e the step change warming Post 1998 (delayed in its appearance in the forward moving time series due to the strong La Nia post the 97/8 El Nio.

            Can you tell me what physical insights into the actual observed anomalies of a chaotic open thermodynamic system governed by simultaneous non linear equations of unknown formula is provided by the mathematical concept of TREND PER DECADE?

          • lewis says:

            GC,
            First, David, most likely, will ignore your request, as the answer is political.
            Second, the answer has to do with providing evidence that government should take over the economy before we hurt ourselves.
            You know, don’t play with matches.

            Third, What an excellent question. I thank you for it.

          • David Appell says:

            GC: I think you don’t understand trends, which are not based on just a decades worth of data, but several (>= 3, usually) even when the trend is expressed in C/decade.

          • GC says:

            David,

            You didn’t answer the question. Therefore I reasonably assume it to be you that does not understand trends in stochastic data and your reply to be nothing but mere projection as distraction.

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            “Second, the answer has to do with providing evidence that government should take over the economy before we hurt ourselves.”

            Absurd.

            Name one way you would be impacted if the energy from a coal plant would be replaced by same-price solar energy.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Name one way you would be impacted if the energy from a coal plant would be replaced by same-price solar energy.”

            Why does China use coal for 80% of electrical needs when they could use same-price solar energy for 80% of electrical needs?

          • David Appell says:

            balkie: you didn’t answer my question.

            Name one way you would be impacted if the energy from a coal plant would be replaced by same-price solar energy.

            (My first reply here was deleted.)

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            August 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM

            balkie: you didnt answer my question.

            Name one way you would be impacted if the energy from a coal plant would be replaced by same-price solar energy.

            (My first reply here was deleted.)–

            I know how we could get same-price solar energy as compared to coal and be would better than Coal power. Cheaper, infinite supply, and more “portable” [available anywhere on Earth surface and anywhere in the Earth-Moon system].

            But harvesting solar energy on the Earth surface doesn’t work.

            Harvesting solar power on the Earth’s surface is not a global solution, nor could be viable as primary electrical power source for any ideally situated nation on Earth.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis failed to name one way he would be impacted if the energy from a coal plant would be replaced by same-price solar energy.

          • David Appell says:

            gb, why do you think coal power is cheaper than renewable electricity?

            What are the health care costs created by that coal plant?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “If both those surges are unknown then 0.4C of the claimed global warming is unknown. Combine that with the 0.5C which Akasofu claimed as re-warming from the Little Ice Age and you have explained all current global warming.”

          Hilarious, since you just claimed there were “unexplained” surges.

          So if you include the unexplained, you can explain global warming. Brilliant.

          • richard verney says:

            The problem with your argument is that what is observed in the satellite data is a step change in temperature (of around a little under +0.3degC) centred around the 1997/98 Super El Nino.

            One of the so called basic physics of the CO2 molecule is not that it causes El Ninos. There is no physic text book that cites this as a property of the gas.

            AGW should result in a broadly logarithmic response, not a series of step changes. But we do not see that in the satellite data (nor in the land thermometer data).

            Whilst on the subject of ENSO, following the strong El Nino of 2015/16, there has not been a complete ENSO cycle with a La Nina.

            Salvadore mentions that it has been ENSO neutral, whilst technically correct, this does not mean that ENSO has been reading zero. It has not. It has tracked around the +0.5 degC anonaly mark for the best part of a year, sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more, and that is why so many organisations predicted a double (a second) El Nino in 2017.

            Throughout 2017 El Nino has been an on/off affair. Presently, it is tracking around the +0.5degC mark. A few days ago when I checked, It was tracking at +0.4degC. If we were to have a La Nina, then it appears that the satellite temperature anomaly would drop below the zero mark.

            Whilst it is presently premature to judge, it appears that the 2015/16 El Nion was a strong El Nino like the 2010 El Nino, but not a Super El Nino like the 1997/98 El Nino. I say that the 1997/98 was a Super El Nino since there has been a step change in temperatures coincident upon it.

            There was no step change coincident with the 2010 strong El Nino, and it appears likely (at this stage) that there will be no step change in temperatures coincident with the strong 2015/17 El Nino. Final judgment on that will not be possible for several years and we will need first to see a La Nina, and to see what happens once that has dissipated. I expect that we will be in a position to draw better conclusions around 2020.

          • barry says:

            Richard,

            ‘Step-change’ is a popular talking point, but this feature is exactly what you’d expect to see in noisy data with occasional bumps from some intermittent events – like el Ninos. It does not mean that there is a physical step-jump.

            According to the ONI metric there was a la Nina at the end of 2016.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

            Different ENSO monitoring groups come to different conclusions, so your remark on the same should not be so… conclusive. While temps have hovered near Nino thresholds recently, they were at Nina thresholds throughout the latter part of 2016.

            A lot of importance seems to be attached to near-ENSO events re the global temp record recently, mostly, I’m sure, due to what the 2016 el Nino did to the pause. I think it’s over-analysing. More than ENSO influences global temperature variation in the short term.

            Of course CO2 doesn’t cause ENSO events. No one says differently. That comment is redundant.

            AGW should result in a broadly logarithmic response…

            With no feedbacks and if there was no weather, such as ENSO. But we certainly have ENSO events and other weather variability causing ups and downs in global temperature. We’ll never see a smooth curve, if that’s what you’re implying we should be seeing with CO2 warming.

            I expect that we will be in a position to draw better conclusions around 2020.

            The odds of a return to the so-called pause are very slim indeed at this point. We’d need to see temps (in the UAH record) over the next few years hovering around what they were in the 1984-86 period. Not even the double la Nina 1999/2000 produced such cold temperatures. The best hope for a flat/negative trend since 1998 is a volcanic eruption next year that pumps out more global dimming aerosols than Pinatubo. Even if we had the kind of cool temp deviation that event brought to global temperatures, it would not be enough. A Krakatoa-like event might do it.

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “AGW should result in a broadly logarithmic response, not a series of step changes.”

            No Richard.

            CO2’s forcing is logarithmic, but its increase in the atmosphere is exponential. These combine to give a linear change in temperature — before feedbacks. Feedbacks will make the trend greater than linear for many decades to come.

            You are imaging “step changes” where there are only natural variations, mostly El Ninos. There is certainly no scientific reason to justify claims of a “step change.”

          • Bart says:

            “CO2s forcing is logarithmic, but its increase in the atmosphere is exponential.”

            Nonsense. Atmospheric concentration has been nothing like exponential. At most, it has been quadratic, and is currently very nearly linear. It has not tracked emissions with any consistency.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Atmospheric concentration has been nothing like exponential.”

            Wrong. The global economy is increasing exponentially. Hence so are global CO2 emissions.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Atmospheric concentration has been nothing like exponential. At most, it has been quadratic, and is currently very nearly linear.”

            Any exponential function is linear over short periods of time! See: Taylor series.

            CO2 is clearly exponential over relevant periods of time. See the Keeling Curve.

          • Bart says:

            Facts are facts. It is at most quadratic, it doesn’t match the emissions, and the rise is essentially linear since the pause started.

          • Nate says:

            Facts are facts. But you are not really stating facts.

            The log(CO2) for the mauna loa co2 is increasing a bit FASTER than linearly since 1957.

            year log (c02) change

            1957 2.498 0

            1977 2.522 .024

            1997 2.561 .039

            2017 2.608 .047

          • Bart says:

            The second difference of your data shows

            year log (c02) change changeofchange

            1957 2.498 0 —

            1977 2.522 .024 —

            1997 2.561 .039 0.150

            2017 2.608 .047 0.0080

            i.e., a deceleration. The log of an exponential rise would not be decelerating.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Facts are facts. It is at most quadratic”

            Prove it.

            Your portray yourself as Mr Big-Shot Mathematician. So prove this.

            Prove something. Prove anything.

          • Nate says:

            ‘change of change’

            I think you are over analyzing.

            The point is the forcing, logCO2, has been increasing since 1960s.

            The rate of increase has been increasing (change each period is increasing). It has been accelerating. Just what was needed to explain increase in warming TREND since 1960s.

          • Bart says:

            Sorry, the rise is not exponential, and the rest does not follow.

        • Mickey Prumt says:

          “I was trained extensively in engineering to do visual analysis of graphs. ”

          That’s great.
          Now you have to train to understand what you see and what you really learn from that.

          UAH and RSS model-observation based calculations are very uncertain. Just compare last and new version of each calculation.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            UAH and RSS calculations are also very sensitive to variability.

          • TedM says:

            Then compare them with radiosonde and USNCRN data and you get a significant degree of confidence in them.

          • Mickey Prumt says:

            Are radiosondes used in a way or another for calibration of satellites retrievals ?

            Radiosondes show more warming. So you think previous UAH version was better ?

            It doesn’t change large sensitivity to variability.

          • David Appell says:

            Mickey Prumt says:
            “UAH and RSS calculations are also very sensitive to variability.”

            What does this mean????????

            Scientists usually use 30-yr trends (or more) to identify changes in climate.

        • David Appell says:

          gbaikie says:
          “Why does China use coal for 80% of electrical needs when they could use same-price solar energy for 80% of electrical needs?”

          You didn’t answer my question.

          Neither did lewis.

    • barry says:

      Jan 1979 to Dec 1997 trend is 0.09 C/decade (+/- 0.16)
      Jan 1998 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.06 C/decade (+/- 0.18)
      Jan 1979 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.13 C/decade (+/- 0.06)

      All values rounded to the nearest hundredth of a degree

      • crakar24 says:

        Barry are you saying

        Jan 1979 to Dec 1997 trend is 0.09 C/decade (+/- 0.16)

        Trend is -0.07 to +0.25 and anywhere in between?

        Same for the two below trends?

        Jan 1998 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.06 C/decade (+/- 0.18)
        Jan 1979 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.13 C/decade (+/- 0.06)

        • barry says:

          Same for the two below trends?

          Jan 1998 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.06 C/decade (+/- 0.18)
          Jan 1979 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.13 C/decade (+/- 0.06)

          The long-term trend is different, in that it is the only trend among them that is statistically significant.

          It would be a mistake to think that this is a predictor for long-term temps in the future.

      • barry says:

        That’s right.

        • crakar24 says:

          Thanks Barry for the clarification, I have always suspected this debate is for the stats guys what seems to be lost in all the noise generated is the insignificantly small numbers being debated.

          regards

          Crakar24

        • barry says:

          Here’s some stats on the ‘pause’ period/s.

          Jan 1998 to Dec 2012 trend is -0.07 C/decade (+/- 0.25)
          Jan 1998 to Dec 2015 trend is -0.04 C/decade (+/- 0.20)

          The uncertainty is much larger than the trend. Renders the analysis pretty much meaningless WRT absolute claims regarding.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”All values rounded to the nearest hundredth of a degree…”

        barry, you need to get your head out of your calculator. There was no trend from 1998 – 2015, you are skewing the flat trend to positive using the 2016 EN.

        The IPCC has admitted there was no trend from 1998 – 2012 yet you continue to deny that even though I have pointed you to the page explaining it. Even the page you supplied in rebuttal shows no trend. Why are you in such deep denial?

        From 2012 – 2015 the trend was flat as well, till NOAA in cahoots with the alarmists Obama admin re-wrote the historical record using blatant scientific misconduct. NOAA and NASA both use deeply deflated confidence levels to claim record warming years. For 2014, they used a confidence level of 48%.

        • barry says:

          There was no trend from 1998 2015, you are skewing the flat trend to positive using the 2016 EN.

          The ‘pause’ was never statistically valid in the first place, but if you insist on saying that it is, then it’s now a historical event. 2016 ended on a la Nina and has been neutral ever since, so the Nino spike is pretty much canceled out. Also, the Nina values are the latest. If that’s not good enough, then it’s not good enough to use 1998 el Nino as a starting point.

          You can repeat your mantra til you’re blue in the face. The ‘pause’ isn’t coming back. It is statistically extremely unlikely. You can hope for a Krakatoa-like volcanic eruption to get it back.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”2016 ended on a la Nina and has been neutral ever since, so the Nino spike is pretty much canceled out”.

            barry…you are the one who is always on about short term trends. Why are you commenting on an EN induced max that is a bit over a year old?

            The data was valid from 1998 – 2012 when the IPCC announced no trend from 1998 – 2012. How do you suddenly turn a range with no trend into one showing a remarkable positive trend?

            There’s only one way, adding outlier data at the end of the trend.

          • Laura says:

            What do you mean “The pause isnt coming back”?

            Are you claiming it existed at all, against all predictions… err, apologies Appell, against all projections?

            Speaking of Appell and his juvenile sleight of hand, I am still waiting for links to your (Appell’s) exchanges with Obama, Gore, and the Nobel committee (to list a few) where you (Appell) relentlessly criticize them for their predictions. Failing that, please provide exchanges where you criticize them for claiming their predictions are scientific.

          • David Appell says:

            Laura:

            It’s not possible to make predictions in climate science.

            David

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”The pause isnt coming back”.

            I don’t regard it as a pause, I think global warming is finished…kaput!!

            You have it entrenched in your mind that the trend has to continue. You have been conditioned by unvalidated model theory to accept that and you are looking for it.

            Since 1996, the only warming we’ve had has been in relation to El Ninos. Furthermore, I accept Syun Akasofu’s assessment of the problem. When the IPCC began tracking global warming it was in the middle of a phase of the Little Ice Age when the global average was 1 to 2C below normal. We have been rewarming since then and the rewarming has about finished.

            Coupled with what Salvatore suggests about the Sun it makes sense that we may be facing a cooling period soon.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Since 1996, the only warming weve had has been in relation to El Ninos”

            Why did the 2015-16 El Nino peak at a higher temperature than the 1997-98 El Nino?

          • GC says:

            David,

            “Why did the 15/16 El Nio peak higher temperature than the 97/98 El Nio?”

            From a purely statistical point of view, it peaked higher because the 15/16 El Nio began from a higher baseline anomaly relative to 97/98. But that baseline for the 15/16 El Nio was a flat trend all the way back to the 97/98 El Nio step change (evident in 2001 in the forward moving data due to the La Nia cooling post the 97/98 El Nio).

          • GC says:

            *I’m typing El Nino and keeps coming out as El Nio*

          • Laura says:

            And yet, Appell, important individuals and institutions continue to make predictions.

            Thus, my request for links to your exchanges with Obama, Gore, and the Nobel committee (to list a few) where you relentlessly criticize them for making predictions. Failing that, please provide exchanges where you criticize them for claiming their predictions are scientific.

            No running around, Appell, no pretending you don’t understand. Just the links. Thank you.

          • richard verney says:

            “2016 ended on a la Nina and has been neutral ever since.”

            There was NO La Nina in 2016. There was a very brief period (about 1 month) when ENSO tracked slightly negative.

            ENSO has been neutral ever since the strong 2015/16 El Nino dissipated, but for the main part, it has tracked positive around the +0.5degC but has not tracked above +0.5degC for 3 consecutive months.

            Most official/government organisations have predicted an El Nino this year because ENSO has been tracking positive for almost the entire period since the 2015/16 El Nino dissipated. Further, it is because of the positive ENSO anomaly that the satellite data does not show a month or more with a negative anomaly.

            I emphasise that we have yet to see an officially declared La Nina following the strong 2015/16 El Nino.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            you are the one who is always on about short term trends

            Not really. I usually describe them as meaningless – as I did above in reply to the person who asked for the trends from x to y. You have a problem with the time frame, talk to Vladimir.

            I also provided, provided, unasked, the trend rates for the ‘pause’ period.

            Why are you commenting on an EN induced max that is a bit over a year old?

            I didn’t ‘comment’ on any such thing. No trend I provided was less than 18 years.

            Theres only one way, adding outlier data at the end of the trend.

            Finally we are in agreement! 1998 was most definitely an outlier.

            I prefer using longer trends that cancel out these short-term outliers. It’s you who is in love with them.

          • barry says:

            Laura,

            What do you mean “The pause isnt coming back”?

            Are you claiming it existed at all, against all predictions err, apologies Appell, against all projections?

            I put the word ‘pause’ in quotes for a reason. As in – alleged. I don’t think the ‘pause’ is a statistically valid phenomenon.

          • barry says:

            There was NO La Nina in 2016. There was a very brief period (about 1 month) when ENSO tracked slightly negative.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

          • Laura says:

            @barry

            “I dont think the pause is a statistically valid phenomenon.”

            So the phenomenon did occur but there exist ways to deny it occurred… thus no need to worry about the failure of the models to predict it, err, project it.

            One can only wonder how many future phenomena will need to be denied in order to pretend the models do work.

            So, so many failed predictions, err, projections.

          • barry says:

            I describe the ‘pause’ period as “an apparent slow-down in global mean temps at the surface and lower troposphere.” Apparent as in ‘seeming’, rather than ‘obvious’.

            Here’s the history of the talking point as I understand it:

            Skeptics began to talk about a ‘pause’ (the wording was often “global warming stopped in 1998”) from the mid-2000s – a 7-year stretch of data. This was laughed off (rightly), because the global record is full of such ‘pauses’ and they are statistically meaningless, a sign of weather variability, rather than an actual trend. It was noted that the start point was the year of the largest el Nino of the 20th century. Skeptics persisted, because it was a great, if invalid, talking point. A strong la Nina came in 2008, extending the pause, and the skeptic clamour grew.

            The satellite data sets have larger variability around el Nino, so when the surface data sets started to show a steeper positive slope as the years progressed, the satellite data prolonged the flatline, particularly RSS – UAHv5.6 started to slope up through the 2010s. Chris Monckton posted updates on the length of the ‘pause’ based purely on RSS data and ignoring the rest. Tamino and others tested the statistical validity of the ‘pause’ and found it wanting – there were several ways to look at it.

            This skeptic-pushed ‘pause’ was picked up by the news media and became such a popular talking point that it was mentioned in government hearings. It even made its way into the IPCC for a brief menton, where it was described as a slowdown, (or hiatus in one section), and that it was not indicative of longer-term trends. The trend rate for the period 1998-2012 was given as 0.05 C/decade with large uncertainty, based on the surface records.

            Then UAH revision 6 came out in 2015, and skeptics jumped ship and started using that data instead of RSS, because the revision lowered post-2000 temps quite a bit, and UAH trend was now lower than RSS. This blog site’s traffic tripled.

            Several ways of testing for a pause include simply noting the statistical uncertainty, comparing the uncertainty in the trend for the ‘pause’ period with prior warming trend to se if there was a statistically significant change, comparing the trend uncertainty against the whole record, and applying various other statistical analyses (like break-point analysis), to see where distinct changes in trend occur in the record. None of these corroborated the view of a pause. Papers were written on it, and some spoke of an “apparent slowdown” in global temps, and various theories were put forward as to what was happening.

            Skeptic sites (like this one) began showing graphs of divergence between observed temps and models, with various choices in baselining the data, or displaying the mean of model ensembles instead of the spread, to emphasise the divergence. realclimate posted comparisons that showed surface temps right at the lower end of the mdel ensembles in latter years, and of the satellite record falling just under the model spread. From this (based on graphs produced by skeptics) the skeptical community repeatedly posted that “models have failed.”

            I took a broader view. If global warming is truly global – not just the thin slice of the atmosphere these datasets were representing – I checked out ocean heat content for the period/s, global sea ice, sea level, glaciers. Did they mirror the notion of a slowdown or ‘pause’ in global surface/tropospheric temperatures? No, those observations continued in the direction of warming. So global warming hadn’t stopped, but temps had been depressed in the slice of the atmosphere being measured for a decade, leading to only slight warming trends (or slight negative/flat trend is you looked at only one data set).

            The take-home for me is that models don’t capture interannual/decadal variability very well, and/or that climate sensitivity may be in the lower range, or that interannual variation coincided over the period to depress temps in an extended, low-probability manner.

            In 2016 the ‘pause’ as described by Monckton ended and some skeptics accepted it, while others convinced themselves otherwise, or changed the metric/wording to prolong the talking point. Most seem to have believed at the time that a la Nina always follows el Nino, and that the ‘pause’ would return by the end of 2016. Or 2017. Or 2020. Or sometime in the future. This notion is still played out here.

            I’ve crunched some numbers to have a stab at guessing the likelihood of the RSS/UAH ‘pause’ returning. Some of my results got posted at WUWT. The prospects are very dim for a return by 2020, and I seriously doubt the ‘pause’ since 1998 will ever return in the satellite data set. Hence my remark above.

          • richard verney says:

            Barry

            There was no La Nina in 2016. As the page you refer to notes:

            The ONI is one measure of the El Nio-Southern Oscillation, and other indices can confirm whether features consistent with a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon accompanied these periods.

            Whilst SST were negative in some regions, the required coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon did not accompany the cold SSTs.

            BOM had regular alerts on the 2016 ENSO conditions. This is now in their historic archive http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive.shtml

            You will note:

            2017

            28 February El Nio WATCH: likelihood of El Nio in 2017 increases
            14 February El Nio or ENSO-neutral for 2017
            31 January El NioSouthern Oscillation remains neutral
            17 January Tropical Pacific Ocean remains ENSO neutral
            3 January El NioSouthern Oscillation remains neutral

            2016

            20 December El NioSouthern Oscillation likely to remain neutral through summer
            6 December La Nia no longer likely in the coming months
            22 November Negative Indian Ocean Dipole ends, while central tropical Pacific Ocean warms
            8 November Some La Nia indicators strengthen; negative IOD nears end
            25 October Negative IOD continues as tropical Pacific remains ENSO neutral
            11 October Negative Indian Ocean Dipole eases; continued impacts likely
            27 September Strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole continues to dominate
            13 September Negative Indian Ocean Dipole dominates Australian climate
            30 August Negative Indian Ocean Dipole influencing Australia’s climate, while Pacific remains ENSO-neutral
            16 August La Nia WATCH remains; negative Indian Ocean Dipole weakens
            2 August La Nia WATCH remains, while strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole continues

            In 25th October 2015, ENSO was listed as neutral, in November La Nina indicators strengthened but La Nina was not declared, and by 6th December it was all over, with ENSO neutral being forecast.

            La Nina nearly happened but in the event itw as a little on/off in late October through November but by December it was fully off. La Nina nearly happened, but never quite did.

            If there had been a full blown La nina, whilst the satellite is not as sensitive to cold oceans as to warm oceans (hot air rises whereas cold air does not such that the troposphere appears less sensitive to underlying La Nina conditions as compared to El Nino), it would nonetheless be seen in the satellite data which ist is not.

          • Laura says:

            @barry

            So an ultimately imaginary ‘pause’ manufactured by skeptics nonetheless leads you to the conclusion that…

            “…models dont capture interannual/decadal variability very well, and/or that climate sensitivity may be in the lower range, or that interannual variation coincided over the period to depress temps in an extended, low-probability manner.”

            Who could’ve guessed that models are so sensitive to fiction.

            (enjoyed the narration, btw, always fun stuff, thanks)

          • barry says:

            It appears you didn’t understand my post, Laura, but I did enjoy your fictional account. I admire your adroitness at falsely compressing the chronology.

          • barry says:

            Richard,

            I see the ONI-based record hasn’t encumbered you with any doubts whatsoever. Would you describe yourself as a skeptic?

            The 1995/6 la Nina also did not show up in the satellite record, and the the la Nina that ran from mid-1998 to early 2001 created only a small depression relative to 1997. Generally la Ninas don’t have as much impact as el Ninos. So I wouldn’t rely on the global temp record to display a strong signal during every la Nina event.

            There are other non-correlational events between global temps and la Nina when using the MEI index. Same with BoM and JMA. These indexes differ between them on weak la Ninas and when they occur. They concur more often on strong la Ninas, and I believe you would be on firming footing if you’d qualified thus from the get-go.

          • richard verney says:

            Barry

            I am a sceptic which to me is a two way street, ie., I am sceptical of almost all claims in favour of AGW, and sceptical of all claims against AGW.

            The satellite appears less sensitive to a cooling ocean, eg., La Nina conditions, than it is to a warming ocean, eg., El Nino conditions.

            I have pointed this out many times. I do not know the reason why, but have speculated that it is due to convection. In ENSO conditions with warm ocean anomalies, the warms powers convection and the warm air rises to the the height in the troposphere where the satellite takes its measurements. In contrast, with a cool ocean, there is less energy powering convection, and cool air (relatively speaking) does not rise as high and therefore may not reach the heights at which the satellite takes its measurements.

            This could explains why La Ninas are not so clearly represented in the satellite data unless they are significant La Ninas.

          • David Appell says:

            Laura says:
            “And yet, Appell, important individuals and institutions continue to make predictions.”

            Really? Who do you think is making predictions?

          • David Appell says:

            GC says:
            “Why did the 15/16 El Nio peak higher temperature than the 97/98 El Nio?

            “From a purely statistical point of view, it peaked higher because the 15/16 El Nio began from a higher baseline anomaly relative to 97/98.”

            And why is that?

            Global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Laura says:

          @barry

          What chronology? Do tell.

          All we’ve learned this far is that claims of models correctly predicting, err, projecting future climate systematically fail against the unfolding of reality.

      • An Inquirer says:

        I have not checked your numbers, but something seems strange to me. In the first half of the journey the speed was 9; in the 2nd half, the speed was 6; but the overall speed was 13. I wonder how the speed can fall by 33% in the 2nd half, and yet the overall speed be 44% faster than the first half’s speed.

        • barry says:

          The differences are to do with the variation in the data. Generally, short-term trends don’t reveal any underlying signal. The shorter the sample, the more it reflects variability than any trend. Look at the uncertainty intervals for the 18-year trends. They’re huge!

      • David Appell says:

        barry, your intervals are too short to expect statistical significance at the 95% confidence level.

      • Bart says:

        “The long-term trend is different, in that it is the only trend among them that is statistically significant.”

        You are, again, misusing statistics. You cannot claim statistical significance without a validated statistical model upon which to base it.

    • barry says:

      Namely, between the 1979-1997 and 1998-2017 intervals there is an obvious “physical phase transition.”

      You see this sort of thing in any noisy data set, depending on how carefully you select. It’s easily over-interpreted.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”You see this sort of thing in any noisy data set, depending on how carefully you select. Its easily over-interpreted”.

        The abrupt transition is obvious on the red running average curve which has no noise in it.

      • barry says:

        No it’s not. Noisy data will always give what looks like “step-jumps,” even if it is known for a fact that the underlying signal is constant. Such a hypothesis needs a lot more rigour than eyeballing graphs.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Noisy data will always give what looks like step-jumps,”

          That’s what the running average curve does, it smooth out the noise. Noise is fairly instantaneous over a range and when it’s averaged you get a smoother curve representing the average.

          Besides, what do you mean by noise?

          • barry says:

            Variation.

            You know – signal/noise.

            Not familiar with the term?

            http://www.statistics4u.com/fundstat_eng/cc_signal_noise.html

            If ‘noisiness’ is low, a signal is easy to extract. If ‘noisiness’ is high it’s harder to extract the signal. Statistics attempts to do this. Basically, the more data you have (as long as the noice/variation is of a fairly constant bandwidth), the less uncertainty you have around the signal.

            Check the uncertainty on these two times series.

            Jan 1979 to Jul 2017 trend is 0.13 C/decade (+/- 0.06)
            Jan 1998 to Dec 2015 trend is -0.04 C/decade (+/- 0.20)

            Trend uncertainty is less for longer period of time.

            The character of the noise (how much variation) across the signal (mean trend) is such that a clear signal is not resolved for a period of 16 or so years, but evident for a period of 39 (ish) years.

            If we write the trend as a function of uncertainty interval, we get:

            1979 to 2017: trend is anywhere between 0.07 and 0.19 C/decade
            1998 to 2015: trend is anywhere between -0.24 and 0.16C C/decade

            The first, longer trend has a clear warming signal.
            The second, shorter trend has no clear signal.

            The first trend is statistically significant.
            The second trend is not.

            What I like to do is test the prior trend and see if there is a statistically significant deviation – IOW, is there a statistically significant change in prior warming trend (ie, a ‘pause’?)

            Turns out there is not. A statistically significant change in trend would look like this.

            Prior trend: 0.16 (+/- 0.05)
            Following trend: -0.02 (+/- 0.05)

            Written as function of uncertainty:

            Prior trend: anywhere between 0.11 and 0.21
            Following trend: anywhere between -0.07 and 0.03

            The uncertainty intervals are statistically distinct – they don’t overlap. I would say this was excellent evidence of a pause, or change in trend.

            This is not the case for the pause period, because the uncertainties overlap each other.

            Here’s an example based on the previous.

            Prior: 0.16 (+/- 0.06)
            Following: -0.02 (+/- 0.2) [!]

            Translates to:

            Prior: anywhere between 0.11 and 0.21
            Following: anywhere between -0.22 and 0.18

            In this example, the uncertainty in the trends overlap, which means the change in trend is not statistically significant. Both trends are possibly the same – factoring statistical uncertainty.

    • Greg Goodman says:

      “low solar conditions(although they just started this year) have yet to have a impact.”

      Solar activity has been low throughout the entire cycle. If you believe there is a noticeable solar forcing you need to look for what is preventing temnps from dropping with such a low solar cycle.

    • Svante says:

      Gordon Robertsson,
      I had a spelling error here:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258483

      ‘tour Link’ should be ‘your link’.

      Can you look at it again please?

  2. Emeritus says:

    And when did a trend of 0,11 C/decade become neutral?

    • Thomas says:

      Where did you get 0.11C per decade? Spencer clearly writes 0.13C per decade.

      • Emeritus says:

        I slip in memory.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Thomas…”Where did you get 0.11C per decade? Spencer clearly writes 0.13C per decade”.

        I am not trying to speak on behalf of Roy but I’d guess he has to present the mathematical trend, not the actual trend, which cannot be expressed using a trend line from 1979 – 2017.

        There was no trend from 1998 – 2015 and 15 years of that flat trend has been confirmed by the IPCC. The trend from 1979 – 1997 was a rewarming curve not true global warming.

        Look at the graph and follow the red running average curve, it’s quite obvious.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “There was no trend from 1998 2015 and 15 years of that flat trend has been confirmed by the IPCC….”

          Gordon is lying again.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon is lying again”.

            David Appell accepts fudged data from NOAA. He doesn’t care that they use data from less than 1500 stations out of 6500 and synthesizes the 5000 stations using a climate model that interpolates and homogenizes the data from less than 1500.

            Then they apply a diminished confidence level to their synthesized statistical data to make years appear as record warming years. 2014 is a record with the 48% confidence level supplied but drops to 4th place with a 90% confidence level, where UAH have it listed using data from NOAA satellites.

            Why does David Appell fall for this chicanery? Why does DA not question NOAA using a 48% confidence level and NASA GISS using confidence levels even lower at times. The standard CL for statistics is 90%.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “David Appell accepts fudged data from NOAA.”

            Another lie. The data are adjusted to remove biases. You’ve never indicated how you would do that otherwise.

            “He doesnt care that they use data from less than 1500 stations out of 6500 and synthesizes the 5000 stations using a climate model that interpolates and homogenizes the data from less than 1500.”

            Nothing at all to back up your claims and numbers. Typical of you — you just talk off the top of your head, and never provide evidence for your claims.

            Your comments are based on emotions, not on rationality.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “2014 is a record with the 48% confidence level supplied but drops to 4th place with a 90% confidence level, where UAH have it listed using data from NOAA satellites.”

            It’s like you don’t understand a single thing. Not one.

  3. https://www.iceagenow.info/climate-fraud-century-video/

    Her is the AGW fraud we are up against. Vey good video explaining the situation.

    This is why I only use data from Dr. Spencer and Weather bell.

    All other data is false.

    • Emeritus says:

      Well, Dr. Spencers data still show a trend of 0,11C/dekade, and I even think that july 2017 is abow the trendline, so nonsens from Tim Ball would not change that.

      • Kristian says:

        Spencer (in the top post):

        The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through July 2017 is now +0.13 C/decade.

        • Emeritus says:

          Se above, not I slip in memory, but a slip in memory.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            David A on measurement error declining with more samples.

            The more important point is that a bias diverging from a best value increases with more samples in a time series.
            Climate work places too little light on accuracy and too much on precision, to use long-standing terminology. Geoff

          • Bart says:

            Right you are, Geoff.

          • David Appell says:

            Geoff: Homogenization is done specifically to correct for systemic biases.

            What variables do you think are not being measured accurately enough, and why?

          • richard verney says:

            David

            You ignore my point that the principle only applies when you repeatedly measure the SAME sample.

            Say you are tasked with ascertaining whether the average height of English men changes over a 4 year period. You start your experiment/evaluation in year 1 in England measuring the height of 100 Englishmen and averaging the result. In year 2, you cannot get to England but instead you are in Finland where you measure the height of 20o Finnish men who happen to speak English and average the results. In year 3, you are stuck in Italy and measure the height of 300 Italian men who happen to speak English and average the results, and in year 4 you are stuck in the Netherlands and measure the height of 500 Dutch men who happen to speak English and average the results.

            How has the increased sampling reduced the errors in ascertaining how the height of Englishmen have changed over a 4 year period?

            As I pointed out, in the land based thermometer record, the sample is never the SAME over a 10 year period, let alone over a 150 year period. As such any comparison over any extended period of time is meaningless.

            This is very basic statistics. The principle to which you refer does not apply since the sample is continually changing and one is not repeatedly measuring the SAME sample.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Kristian…”The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through July 2017 is now +0.13 C/decade”.

          Of course it is, for anyone who doesn’t have a clue about data acquisition and analysis. UAH has to state a mathematical trend from 1979 – 2017 of 0.13C/decade but in their 33 year report they explain it. It’s not good enough to claim 0.13C/decade without explaining that your calculations come from plugging numbers blindly into a calculator.

          There needs to be at least two trend lines to accurately explain the temps from 1979 – 2017. The first, from 1979 – 1997 is in a negative anomaly region, meaning it represent re-warming from a cooling process.

          UAH explains the cooling process as volcanic aerosols and they point out that true global warming over the range did not appear till the 1998 EN. Following the obvious spike in 1998 there was a mini spurt in 2001, then the global average leveled off.

          Post 1998, the trend is flat and the IPCC confirmed that for 15 years between 1998 – 2012. Only the year 2016 shows an abrupt trend from an extreme El Nino. Including that and claiming a positive trend from 1998 onward is ingenuous.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “UAH explains the cooling process as volcanic aerosols and they point out that true global warming over the range did not appear till the 1998 EN.”

            More lying bullsh!t.

            UAH LT v6.0 data shows a trend of +0.09 C/dec from 12/1978 to 1/1997.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Post 1998, the trend is flat….”

            Still more lies and bullsh!t from Gordon Robertson.

            The UAH LT v6.0 linear trend from 1/1999 to present is +0.13 C/decade

            “…and the IPCC confirmed that for 15 years between 1998 2012.”

            And out-of-date statement, as you’re been told many times.

            Yet you continue to lie about it anyway. You clearly have no regard for knowledge or the truth.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”UAH LT v6.0 data shows a trend of +0.09 C/dec from 12/1978 to 1/1997″.

            The period in question was largely in a negative anomaly region meaning the data represented a relative cooling from the 1980 – 2010 average. That cooling has been explained by UAh has being caused by volcanic aerosols.

            The trend to which you refer is a recovery from cooling not true global warming.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The period in question was largely in a negative anomaly region meaning the data represented a relative cooling from the 1980 2010 average.”

            That’s not the relevant question. The question is about the trend.

            “That cooling has been explained by UAh has being caused by volcanic aerosols.”

            Really? Cite?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The trend to which you refer is a recovery from cooling not true global warming.”

            Truly hilarious.

            Warming is warming. It doesn’t matter where it starts, and in fact there is no UAH data prior to Nov 1978, so you can’t say there was “cooling” before.

          • richard verney says:

            David/gordon

            It is possible to draw trend lines, but when one takes account of the error bounds of the equipment and data collection, there is no statistically significant trend either before the Super El Nino of 1997/98, or after it. The only statistically significant event in the satellite data is the temperature step change coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98.

            We do not know whether it warmed between 1979 to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998. The trend line suggests slight warming but it is not statistically significant.

            Likewise following the Super El Nino of 1998, we do not know whether temperatures were flat or have warmed because once again there is no statistically significant trend.

            Gordon is quite right that the IPCC in AR5 acknowledged the pause. This was discussed, and of course climate scientist proposed more than 50 reasons for the pause.

            Until the recent 2015/16 El Nino, Nick Stokes (a well known warmist but for a change mathematically literate) analysed the various data sets, and demonstrated that some of these showed no statistically significant warming for as much as 23 years!

            The satellite data only shows statistically significant warming if one ignores the fact that the data clearly shows a step change in temperatures (of a little under 0.3 degC) coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98 which is a discreet and one off event.

          • barry says:

            The only statistically significant event in the satellite data is the temperature step change coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98.

            A bold claim. How do you demonstrate this statistically? Only attempts I’ve seen are distinctly non-statistical.

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “It is possible to draw trend lines, but when one takes account of the error bounds of the equipment and data collection, there is no statistically significant trend either before the Super El Nino of 1997/98, or after it.”

            No Richard.

            You need to study how the measurement uncertainty declines as a function of the number N of data points.

            For example, if each temperature station has a monthly uncertainty of U, then the uncertainty of their average is U/sqrt(N). That’s very small.

            Measurement uncertainities don’t matter much for trends (like the 30-yr trends we should be using). What’s significant are the statistical trends, which also decline with N.

          • richard verney says:

            David

            You are deluding yourself. There are huge error bounds within our data sets. For a variety of reasons, none are fit for the purpose to which they are being put, and none are capable of withstanding the rigours of serious scientific scrutiny

            Whilst the repeated measurement of the SAME sample can reduce errors, this principle does not apply when you continually measure different samples.

            So take the land based thermometer data set for example.

            The sample used in 1880, is not the same sample as used in 1900, which in turn is not the same sample used in 1920, which in turn is not the same sample used in 1940, which in turn is not the same sample used in 1960, which in turn is not the same sample used in 1980, which in turn is not the same sample used in 2000, which in turn is not the same sample used in 2016. One is never comparing apples with apples when looking at the land thermometer data set such that we cannot say whether the temperature today is warmer than it was in say 1940 or 1880. If you wanted to make that comparison, one would need to isolate the weather stations that were reporting data in 1940 use only those weather stations retrofit them with the same LIG thermometers as used in 1940 and taken measurements in accordance with the practices used in 1940. You would also need to remove from such a review, any weather stations that had undergone a significant change (eg., station moves, change of nearby land use, urbanisation etc)

            Further, even within the sub sample set, the nature of the constituent parts of the sub sample set have changed. So the weather station in what was a village, is not the same as the village becomes a town and then a city, or a weather station at an airport in the 1930s in nothing like a weather station at the same airport in 2010 (when in 1930 the airport had a grass runway and all but no terminal building, no cargo buildings etc).

            Then there are all the adjustments. Those adjustments potentially could be right, or wrong, or partly right in the right direction, or partly right but in the wrong direction etc. Every adjustment, therefore adds to the error bounds of the data set.

            Without any honest acceptance of the wide error bounds, no legitimate science can be conducted.

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “There are huge error bounds within our data sets. For a variety of reasons, none are fit for the purpose to which they are being put, and none are capable of withstanding the rigours of serious scientific scrutiny”

            Prove it.
            Present your evidence.
            Do SOMETHING to justify your claims.

          • David Appell says:

            Richard:

            It is a fact that the summation of measurement errors decreases like 1/sqrt(N).

            It’s simply mathematics.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The period in question was largely in a negative anomaly region meaning the data represented a relative cooling from the 1980 2010 average.”

            Wrong.

            How is it you never were taught how to calculate linear trends?

            Is that part of a typical Canadian education?

          • David Appell says:

            That should have been, the uncertainty of the *average* decreases like 1/sqrt(N).

          • richard verney says:

            My comment has been posted in the wrong place so I re-post.

            David

            You ignore my point that the principle only applies when you repeatedly measure the SAME sample.

            Say you are tasked with ascertaining whether the average height of English men changes over a 4 year period. You start your experiment/evaluation in year 1 in England measuring the height of 100 Englishmen and averaging the result. In year 2, you cannot get to England but instead you are in Finland where you measure the height of 20o Finnish men who happen to speak English and average the results. In year 3, you are stuck in Italy and measure the height of 300 Italian men who happen to speak English and average the results, and in year 4 you are stuck in the Netherlands and measure the height of 500 Dutch men who happen to speak English and average the results.

            How has the increased sampling reduced the errors in ascertaining how the height of Englishmen have changed over a 4 year period?

            As I pointed out, in the land based thermometer record, the sample is never the SAME over a 10 year period, let alone over a 150 year period. As such any comparison over any extended period of time is meaningless.

            This is very basic statistics. The principle to which you refer does not apply since the sample is continually changing and one is not repeatedly measuring the SAME sample.

          • richard verney says:

            David

            Further the principle to which you refer only helps where the errors are random. It does not reduce errors where there is a systemic bias operating only in one direction.

      • Russ says:

        The “nonsense” you refer to isn’t in conflict with the 0.11 C/decade, and even if July 2017 is above the trend-line, that wouldn’t be in conflict with Tim Ball’s work either. Tim Ball’s work is based upon real and known data, unlike that of Mann’s, and it merely points out that the rate and the degree of temperature change that we have been seeing over the last several decades is well within that which has occurred over the last couple thousand years (well in advance of mankind’s consumption of hydrocarbons). His work also shows that temperature change precedes CO2 concentration change which is quite the opposite of Mann’s “insinuation”.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Russ says: “quite the opposite of Manns insinuation.”

          These are two separate ideas — not opposite insinuations.
          1) Yes, when the climate has warmed in the past, it is driven increased CO2.
          2) On the other hand, we now have an increase in CO2 that is NOT driven by climate.

          The past records of climate-driven CO2 increases are not predictive for current human-driven CO2 increases.

        • Emeritus says:

          Tim Ball has never done any “work” in climates science. He’s a pusher of crackpot ideas.

          https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            emeritus…”Tim Ball has never done any work in climates science. Hes a pusher of crackpot ideas”.

            What does that link have to do with Tim Ball? It’s a rant by people quoted by Judith Curry. I have read a good deal of the work of Claes Johnson and he is a top notch mathematician. He has presented an explanation for the quantum levels found by Planck using Newtonian principles by applying the analysis of the EM spectrum mathematically as harmonic oscillators.

            Johnson is no dummy.

            As for Ball, there is nothing crackpot in his skepticism of AGW. I don’t fully agree with his approach but he is no crackpot. Maybe to an alarmist he is but I regard most alarmists as crackpots.

          • David Appell says:

            Ball published just 4 peer reviewed paper in his entire career, not one of consequence.

            Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

            After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

            In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

            1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

            2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

            3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

            4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

            5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

            Ball dropped his lawsuit.

            Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queens Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

            More at:
            http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update-0
            http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law”.

            Neither are any of the climate modelers who persist in programming their models with trash physics. Ball makes more sense than the lot of them, including NOAA and NASA GISS who have resorted to chicanery to produce warming.

            And are you serious, quoting from desmogblog?

            http://leftexposed.org/2016/08/desmogblog/

            According to the article at the link above, the guy who runs the site is a public relations expert and its co-founder has been convicted of a crime. The site operator also sits (or sat) on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Neither are any of the climate modelers who persist in programming their models with trash physics”

            You’re unqualified to write that.

            You don’t even understand radiative transfer. So your opinion on the physics of climate models is completely useless. You science is so bad you don’t even get an opinion.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, those links merely point to the evidence admitted in a court of law.

            Tim Ball is not an expert in any way. He never was before retirement, and is not afterward.

            In fact, Tim Ball lied about his credentials, claiming that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada. He was not.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Controversies_and_lawsuits

            “In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[41] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.”

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Youre unqualified to write that.
            You dont even understand radiative transfer”.

            That’s odd, I could have swore I just wrote it. I have qualified it in the past and I am eminently qualified on the subject I wrote about, positive feedback. I am just as qualified or more qualified on the subject than anyone in climate science. In fact, I have built positive feedback devices called oscillators.

            The positive feedback claimed by climate modelers is trash physics. They are trying to claim that feedback from GHGs can warm the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar energy. Not only trash physics a contradiction of the 2nd law.

            Modelers have also pulled the warming ability of CO2 in the atmosphere out of a hat. They are claiming a warming effect of 9% to 25%, complete and utter trash physics.

            As far as radiative transfer is concerned, someone like you who cannot tell the difference between IR and heat should not be commenting on my understanding of the subject.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Thats odd, I could have swore I just wrote it. I have qualified it in the past and I am eminently qualified on the subject I wrote about, positive feedback. I am just as qualified or more qualified on the subject than anyone in climate science. In fact, I have built positive feedback devices called oscillators.”

            You are completely and utterly delusional.

            What does an “oscillator” have to do with radiative transfer?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Modelers have also pulled the warming ability of CO2 in the atmosphere out of a hat.”

            Simple question: Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?

        • David Appell says:

          Russ says:
          “Tim Balls work is based upon real and known data”

          Where has it been published? Anywhere besides a blog?

          “…unlike that of Manns”

          It certainly is — proxy data.

          “…and it merely points out that the rate and the degree of temperature change that we have been seeing over the last several decades…”

          Mann’s result stops in about 1960. It also says absolutely nothing about the cause of the warming.

          Clearly you don’t understand Mann et al’s work.

          “(well in advance of mankinds consumption of hydrocarbons). His work also shows that temperature change precedes CO2 concentration change which is quite the opposite of Manns insinuation.”

          We’re transferring carbon from the Earth to the atmosphere regardless of the temperature. It’s bloody obvious that in such a situation CO2 leads temperature.

          • crakar24 says:

            Of course its bloody obvious DA, tell me DA are you one of the “CO2 floating blanket” people or do you actually have some vague idea as to why its bloody obvious.

            Don’t bother to reply unless you can explain in detail why it is “bloody obvious”

          • David Appell says:

            Are we waiting for temperature to increase before we emit CO2?

          • crakar24 says:

            Once again DA fails to produce evidence to backup his alarmist rants

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”unlike that of Manns…It certainly is proxy data”.

            Proxy data that began showing warming near the end of the series when actual temperatures were rising. Proxy data that used 1 tree to cover an entire century circa 1400 AD. Proxy data using pine tree bristlecone to cover the 20th century which a National Academy of Science panel dismissed as unacceptable.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Proxy data that used 1 tree to cover an entire century circa 1400 AD.”

            Another lie.

            Read the bloody papers.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Proxy data using pine tree bristlecone to cover the 20th century which a National Academy of Science panel dismissed as unacceptable.”

            Pure bullsh*t.

            And you can’t cite any such NAS report. You just make things up. You lie.

          • richard verney says:

            Gordon has made a slight error in his comment “Proxy data that began showing warming near the end of the series when actual temperatures were rising.” what he meant to say was proxy data that showed cooling….

            The CORRECT POSITION is as follows:

            It was proxy data that showed that the 1990s temperatures were no higher than 1960, and it was for this reason that Mann truncated the plot, cutting off the proxy data at 1960 and splicing on the thermometer record as from 1960 through to the 1990s.

            I emphasise that Mann had to disregard the proxy data for the period 1960 to 1990s since it did not show overall a net warming.

            This was not surprising since the Northern Hemisphere (we have no proper sampling of the Southern Hemisphere) cooled by between 0.5degC to 0.7deg C (depending upon source (NCAR, NAS, Hansen 1991 paper in Science, Jones & Widgley 1980 paper)from 1940 through to the early 1970s, and whilst there was some warming from then on through to the 1990s, all that had happened was that the temperatures had recovered.

            The only warming that took Northern Hemisphere temperatures above the 1940 temperatures was the 1997/98 Super El Nino, but that warming was too late for Mann’s study and was not in his tree ring data.

            Further, one has to bear in mind that Mann spliced on the adjusted thermometer record. It should be recalled that the thermometer temperature data under went much adjustments during the 1980s and onward. This adjusted record was very different to the thermometer record that existed in the 1980s, or even at the beginning of the 1990s.

      • barry says:

        Russ, I suspect that if you produce that Tim Ball reference we’ll find it was a couple of years ago, when the trend was 0.11 C/decade. It’s different now that there is more data.

      • barry says:

        Hmm, perhaps I should be addressing Emeritus. Anyway, the trend he gives is out of date.

        • Emeritus says:

          Se, above, a slip in memory. But my point was how can a trend of 0,11/decade be seen as neutral in regard of cooling or warming? 0,13/decade only makes the question even more relevant.

  4. Kristian says:

    Spencer,

    The v6 data from your link is apparently “as of April 2015”. And then you mention the (minor) changes to the dataset resulting from the late inclusion of the Metop-B satellite. When will the most current edition – including these updates – of your v6 dataset be published? Or is it already to be found somewhere?

    Thanks.

  5. g*e*r*a*n says:

    I expected a little rebound from the June “plunge”, something like “+0.34”. So the +0.28 makes me believe we are seeing a healthy decline, back to 0.0.

    We’re coming out of the “pause”, but going in the wrong direction! (sarc)

    • Exactly and they always use year 1979 to determine the exaggerated temperature rise they come up with, which I think is ending.

      Year 2017 being a transition year.

      • Snape says:

        Salvatore: “they always use year 1979 to determine the exaggerated temperature rise they come up with……”

        Going out on a limb here…. but I read somewhere that 1979 is when satellites started tracking global temperature. Could there be a connection?

        • barry says:

          Satellite data starts in December 1978, to be precise.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Satellite data starts in December 1978, to be precise”.

            barry…the NOAA sats were launched in 1978 and the data had been accumulating when UAH approached NOAA for the data.

            Why did NOAA not use their own sat data which contradicts their surface data?

          • barry says:

            Good question. I’d be curious to know what you find out.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Why did NOAA not use their own sat data which contradicts their surface data?”

            What prior-1978 data?

            Surface and tropospheric temperatures aren’t expected to be the same.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore Del Prete says:
        “Year 2017 being a transition year.”

        How is this transition year different from all the other transition years you’ve claimed before: 2002, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016?

    • Snape says:

      Good chance of cooler temperatures starting in fall. This is what I wrote on Monday:
      “Trade winds (east to west) continue to be strong in the central and western equatorial Pacific. This suggests La Nina conditions in the coming months. For now though, water temperatures are still warm, even subsurface. Ocean is doing one thing, atmosphere another.”

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

    • barry says:

      Oh yes, curse ‘them’ for using all the data. You’re supposed to cherry pick some section of it to say what you want.

    • barry says:

      For the ‘pause’ (flat or negative trend since 1998) to return by the end of the year, anomalies will have to be about the -1C mark for the rest of the year. That’s not going to happen. It has never been that cold in the satellite record.

      We’d need to see temps hovering lower than in 1992-1994 up to 2020 for the ‘pause’ to resume by then. Check the graph at the top and place your bets. I’ll lay 6 to one it aint gonna happen. Any takers?

      • Svante says:

        Two Tambora type eruptions might do the trick, but your odds are not enough.

        • barry says:

          your odds are not enough.

          6 to 1 in your favour not enough? Or do you think I’ve got a good chance of winning?

          I was going to caveat that all bets are off if there is a super massive volcano before Jan 2019, but I think even a Pinatubo sized eruption wouldn’t make it happen.

          • Svante says:

            Barry, Pinatubo lowered temps by 0.5 deg C, and the effect does not last. Your odds are way too low, I’m not taking the bet.

          • barry says:

            Ah, you think I’ve too good a chance of winning. Naturally, I agree with you.

      • gbaikie says:

        Why would 2002 to 2006 not be a return to pause.

        I tend to think of “the pause” as no measurable increase which probable from increasing CO2 levels.
        Or narritive going from CO2 warming from 1950 to present, to Co2 warming from the time China was emitting twice as much CO2 as the US to the present.
        Or finally coming to the conclusion that Europe and US were irrelevant in regards to CO2 emissions.

        Though I tend to think China’s global pollution is more important than it’s CO2 emissions.

        • David Appell says:

          gbaikie says:
          “Or finally coming to the conclusion that Europe and US were irrelevant in regards to CO2 emissions.”

          Not at all — they’ve emitted far more CO2 than has China, and they emit much more per capita still.

          As of 2014, the US has emitted 2.1 times more CO2 than has China.

          data via WRI CAIT:
          http://cait.wri.org/

          • gbaikie says:

            “As of 2014, the US has emitted 2.1 times more CO2 than has China.”
            The year is 2017.

            Is Co2 emission so unimportant that we can’t discuss current estimates?

            Why do lefties always [as in constantly, without exception] make excuses for tyrannical regimes?

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “The year is 2017.
            “Is Co2 emission so unimportant that we cant discuss current estimates?”

            If you’d have looked at the data, you’d know that such data doesn’t yet exist.

            But it makes no difference. Up through 2014, here are the cumulative national emissions:

            US: 380 Gt CO2
            China: 180 Gt CO2

            With the US emitting about 5 Gt CO2 annually and China about 10 Gt CO2 annually, it will be a long time before they catch up.

            And we still emit twice per capita what they emit.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “Why do lefties always [as in constantly, without exception] make excuses for tyrannical regimes?”

            Laughable.

            This is about CO2 emissions. It is America that is the fossil fuel hog, not China.

          • gbaikie says:

            wiki 2015

            China 10,641,789
            United States 5,172,338
            European Union 3,469,671

          • David Appell says:

            Just as I wrote. Thanks.

          • richard verney says:

            With the US emitting about 5 Gt CO2 annually and China about 10 Gt CO2 annually, it will be a long time before they catch up.

            Well just 40 years on the figures cited by you (380 – 180 = 200/(10-5) = 40 years).

            But is is probable that the US will continue with its decarbonisation as it uses ever greater mix of shale gas which is a proven CO2 reducer, whereas China are committed to more than doubling their CO2 emissions within the next 10 years. Thus it will take China probably only around 20 to 25 years to catch up with the US.

            Of course India is committed to tripling its CO2 emissions and will very soon become the no.2 CO2 emissions.

            The planet does not care what the per capita CO2 emissions are. The only factor (according to the GH theory) is the total CO2 emission that are in the atmosphere.

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “Well just 40 years on the figures cited by you….”

            Wrong.

            Look at the data, for crying out loud. It begins in 1850.

          • David Appell says:

            richard verney says:
            “The planet does not care what the per capita CO2 emissions are. The only factor (according to the GH theory) is the total CO2 emission that are in the atmosphere.”

            But nations care. Politics cares. People care.

            You or I have no more right to emit copious CO2 than does any other person, whether they are Chinese or Indian or whatever.

            We’re the energy hogs, not them.

          • richard verney says:

            David

            I do not understand why you question the point that I made, ie, that it will take less than 40 years.

            You stated:

            “Up through 2014, here are the cumulative national emissions:

            US: 380 Gt CO2
            China: 180 Gt CO2

            With the US emitting about 5 Gt CO2 annually and China about 10 Gt CO2 annually, it will be a long time before they catch up.”

            These are your figures not mine. So since 180 to date, the US has emitted 380 GT and China just 180 GT, which means that the US has since 1950 to date emitted some 200 GT (ie., 380 -180) more CO2 than China.

            You state that China is now emitting some 5GT per year more than the US. It follows that over the next 40 years China will emit an extra 200 GT than the US, thereby meaning that within 40 years both countries will have emitted, since 1850, the same amount of CO2 as each other.

            But of course, China is committed to doubling its CO2 emissions over the near future whereas the US with shale will cut back its emissions. It is clear that on present projections, within about the next 25 years China will have emitted about the same amount of CO2 emissions as has the US.

            This is not rocket science, and it clearly shows what is wrong with teh Paris Accord and why Trump was right to pull out.

          • richard verney says:

            A couple of typos in my above commnet.

            The reference to 180 should have been 1850.

            The reference to 1950 should have been 1850.

        • barry says:

          I’m basing it on the skeptic narrative via Monckton, which is clearly G’s reference point. One thing I did credit skeptics with was saying the ‘pause’ was over when the trend went above 0.0. The ‘pause’ had always been statistically non-significant, and the slight positive mean trend was also, so neither was statistically verified, but at least they (well, not of all them) were consistent on their metrics when the time came.

          A few skeptics simply changed from “no warming since 1998,” to “no statistically significant warming since 1998,” which made me grin, because the pause wasn’t statistically significant in the first place. They just don’t know how the null hypothesis works. The change from previous trend was not statistically significant, either.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Im basing it on the skeptic narrative via Monckton…”

            You would draw from the bottom of the barrel, wouldn’t you? I regard Monckton as the clown prince of skepticism. He doesn’t have much of a clue of what’s going on.

            Of course that observation leaves me wide open to flames from the alarmists on the blog. Go ahead, take your best shots.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” barry says:
            August 1, 2017 at 6:44 PM

            Im basing it on the skeptic narrative via Monckton, which is clearly Gs reference point. One thing I did credit skeptics with was saying the pause was over when the trend went above 0.0. The pause had always been statistically non-significant, and the slight positive mean trend was also, so neither was statistically verified, but at least they (well, not of all them) were consistent on their metrics when the time came.”
            Ok and true enough.

            I like Monckton, he is one of those mad Brits that I like.

            And Monckton made it clear that he was cherry picking and his his point didn’t really mean much. Though despite being selective point [by taking the current temperature and calculating it back to point time where no significant warming occurred] it was mathematical “proof” of the pause.

            But thing is, the pause was already known- years before Monckton’s mathematical proof was made public.

            Though I wouldn’t surprised that within few months Monckton revisits it.
            But then again he also has patience so he could wait longer “for the stars align more properly”.
            Obviously, Monckton is politician- a very traditional English politician [weird and pompous isn’t vaguely, a disqualification- and it’s pity America doesn’t some politicians like him]

          • barry says:

            You would draw from the bottom of the barrel, wouldnt you? I regard Monckton as the clown prince of skepticism.

            Me too. Unfortunately, many skeptics still go by his metrics (like g*e*r*a*n), which is at least consistent. And because of g*e*r*a*n*’s consistency, I know the parameters for the bet.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            Re Christopher Monckton.
            If you have spoken to him for more than a few minutes, you will realise that he has an exceptional brain. Words like “polymath” come to mind. Once, he sang for me the whole of Tom Lehrer’s chemical table of the elements, verbatim, correct, without any preparation. That is impressive, displays a good memory at least.
            So when I read people dissing him, I think “Could the writer do a similar feat? Can you, Gordon?
            Chris is careful to qualify his writing. Counting back from now until a temperature/time series starts to deviate from a defined norm is a cautious approach that at least avoids cherry picking of end points, better than many others have done. Geoff

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          jbaikie…”Why would 2002 to 2006 not be a return to pause”.

          I don’t like the word pause because it’s an alarmist denial that global warming may have stopped altogether. Hiatus suggest the same thing.

          The 2002 – 2008 seems to be visually where the flat trend is centred.

          • barry says:

            I dont like the word pause…. hiatus

            Aaaaaahahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahaha!

            It’s statistically invalid, but you complain about the politics of usage while deploying the terms yourself month after month. You are great value, sunshine.

            It’s the same addled beat with claiming the surface temp records are fraudulent, while using them to prop up your claim of pause/hiatus/preferred political term.

            Whatever promotes the cause, eh comrade?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The 2002 2008 seems to be visually where the flat trend is centred.”

            No 6-year trend is statistically significant.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I dont like the word pause because its an alarmist denial that global warming may have stopped altogether.”

            That’s dumb. As long as the ocean keeps warming strongly, as it has been doing for decades, global warming is here. And there’s no theoretical reason to expect it to stop as long as we keep emitting GHGs into the atmosphere.

        • Bindidon says:

          gbaikie on August 1, 2017 at 3:52 PM

          Though I tend to think Chinas global pollution is more important than its CO2 emissions.

          I agree.

          And cumulative CO2 emissions are under this pollution aspect totally irrelevant:

          https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/179260/umfrage/die-zehn-groessten-c02-emittenten-weltweit/

          We see from this german stat page that China is heading for 2016; it was already heading the chart years ago.

          The clear relation between CO2 emissions and SO2 aerosol pollution is known ad nauseam.

          *

          Moreover, it is ridiculous to take per capita stats into consideration, as do some commenters, as the vast majority of Chinese and Indian people aren’t consumers of what caused the CO2 emissions in the two countries.

          The only really valuable statistics about CO2 is imho one showing world-wide the consumption of goods whose production led to CO2 emissions.

          We then indeed would see, in such a consumption based chart, for example USA and Germany associated to way way higher CO2 values!

          • gbaikie says:

            “We then indeed would see, in such a consumption based chart, for example USA and Germany associated to way way higher CO2 values!”
            Though factor in this could be the USA [and perhaps Germany] does a better job of accounting [or measuring] of CO2 emission.
            Or China is quite famous for causing tens millions of it’s citizens to starve, due to inaccurately reporting the amount food the country had.
            Which isn’t to claim that USA or Germany are particular exceptional about matters of transparency, but rather it’s mostly about the hideous amount of corruption not only in China, but it’s a global issue.

            In terms of pollution, it’s how many people are caused to be sick and/or die because of it.

            The political answer is not to cause pollution to generated elsewhere [so that local politicians can claim to be doing something about]. Or California can claim to have fairly low CO2 emission, but California isn’t “self sufficient” in terms it’s energy needs [and there is no good reason for this- other than political factors which inhibit local energy production. But most adults should be aware of nature
            of politician- assuming they were vaguely educated.

            Though there is a more valid way of removing activity locally which cause pollution, but requires intelligence and long term planning.

            More access to “space environment” can be such a pathway.
            The existent access to the space environment, has already had many beneficial aspect. But dramatically lower the costs to get into space, will dramatically increase it’s value.

          • gbaikie says:

            I guess a difference, could be I would want US government to lead the world in terms of doing proper exploration of space.
            In terms of using space resources it would a more global effort [or international market approach].

            The idea that US government could get it’s act together in terms of doing useful exploration is quite optimistic.
            In fact one probably make a case that other nations have been more practical in terms of their space exploration as compared to the US, but no nation spends as much on what is called “space exploration” as compared to US.
            And it’s largely about “changing minds about what is important in terms what to explore [and how to do it best]”.
            And largely this “change of mind”, is that exploring space could have practical value. Or simply following NASA’s charter.

          • David Appell says:

            The US got rich by burning fossil fuels. Countries like China and India naturally and obviously want the same opportunity.

  6. Thomas says:

    What’s the margin of error for the temperature readings? Also, what do you use for an experimental control and for spot-checking the readings? Radiosondes?

    • David Appell says:

      Thomas says:
      “Whats the margin of error for the temperature readings?”

      Based on past questions, it is apparently top secret.

    • richard verney says:

      The margin of error must be at least the size of adjustment made. after all the adjustment made can be either right or wrong (or somewhere in between if one assumes that the adjustment was in the right direction merely wrong in amplitude).

      So with GISS, the margin of error must be something in excess of 1 degC.

      • barry says:

        1c of adjustments? What does that even mean?

        Another numbers-free numerical claim.

      • David Appell says:

        richard verney says:
        “The margin of error must be at least the size of adjustment made”

        No.

        The various factors that go into the adjustment each have their uncertainty, but those do not put a lower bound (= adjustment made) on the adjusted temperatures.

  7. GW says:

    Since it is well within the range of natural variability and the error band.

  8. Tim Wells says:

    It’s been more like winter through July in the UK. August isn’t looking much better.

    • David Appell says:

      Thurday’s high in Salem Oregon is predicted to be 106 F, against a normal high of 84 F. Over 3-sigma higher.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Here is why I do not get alarmed by record high temperatures in some location or city as a predictor of bad things to come.

        Here is Salem, Oregon in 1981 which set the record for all time hottest August temperature at 108 F.

        https://infoseek.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSLE/1981/8/1/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=Salem&req_state=OR&req_statename=Oregon&reqdb.zip=97301&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999

        The History shows 7 hot days in a row then temperatures go back to normal.

        Not much to get excited by.

        Here shows all the record temps for August in Salem

        Look how the dates are scattered around.
        http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx

        Not even one in the 2000’s. If you make a record with that temperature that will be the first one for the 21st Century.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “The History shows 7 hot days in a row then temperatures go back to normal.
          Not much to get excited by.”

          It is if you suffer in the heat.

          A better question is, are “heat waves” becoming more frequent? I don’t know the answer to that for Salem, OR, but for the entire US more record highs are occurring than record lows:

          http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/gallery/2015AnnualRecords.jpg

          • bilybob says:

            Does that chart remove records that only go back to 1950 and/or urbanized areas? I have looked at records for many rural areas that have temperature data going back to at least 1920. The majority of maximum temperature records for these are prior to 1950. It would not surprise me if an area only has data to 1950 or is in a growing urbanized area to have a max temperature record post 1980 since the 50’s – 70’s were for the most part below 0C anomoly.

        • Norman says:

          David Appell

          Those graphs are nice but they do not really describe the misery index. The 5:1 ratio does not indicate at all if there are more hot records than before (at least in the US which has good coverage), it could just be a reflection of fewer cold records. You could even have both records going down and still have a greater ratio if the cold records are going down at a faster rate.

          In 1936 you had a very high misery index. It was a year of super cold winter with massive snow, followed by lots of flooding and tornadoes with one of the hottest summers ever recorded in the US. Also a super strong hurricane struck Florida and was one of the most powerful.

          I think your graph would be a far better indicator if they did not have a ratio of records (between high and low) but rather a straight graph of record high temperatures. This would be a much better metric to indicate if there are more high temperature records today than in the past.

          I could do it myself using the NOAA tool but they have a vastly lowering of data points over the years so I am unable to construct a valid trend line from that data source. I could look a the cities from all major regions of the US (maybe 20) and look at the Intellicast record high temperatures to see if there is some upward trend.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Here is the true misery index of 1936

            http://iagenweb.org/humboldt/1936blizzard.htm

          • David Appell says:

            Again, it’s not single occurrences, but whether heat waves are more frequent now than in the past. There are, at least, more record highs being set than record lows.

            1936 was certainly an anomalous year in the US, and it retains the record for the warmest July in the records. But it has only the 6th warmest August, and the 13th warmest June.

            But 1936’s annual average is in the middle of the pack. 1934 is 7th highest, but the years 1998, 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2017 (YTD) are all warmer.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “The 5:1 ratio does not indicate at all if there are more hot records than before (at least in the US which has good coverage), it could just be a reflection of fewer cold records.”

            Of course. But fewer cold records is also a sign of warming.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman….”In 1936 you had a very high misery index. It was a year of super cold winter with massive snow, followed by lots of flooding and tornadoes with one of the hottest summers ever recorded in the US”.

            1934 is still the hottest year in the US, and likely Canada as well.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “1934 is still the hottest year in the US, and likely Canada as well.”

            Gordon, you’re a liar.
            And one who repeats his lies after they have been proven wrong.

            Why do you do this?

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            It may not be fair to call Gordon Robertson a liar when he states 1934 as the hottest year on record.

            The ranking of the hottest years is complex and fuzzy. 1934 was definitely one of the hottest. It also had a very cold winter so the extremely hot summer overcame the super cold winter.

            This article from a professional journal AMS shows how difficult it is to actually determine the hottest year in the US.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00760.1

            Lake Ontario actually was completely frozen during the winter of 1934.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/06/nyregion/but-what-about-february-9-1934.html

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            You state: “Of course. But fewer cold records is also a sign of warming.”

            Except for a fringe group, I would think most intelligent people agree the world is warming.

            Even Roy Spencer’s graph above shows the world has warmed. A warmer world would seem to produce less record lows as the coldest air would be a little warmer than in earlier years so it is less likely to set records. I am not sure records set is a really good metric of what is going on. If your record cold for Omaha, NE is -32 F but you get a -31 F temperature some year you still have a super cold dangerous condition but it won’t give you a record.

            A globe that has warmed 1 or 2 F in 100 years does not mean that the misery index will shoot up. I think you did some math on your blog about the probability of hotter weather increasing. I do not know if extreme heat would increase, I would agree you would get warmer temperatures but how much that adds to a misery index I am not sure of.

          • Des says:

            Norman

            If you’re talking only of summer (June-August), then 1936 is the hottest year in the continental US, 1934 is 4th. If we’re talking of a calendar year, 1936 was 50th, 1934 was 6th.

            Those figures are for daily averages.
            For daily maximums the ranks are 1st, 2nd, 37th and 2nd resp.
            For daily minimums the ranks are 10th, 15th, 89th and 14th resp.

            But as we take longer intervals, the rank falls. Considering 5 year intervals centered on years ending in 5 or 0, 1933-37 ranks only 8th (out of 24). The heat was not sustained as it is now.

            Ultimately though, this is meaningless. The USA comprises only 0.7% of the earth’s surface. This heat was not felt globally. The globe experienced its little peak in the 1940s, not the 1930s. And that peak was well below today’s values.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “I am not sure records set is a really good metric of what is going on.”

            I never said it was.

            But it’s indicative. If you’re going to talk about heat waves, like the one I’m not experience in Salem, OR, then the appropriate question, AGW-wise, is not if such a heat wave has occurred before, but if they are getting more frequent.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “I think you did some math on your blog about the probability of hotter weather increasing.”

            Yes — I showed that the probability of extreme temperatures increases exponentially when the overall temperature trend is increasing linearly:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html

          • David Appell says:

            Norman,

            Do you think Gordon had that AMS article in mind when he wrote 1934 was the warmest year in the US?

            Of course he didn’t!

            It’s a lie he’s repeated for a long time, one of may lies he continually repeats, despite being corrected many times, despite never even showing the data he’s basing his claims on.

          • David Appell says:

            PS: USA48 2016 was 0.81 F warmer than 1934, according to NOAA data.

            It’s going to be tough for uncertainties to cover that up.

            And 2017 is, so far, 1.3 F warmer than 1934.

          • Bindidon says:

            Here are the top 20 abolute temperatures measured for CONUS in C by the GHCN V3 stations (monthly unadjusted variant):

            1901 | 7 | 25.55
            1936 | 7 | 25.31
            2012 | 7 | 25.26
            1934 | 7 | 25.09
            2011 | 7 | 24.86
            2006 | 7 | 24.85
            1931 | 7 | 24.70
            1980 | 7 | 24.68
            2002 | 7 | 24.63
            1881 | 7 | 24.50
            1935 | 7 | 24.50
            1954 | 7 | 24.50
            1983 | 8 | 24.43
            1966 | 7 | 24.36
            1998 | 7 | 24.36
            1955 | 7 | 24.35
            1930 | 7 | 24.30
            1921 | 7 | 24.29
            1936 | 8 | 24.27
            1999 | 7 | 24.25

            And here are the yearly averages of all monthly records:

            2012 | 13.16
            1998 | 13.03
            2016 | 12.91
            1953 | 12.86
            1921 | 12.82
            1881 | 12.77
            1931 | 12.76
            1990 | 12.75
            1934 | 12.75
            1954 | 12.74
            1882 | 12.73
            2006 | 12.67
            1880 | 12.65
            1999 | 12.63
            1890 | 12.60
            1991 | 12.57
            2015 | 12.54
            1938 | 12.52
            1889 | 12.52
            1939 | 12.47

            1934 the hottest year in the USA? It seems to rather belong to some common narrative than to the reality.

            Maybe some days of that year were at top in some parts of CONUS. If I have time enough, I’ll manage to get some data out of the GHCN V4 daily data.

          • Gbaikie says:

            Hottest days could be different than warmest average daily temperature.

        • richard verney says:

          The world record for consecutive hot days (ie., days above 100 degF) was set in Marble bar Australia in 1924.

          That year there was a staggering 160 consecutive days over 100degF at one location, ie., a sustained period of warmth lasting the best part of half a year.

          • barry says:

            Marble bar averages 154 days a year above 100F. It often has more than 160 days above 100F in a twelve month period centering on summer. The consecutive record is a fluke of weather.

    • crakar24 says:

      I don’t need to follow your link to know that colder than a witches tit here.

    • Des says:

      Hmmm … here in Sydney on July 30 we had our warmest July day on record … 26.5 degrees C. That is higher than the long-term average for January (though lower than the January average in the 2000s).

    • barry says:

      Yeah, weather is.. variable.

  9. dr No says:

    The New York Times has just reported:
    “In a major blow to the future of nuclear power in the United States, two South Carolina utilities said on Monday that they would abandon two unfinished nuclear reactors in the state, putting an end to a project that was once expected to showcase advanced nuclear technology but has since been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

    The two reactors, which have cost the utilities roughly $9 billion, remain less than 40 percent built. The cancellation means there are just two new nuclear units being built in the country both in Georgia while more than a dozen older nuclear plants are being retired in the face of low natural gas prices.”

  10. barry says:

    Florida beaches have a rip alert today.

  11. Snape says:

    Is the +0.28 anomaly for July a reflection of nino-region conditions during March and April?

    • barry says:

      More than ENSO influences monthly variability. It’s the primary, but not the only short-term signal behind monthly temps. Persistent high ENSO values affect the record, but I’m not sure that intermittent semi-high values have such an impact.

  12. UK Ian brown says:

    Wife hit me with a question I couldn’t answer.if we stopped using instruments that measure temperature in 100s of degrees.and still used Old mercury thermometers would we still ba talking global warming.or would nobody notice

    • Krakatoa says:

      If we use enough of them all over the world, I think we would still see a clear warming signal.

      • UK Ian brown says:

        Possibly but 1 degree per 100 yrs .would hardly cause a panic.

        • David Appell says:

          Maybe, maybe not. But we’ve really had 1 degree C warming since 1970.

          0.1 C/decade is a high rate of change, geologically speaking. But what’s really worrisome is what’s expected to happen this century, when the surface trend is projected to be higher (in fact, it already is higher — it’s been 0.3 C/decade since about 1990).

          • Emeritus says:

            No 1C warming since 1970, 1C since 1920 I agree on;

            http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/

          • David Appell says:

            According to NO.AA data, warming since 1/1970 is 0.83 C, since 1/1920 is 0.92 C.

            The point is, most of the warming has happened since 1970.

          • Des says:

            It is more accurate to say that most of the warming has occurred since 1976.

          • crakar24 says:

            It is more accurate to say most of the adjustments have occurred since 1970

          • David Appell says:

            Adjustments are necessary to correct for biases.

            How would you prefer to do that?

          • Des says:

            crakar24
            It is more accurate to say that most of the ADJUSTMENTS were applied to pre 1940 data:
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Nxj0NIDJliMXNoT3RsMVBsWk0/view?usp=sharing

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, thanks. Adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.

          • Des says:

            David Appell

            Hmmm … I think you read the graph incorrectly. Adjustments definitely increase the trend, but there is practically no effect after 1980 and only a minor effect between 1940 and 1980.

            What IS true is that the adjustments reduce the warming trend in SEA SURFACE temperatures. When you look at the same graph for just the USA, the effect of the adjustments is greater due to the fact that no ocean is included.

            BUT … the land-only temperatures have increased by significantly more than the global temperature, and the extra adjustment of the land-based temperatures don’t go close to making up that difference.

          • David Appell says:

            Des, in that case your graph isn’t correct. It’s very well known that adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend.

            See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Corrections”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends corrections REDUCE the long-term global warming trend.

            “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
            DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
            https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

          • David Appell says:

            Des, your graph appears to have the data labels mixed-up.

          • Des says:

            Yes it does seem that the graph is wrong.
            But I stand by my claim that adjustments increase the trend over LAND. Clearly that is not enough to offset the reduction in the trend caused by adjustments to sea surface temperatures.

            I find it amusing that that has-been Ivar Giaever complains about including sea surface temperatures in the global record when that inclusion is decreasing the trend.

    • barry says:

      I’m not sure there are many instruments that measure at such resolution in the GHCN database. The law of large numbers is what gives us finer detail than the 1C increments of a thermometer.

    • crakar24 says:

      I would have stopped at “Wife hit me” nah just joking the real question here Ian is not what type of thermometers we use by the type of computer programmes we use to adjust the raw data.

      The BOM here in OZ has a terrible reputation with cooking the books, just recently they have been caught with software that sets a lower limit on raw data temps ergo if the temp in Goulburn -10.4C (raw data) the software would adjust it UP to -10.0C, there is another recent example at Thredbo.

      Their problem here is they have run out of excuses to adjust the raw data post reading they are now so desperate to show a warming trend they are adjusting the raw data prior to recording it.

      Is there any act more unscientific that to adjust raw data?

      How long has this fraud been happening?

      The BOM claim it has no effect on trends, what they don’t divulge is the homogenisation practices mean it has a rather large effect on trends.

      Corruption is rife in Oz.

      • barry says:

        How long has this fraud been happening?

        Exactly as long as since skeptics started claiming that.

          • crakar24 says:

            Well my comment ruffled two moron responses, perhaps these morons can explain why a government department bestowed the responsibility of producing and maintaining an accurate temp record for the country would install software that reduces the cold temp readings straight off the thermometer rather than recording the true (RAW)temp and then applying an appropriate and justifiable adjustment after the fact for all to see?

            Obviously these morons cant or they would have already done so, instead they respond with sarcasm cos that’s all they got.

            Logic defeats them
            Science defeats them
            Math defeats them
            Physics defeats them

            But good old sarcasm never lets them down.

            Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

          • David Appell says:

            When you can ask politely, you might get an answer.

          • crakar24 says:

            Ha that’s funny DA, we all know you don’t have answer beyond DENIER. People like you condone the fraudulent manipulation of data to support the hypothesis.

          • barry says:

            perhaps these morons can explain why a government department bestowed the responsibility of producing and maintaining an accurate temp record for the country would install software that reduces the cold temp readings straight off the thermometer rather than recording the true (RAW)temp and then applying an appropriate and justifiable adjustment after the fact for all to see?

            Could you explain which particular revision, what the method was in some detail, and perhaps point to a paper or two describing it?

            Familiarizing yourself with the underlying methods may render second-hand explanations unnecessary. It looks like you’re complaining about the result without checking the rationales and methods for yourself, which is skepticism 101.

            Doing so would also demonstrate that it’s worth responding to your screed. “Morons” isn’t exactly the most inviting language, is it?

          • David Appell says:

            crakar, I see you’re unable to ask politely.

            When you learn to control your emotions, come back and ask.

            In the meantime you should learn about adjustments. These two articles explain adjustments in easily understood ways:

            “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done,” Scott K. Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
            http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

            “Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
            https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

      • UK Ian brown says:

        Think you hit the nail on the head when you said we have to adjust the data.if the new instruments need adjustments continually then maybe we need a system the doesn’t need adjustments and not subject to fraud.if you adjust your oven temp to suit your mood you would spoil your cake.

        • Des says:

          The instruments do NOT need adjustments.
          The adjustments are made to correct for conditions that have changed over the the past century+ and are now beyond our control.
          For example, time of reading, urban heat island effect (YES, the correct for that), method of measuring sea surface temperatures, …).

      • Bindidon says:

        What about some exactexplanations concerning what you pretend, crakar24?

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_070263.shtml

        Show us what you mean here, I would be really, really interested!

      • Des says:

        So now apparently a computer glitch is “corruption”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      UK ian…”Wife hit me with a question I couldnt answer.if we stopped using instruments that measure temperature in 100s of degrees.and still used Old mercury thermometers would we still ba talking global warming.or would nobody notice”

      I was alarmed there for a minute when you said your wife hit you. Glad it was with a question rather than a rolling pin or a frying pan.

      Surface stations still use mercury-type thermometers. Of course, you can’t view hundredths of a degree on such a thermometer so the 100ths likely come from averaging, which is actually a no-no when your data has a +/- error margin in the tenths of a degree range.

      I think your wife’s insight is dead on. Look at this curve of global warming superimposed on a larger vertical scale:

      look down the page to figure 5, where you can see current warming on a scale using 2C vertical intervals.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20100430000147/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Surface stations still use mercury-type thermometers”

        I doubt it. What’s your proof?

      • Des says:

        “… the 100ths likely come from averaging, which is actually a no-no when your data has a +/- error margin in the tenths of a degree range.”

        Incorrect. When you SUM n data points with the same potential error, the error increases with the square root of n. When you divide by n to find the AVERAGE, the potential error DECREASES with the square root of n.

        Averaging just 100 data points adds one order of magnitude to the accuracy. Averaging 10000 data points adds two orders of magnitude.
        Even if each thermometer could be read only to the nearest degree, the average of 10000 of them is accurate to the nearest HUNDREDTH of a degree.

          • crakar24 says:

            You would consider Des smart wouldn’t you DA, I suggest you take a closer look at what he said.

            Even if each thermometer could be read only to the nearest degree, the average of 10000 of them is accurate to the nearest HUNDREDTH of a degree.

            Yeah right he is smart DA and if you think he is then what does that make you?

          • Des says:

            Looks like I have to paste my reply here since you are in the habit of duplicating your BS claims:

            Youve never done a course in statistics have you?

            http://virgo-physics.sas.upenn.edu/uglabs/lab_manual/Error_Analysis.pdf

            Read the sections Statistical Analysis of Small Data Sets and Statistical Analysis of Large Data Sets, particularly the part called uncertainty in the mean.

            Not that I should need to provide a link the concept is damn obvious to anyone who has the remotest experience of dealing with large data sets.

          • barry says:

            Thanks for the link – take note of this quote:

            The average value becomes more and more precise as the number of measurements N increases. Although the uncertainty of any single measurement is always [delta]x, the uncertainty in the mean [delta]x avg becomes smaller as more measurements are made.

          • Des says:

            Yes, that is the message I am trying to get through to this guy. He doesn’t get it – either through lack of intellect or by choice. Personally, I think the concept should be damn obvious (at least qualitatively) without having to give him a link.

          • barry says:

            I can get it with little math background. It’s not hard to conceptualize.

  13. Kevin White says:

    The slight fluctuation is indicative that the atmospheric temperature is relatively stable for the time being and it now appears that it will remain so for a long time to come given that ENSO neutral conditions will prevail well into 2018.

    • Des says:

      In ENSO neutral conditions there are many factors that can significantly affect climate. Basically, El Nino is the slider, La Nina is the screwball, and ENSO neutral is the knuckleball – free to be taken by the breeze.

  14. Climate for now neutral.

    • Des says:

      “Neutral” is a meaningless term to describe the climate.
      The word you are looking for is STABLE.
      Stable at the highest NON EL NINO level in the UAH record.

  15. Des says:

    Average for first 7 months of every year which had less than 4 El Nino months:

    1. 2017 0.293
    2. 2002 0.256
    3. 2007 0.210
    4. 2014 0.174
    5. 2003 0.169
    6. 2013 0.136
    7. 1991 0.129
    8. 2004 0.114
    9. 2006 0.090
    10. 2001 0.087
    11. 1988 0.087
    12. 1995 0.051
    13. 2009 0.031
    14. 1980 0.013
    15. 2011 -0.003
    16. 1999 -0.007
    17. 1990 -0.017
    18. 2012 -0.024
    19. 2000 -0.027
    20. 1996 -0.044
    21. 1994 -0.090
    22. 1997 -0.094
    23. 1981 -0.104
    24. 2008 -0.166
    25. 1986 -0.216
    26. 1984 -0.227
    27. 1993 -0.247
    28. 1979 -0.264
    29. 1989 -0.277
    30. 1985 -0.389

    Years which didn’t qualify because their first 7 months included 4 or more El Nino months (based on ONI data):
    1982, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1998, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016

    No sign of cooling there – only warming. It seems some people are seeing phantoms.

    • Des says:

      Here is the list when we demand NO El Nino months in the first 7 months of the year:

      1 … 2017 … 0.293
      2 … 2007 … 0.210
      3 … 2014 … 0.174
      4 … 2013 … 0.136
      5 … 2006 … 0.090
      6 … 2001 … 0.087
      7 … 2011 … -0.003
      8 … 1999 … -0.007
      9 … 1990 … -0.017
      10 … 2012 … -0.024
      11 … 2000 … -0.027
      12 … 1996 … -0.044
      13 … 1994 … -0.090
      14 … 1981 … -0.104
      15 … 2008 … -0.166
      16 … 1986 … -0.216
      17 … 1984 … -0.227
      18 … 1993 … -0.247
      19 … 1979 … -0.264
      20 … 1989 … -0.277
      21 … 1985 … -0.389

      No contest.

      • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/mt-redoubt-eruptions-%e2%80%93-what-effect-if-any-on-the-summer-winter/

        Des leaves this out of his data . Look at the volcanic optical thickness values which have been much lower this century versus last century.

      • Des says:

        And here’s what you get when you demand no El Nino months AND no La Nina months:

        1 2017 0.293
        2 2007 0.210
        3 2014 0.174
        4 2013 0.136
        5 2006 0.090
        6 1990 -0.017
        7 1994 -0.090
        8 1981 -0.104
        9 1986 -0.216
        10 1984 -0.227
        11 1993 -0.247
        12 1979 -0.264

      • barry says:

        Des, you might want to factor a 5-month lag in those calcs, as peak temps occur a bit after peak ENSO events.

        • Des says:

          Actually my correlation analysis suggests a 4 month lag between the ONI and UAH for El Ninos, 5 months for La Ninas, and 7 months in neutral conditions. So 5 months sounds like a good average. Allowing for the lag actually makes things easier because the period I am looking at now pretty much aligns with the La Nina/El Nino “season”.

          Allowing for the lag also gives the first 7 months of 2017 five La Nina months. Firstly: Removing all El Nino years, and all La Nina years EXCEPT 2017:

          1 … 2017 … 0.293
          2 … 2002 … 0.256
          3 … 2014 … 0.174
          4 … 2013 … 0.136
          5 … 1991 … 0.129
          6 … 2004 … 0.114
          7 … 2006 … 0.090
          8 … 2009 … 0.031
          9 … 1990 … -0.017
          10 … 1994 … -0.090
          11 … 1997 … -0.094
          12 … 1981 … -0.104
          13 … 1986 … -0.216
          14 … 1984 … -0.227
          15 … 1993 … -0.247
          16 … 1979 … -0.264
          17 … 1982 … -0.299

          Now comparing 2017 to only La Nina years, where it technically belongs:

          1 … 2017 … 0.293
          2 … 2001 … 0.087
          3 … 2011 … -0.003
          4 … 1999 … -0.007
          5 … 2012 … -0.024
          6 … 2000 … -0.027
          7 … 1996 … -0.044
          8 … 2008 … -0.166
          9 … 1989 … -0.277
          10 … 1985 … -0.389

          Given the weakness of the La Nina, the true comparison lies somewhere between the two.

          • crakar24 says:

            Hey Des a bit further up you had the audacity to claim 10000 thermometers with an accuracy of 1 degree when averaged together gives up an accuracy in the hundredths of a degree. Lets suppose you are wrong I wonder what your temp data above would look like, lets see shall we?

            1 2017 0.000
            2 2001 0.000
            3 2011 -0.00
            4 1999 -0.000
            5 2012 -0.000
            6 2000 -0.000
            7 1996 -0.000
            8 2008 -0.000
            9 1989 -0.000
            10 1985 -0.000

            Ah now we see why you talk so much smack

          • Des says:

            You’ve never done a course in statistics have you?

            http://virgo-physics.sas.upenn.edu/uglabs/lab_manual/Error_Analysis.pdf

            Read the sections “Statistical Analysis of Small Data Sets” and “Statistical Analysis of Large Data Sets”, particularly the part called “uncertainty in the mean”.

            Not that I should need to provide a link – the concept is damn obvious to anyone who has the remotest experience of dealing with large data sets.

          • Crakar24 says:

            You talking to me Des? Perhaps you will now stop abusing Salvatore for the same crime?

            Now onto your “I dun a course wuntz you didunt” bullshit.

            Imagine we have ten thermometers that have an accuracy of 0.1 +/- 0.1.

            The thermometers are located in various localities. The actual temp is 11.245c each thermometer will measure 11.2 +/- 0.1 they will not measure 11.245. Still with me Des?

            OK so the average of those thermometers will be 11.2 not 11.200000 just 11.2 because they don’t have the ability to measure beyond the first decimal. Still with me Des?

            OK so let’s say each thermometer measures something different.

            1, 9.6
            2, 11.7
            3 7.8
            4 12.9
            5, 24.6
            6, 19.4
            7, 15.6
            8, 3.8
            9, 37.8
            10, 17.1

            The total of these numbers is 160.3 ergo the average is 16.03. This numerical value is the average of the numbers not the temp, the ave of the temp is 16.0, the reason why is because the thermometer cannot measure temp of 0.03.

            You can do all the courses you like manipulating temps but once the number goes beyond the capability of the thermometer your work is no longer relevant.

          • Des says:

            You really have no idea. We are talking about averaging DIFFERENT readings, not taking the same reading over and over.

            If the actual average of 10000 thermometers, each measuring a different temperature, is 11.245, and each thermometer is accurate to 0.1 degree, you are not going to get 10000 readings of 11.2. Assuming a symmetrical distribution for convenience, you are going to get SLIGHTLY more than 5000 readings of 11.2 and below, and SLIGHTLY less than 5000 readings of 11.3 and above, giving an average at or very close to 16.45.

            You don’t get to invent your own mathematics.

          • Crakar24 says:

            So the AVERAGED temp is 16.4 the number you produced is 16.45.

            Thank you for demonstrating my point so succinctly

          • Des says:

            For a start, it should be clear I had either a typo or a brain fade – I clearly meant 11.245, so I’m going to assume the numbers you gave were 11.2 and 11.245.

            Yes – the number I produced was 11.245.
            NO – I clearly stated that the actual average temp was 11.245.

          • barry says:

            For the temp record, 60 measurements a month of any one thermometer, 1600+ thermometers around the globe to get a monthly global average. Areas are 5 degree lat/lon, with varying numbers of weather stations within to give an average for the area. Some areas have more thermometers than others so they weight accordingly to give equal weight to all, rather than clumping the record in a few packed locations. Every weather station data is anomalised by month over a 30-year base line.

            1600 thermometers taking 2 readings a day for a year gives more than a million temp readings for a yearly average.

    • You can’t evaluate it that way Des.

      • Des says:

        So I can’t evaluate the earth’s average temperature by taking averages. Interesting.

        • David Appell says:

          It’s much worse than that. Deniers say the data are all fraudulent — unless the data say what they want them to say. Then those data are just fine.

          Salvatore is a prime example.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      des…”No sign of cooling there only warming. It seems some people are seeing phantoms”.

      des…you are looking at numbers, stand back and look at the overall picture. Including two major ENs, 1998 and 2010 there was no average warming.

      • Des says:

        By focusing ONLY on two El Nino events, it is YOU who is not looking at the overall picture.

  16. You are trying to say it is due to AGW which it is NOT.

  17. Volcanic optical thickness values stack up quite well against the data you have presented.

  18. Des says:

    Based on NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data, my estimates for how the UAH anomaly varied over the course of July:

    July 1-10 …. +0.20
    July 11-21 … +0.22
    July 22-31 … +0.42

    • barry says:

      Does that provide daily data? If so, I’d love a link to it.

      • Des says:

        Yes it does, though it’s always a couple of days behind. I estimated the value for July 31 in order to come up with the figures above. I’ll see in a couple of hours how close I was.

        This is where I get the daily update:
        https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/NCEP/GLncep.html

        Note that this is done by an amateur who has the right software and tech skill to read and assemble the NOAA data.

        The daily contribution is in the top left. You can scroll through the days using the arrows on the top right. You can also rotate the globe by dragging.

        They use the same baseline as UAH. What I’ve noticed is that for many months in a row it is very consistent with UAH. Then for a couple of months they will diverge wildly, such as January/February this year. I suspect the problem lies with UAH data.

        Here is a direct download link to the excel files going back to 1994:
        https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/data/ncep/1994-2015.zip
        The data is split over two files.

        • Bindidon says:

          Thanks Des, Nick is known to many of us.
          But an amateur he only is wrt climate…

          • Des says:

            What is his profession?

          • barry says:

            Nick gave some info on a blog far, far away. Mathematician scientist:

            I started out in ordinary differential equations, with an interest in complex analysis, but became more numerical, moving to pde and then computational fluid dynamics.

            Now retired.

            Should have known to check his site for that stuff.

          • barry says:

            Climate is not his qualified specialty, but he’s devoted much of his retirement studying it and applying his areas of expertise to it. When it comes to data and trend analysis, he’s miles ahead of most of us in the blogmire.

        • barry says:

          Thanks, Des. Appreciate it.

  19. dr No says:

    Meanwhile,
    “Australia has had its warmest July on record, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has said.

    A BOM report released today shows the country’s average July temperature was at its highest in more than 100 years of weather recording.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-01/australia-records-hottest-july-on-record-bom-says/8762560

    and in a non-El Nino year!

    • Crakar24 says:

      LOL, its been quite cold in Adelaide which of course triggers the usual crap ” it might be cold where you are but trust us its hotternhell everywhere else’

      July 4, over 2500 solar hot water systems freeze and then burst due to “cold snap”.

      Of course when the BOM adjust the raw data from -10.4 to -10 and then claim this to be the raw data and then adjust it again I suppose you can make up any bullshit story you want.

      The article states clearly this is all mans fault but just to be sure we need more money, lovely, lovely money by claiming “more research is needed”.

      Welcome to the adjustocene

      • Harry Cummings says:

        NZ is having a very cold record breaking in many places winter

        HC

      • Snape says:

        Crakar:
        “LOL, its been quite cold in Adelaide which of course triggers the usual crap it might be cold where you are but trust us its hotternhell everywhere else”

        Or the opposite crap from skeptics, “It’s cold where I am so it must be cold everywhere.”

        • Crakar24 says:

          Snape, all I know is the BOM are guilty of obtaining financial benefits by deception. The latest bombshell to rock that institution is thredbo. The software is set to reject any temp measured within 5c of the lowest ever recorded temps. This is the raw data Snape, this is scientific fraud, I want to know where the 1 million of tax payers money per day is spent on.

          So forgive me Snape for not trusting the BOM as far as I can spit.

          I suggest you drop the sarcasm and religious belief and open your agw blinded eyes

          • Bindidon says:

            Crakar24 on August 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM

            The software is set to reject any temp measured within 5c of the lowest ever recorded temps. This is the raw data Snape, this is scientific fraud, I want to know where the 1 million of tax payers money per day is spent on.

            What about presenting an undoubtable proof of your bad claim?

            You aren’t at Jo Nova’s, Marohasy’s or Heller’s sites here!

          • MikeR says:

            Crakar24,

            Where did you get that load of codswallop from?

            You can download the minimum temperature data for Thredbo AWS from here https://tinyurl.com/y8yj9njg

            Just download (top right- all years of data) , unzip and load into your spreadsheet.

            To help you out ,

            The average minimum temperature at Thredbo AWS during July has been increasing at 0.3C per decade

            All the coldest values are of course congregated at the earlier part of the record so the paucity of minimum temperatures during the last decade in July simply reflects the increasing trend.

            So In Mythbusters terminology this is busted (and is utter unadulterated bulls..t.(

        • Des says:

          Yes – his confirmation bias won’t permit him to see he is doing exactly the same thing.

  20. Snape says:

    Barry
    “More than ENSO influences monthly variability. Its the primary, but not the only short-term signal behind monthly temps. Persistent high ENSO values affect the record, but Im not sure that intermittent semi-high values have such an impact.”

    I agree with this and is why I speculated that the distribution of global cloud cover (favoring warming or cooling) must be another driver of short-term temperature variability.

    I couldn’t find any information about this on google. The question could also be stated as, “what causes the noise in daily/weekly/monthly global temperature?”

    • barry says:

      The factors are a) numerous, b) incompletely understood, c) limited understanding on just how much impact each (known) component has.

      Impact of ENSO is fairly well known because of high correlation of events with global (and regional) temperature variation. Smaller influence from other short-term components are too hard to pick out from regular variation – correlation isn’t evident.

      I reckon you won’t be able to find out more about what causes short-term wiggles in global temp variation. it’s an interesting question, but may be unanswerable for a long time. I’d imagine we’d need a global monitoring system with greater coverage and precision several orders of magnitude greater than current. That would take more money and political will than we’ll probably see in several lifetimes, if ever. And I don’t see the need for it, to be honest – not to rain on your curiosity.

      But I’m curious… why do you want this sort of information?

      • Snape says:

        Barry

        Global temperature tend to fluctuate more in a few days than they do in a year. And nobody knows why?

        Can’t resist speculating.

        • Bindidon says:

          Global temperature tend to fluctuate more in a few days than they do in a year.

          Apart from the absolute evidence that every averaging from one period of time up to the next encompassing one will let sudden ups and downs in the level below all disappear: do you have any real example in mind?

          • Snape says:

            Bin

            I find it odd that science doesn’t know what causes these “sudden ups and downs”. Fluctuations are lost in an average, but they still exist.

          • Bindidon says:

            Snape, I guess you mean in fact:

            Local temperature tend to fluctuate more in a few days than they do in a year’.

            Anyway, what you think is interesting enough to motivate me to globally average the GHCN V4 daily record, in order to see wether or not these sudden ups and downs ‘in a few days’ really exist at the planet’s level.

            But first I have to write a couple of lines to do this little job…

          • Bindidon says:

            Oooops?! You might be right with daily ups and downs at planetary level… Look at

            https://moyhu.blogspot.de/2017/08/july-ncepncar-up-0058.html

          • Snape says:

            Bin

            I look at climatereanalyzer (based on GFS) and choose the 2 meter anomaly option. Global average is constantly jumping up and down. That’s what I’m curious about. Weird nobody knows why.

          • Snape says:

            Obviously has to do with weather, but that’s not an answer.

          • barry says:

            Weird nobody knows why.

            I don’t think so. There’s enormous chaotic variability in weather fluctuation. Absolute resolution would be to track the position of every atom, the effect of every butterfly flapping its wings. It’s way beyond current technology, and may always be, to account for every cause/effect on weather across the globe.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            You might be right, but consider this simple investigation:

            Develop a model that tracks global cloud cover…..percentage of clouds over land versus ocean. Then look for a correlation with temperature anomalies.

          • Snape says:

            Barry

            You could come up with similar experiments WRT precipitation, atmosphere pressure and other stuff involving with weather.

          • barry says:

            Onced asked at realclimate if anyone had tried to remove the long-term cycles from the temp records like they do with ENSO, volcanic aeorosols and solar fluctuation. Maybe they’d find a reallt stright line (or not) that was the underlying signal.

            No one answered. After many months of reading about stuff I came to the understanding that there was still too much interference, and that presuming these cycles led global temps rather than aliased them or had any kind of impact, was just curve-fitting with sketchy physical basis.

        • Gbaikie says:

          Average global temperature roughly is the heat content of the world’s oceans. And daily temperature is weather.

          • Snape says:

            gbaikie

            You are right, but my question is what sort of weather (from a global perspective) makes it hotter or colder?

          • Gbaikie says:

            Heat is transported via ocean and global atmospheric conventional cells from tropics towards poles. Oceans warm the world.
            Warm wet air is less dense. Dry air (and colder air) is denser. Such factors cause air masses to move- get winds. Wind is also caused by the rotation of earth gravitational effect upon colder denser air flowing into warmer air masses. Pole ward towards equator.
            Then have basic weather of high pressure systems and low pressure systems which affect large portions of globe.
            Cool air can created by wind over water, cold air is generally created in area or transported to area by lack air being warmed by sunlight and/or heat transported to region. And of course heat radiated into space.
            Hot air is created by the sun heating land surface to higher temperature than temperature of the air.

          • gbaikie says:

            Snape

            You didn’t mean, what kind of weather increases or decreases global average temperature?

            Or assumed you meant what causes daily swings in global temperature [though possible that one might consider it as same question as “what kind weather increases or decreases global average temperature?”]. Or could ask what kind of weather changes the heat content of ocean on daily basis- and what are largest scale effects on short timescale of heat content of the ocean?

        • Des says:

          I believe the main reason for short-period changes in atmospheric heat content is changes in water vapour and cloud distribution. Although the global water vapour concentration is pretty much constant over the course of say a month, it’s DISTRIBUTION is not. And due to the fact that solar irradiance is not distributed evenly over the earth’s surface, changes in water vapour and cloud distribution lead to changes in the earth’s energy budget.

          I’m sure it is much more complicated than that – it always is.

  21. Des says:

    I see that July was the warmest month in the UAH record for the tropics, outside El Ninos or the month immediately following an El Nino.

    • Bindidon says:

      Right. It will be interesting to look at the land and sea surfaces, when

      http://tinyurl.com/y9uyykgz

      and

      http://tinyurl.com/yc4xzofm

      will contain the July values.

      Of course one might also have a look at

      http://tinyurl.com/yao6k25s

      but it’s 29 GB unpacked…

      • Des says:

        I’m in my 50s and low on tech skills. How do I read these files?

        • Bindidon says:

          What kind of explanation do you exactly expect, Des?

          • Des says:

            As I said – how do I open these files? What software do I need. It doesn’t appear that Excel is sufficient.

          • Bindidon says:

            I don’t like to produce doctoral answers lying a mile near what the other side expects.

            The first file ends in ‘gz’, i.e. it is a compressed format using the zip/unzip method.

            Once it is uncompressed using e.g. winzip on Windows, you see indeed data which is not pretty good “excel-able’. I process it using own software used for different purposes (JMA, IGRA radiosondes, UAH 2.5 deg, Land or Sea Ice, etc etc).

            The file’s formats are desccribed in a read.me file I can#t find again!

            If you had access to a UNIX-like system (one of the Linux variants for example), you might find help in using

            https://www.nu42.com/2015/11/ghcn-climate-files.html

            The second file (ERSST) is of simpler access; you can copy/paste it into Excel.

            The third file is hopeless, nobody needs such huge data.

        • barry says:

          One that makes sense?

    • barry says:

      Forsooth, sirrah?

    • Bindidon says:

      I nie rozumiem ren!

    • Des says:

      HUAI ren,

      Tell me … when you pick out single locations on the globe to make some sort of point, are you being impartial? For example, when the situation reverses itself in any of the places you have cherry picked in this month’s thread, will you be providing us with links to let everyone know about the reversal?

    • barry says:

      Having been around a while, I’d politely advise that you will get no satisfaction talking to ren, Des.

  22. Dan Pangburn says:

    The “as yet unidentified factor” I referred to at https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26 is the continuing rise in global atmospheric water vapor. It shows an increasing trend of about 1.5% per decade (8% since 1960). It is countering the average global temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring.

    So far (thru June 2017) the warming effect of WV increase appears to still be prevailing. My plot of UAH data from mid 2002 thru July 2017 shows an uptrend of 1.26 K/century but net effect of ocean cycles and net effect of the SSN anomaly time-integral proxy for most of planet energy change will continue to decline for at least a decade.

    Meanwhile, humanity needs to get serious about attending to the increased risk of precipitation related flooding.

    • Des says:

      “It is countering the average global temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring.”

      Water vapour levels are rising BECAUSE the earth’s temperature is rising.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        That statement gets you partial credit.

        Water vapor is increasing more than twice as fast as it would be based on the temperature increase of the water (AKA feedback).

    • barry says:

      Ironically, skeptics have been disputing that water vapour is on the rise, because that is a prediction from warming surface. Here a skeptic says its on the rise, but inverts cause and effect.

      Group coherence = 0

  23. barry says:

    Well whaddaya know? The latest NOAA ERSST revision has lowered the recent trends.

    https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/noaas-new-ersst-v5-sea-surface.html

    There goes that talking point.

    • Bindidon says:

      That’s solely due to people a la Robertson claiming them all the time to be corrupt, I’m sure.

      Nota bene: I hope that in a near future such people will have to pay say $ 100,000 when pretending such nosense without any consistent proof.

  24. SNOWREADY says:

    People often tend to be more alarmist about global warming in times of prolonged heat waves and warm years. During colder than average or average years people are more likely to dismiss climate change.

    • Bindidon says:

      SNOWREADY on August 2, 2017 at 11:52 AM

      The contrary is the case as far as I’m concerned.

      Over 15 years ago, NOAA oceanographers were wondering about an increasing loss of salinity at the surface of the Northwestern Atlantic.

      They soon identified the source: an increase of glacier calving on Greenlands Eastern coasts.

      They put that in relation with the Younger Dryas during which, as they supposed, the Thermohaline Circulation was disturbed by a similar situation, and a southward shift of the Gulf Stream let Western Europe experience siberian winters down to Northern Morocco.

      I was 1,000 % more impressed by this tremendous cooling perspective than by what happens today (although it perfectly might be the prelude of what they told).

    • Snape says:

      Snowready

      I was getting alarmed about the long drought in California and the Pacific NW (where I live), thinking it was a direct result of climate change. Now, happily, I’m not so sure.

  25. ren says:

    Concordia Station
    Now
    Passing clouds.
    -72 C
    Feels Like: -86 C

  26. dr No says:

    “Some 15 million people in the Pacific Northwest are under excessive heat warnings and advisories. That creates “a dangerous situation in which heat illnesses are possible,” the National Weather Service said.
    Dozens of records could be broken over the next two days, CNN meteorologists said. Seattle could see 100 degrees, which would be only the fourth time in recorded history. Other cities will likely see temperatures hit the triple digits.”

    Gordon, Gordon – are you ok?
    A handy hint for you – head off to your nearest air-conditioned shopping mall. You can sit/doze there all day in comfort. Along with all the other senior citizens.
    I look forward to hearing how you coped with the (“AGW does not exist”) conditions.

  27. Right now ocean sea surface temperatures .352c warm

    Right now global average global temperatures today over +.4c again warm

    Unlike the other side AGW which spins everything every which way to make it seem like they are correct I will not do it.

    Now if the above situation is still present by next summer or even warmer , assuming very low solar activity which is very likely is still present I will have to admit to being wrong in my solar/climate connections.

    I am not going to make excuses.

    We shall see.

    • Bindidon says:

      Well Salvatore, I’m absolutely not a fan of these SkS guys but their graphics nevertheless show it pretty good:

      https://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png

      A more serious source would be for example:

      http://tinyurl.com/yc6z4hlh

      but I’m afraid you won’t accept it.

      • No what I have said in order for solar to have a cooling effect it has to reach certain low average value solar parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general.

        This has not happened until this year, and up to year 2005 solar was strong and should have caused global warming.

        But now cooling should come about and if by next summer we are still where we are now or higher it will not be looking good for my thoughts.

        Volcanic activity is part of my solar /cooling scenario just to clarify.

        • Snape says:

          I had a friend in college who was a grad student in chemistry. Smart guy. Nevertheless, he believed we were being watched by aliens. He said the government knew all about it, , but was part of an international cover-up.

          No amount of argument could change his mind. Any evidence to the contrary he said was “manufactured” to hide the truth.

          Reminds me of Crakar, Salvatore, etc.

          • I just said if global temperatures are still this high a year from now I will be wrong.

          • Snape says:

            Salvatore

            Posted this as a general comment at the bottom of the blog. Not meant to be a response to what you had just written…… even though you are mentioned.

            Des is right, though. I would admit I’m wrong if the numbers change.
            (+0.13/decade significantly lowers)

          • and how about you Snape what would it take for you to say you are wrong?

          • Des says:

            Daring to answer for him, ANY evidence that we are significantly colder than pre El Nino temperatures, by more than the natural month-to-month variation, for a number of months. Bar raised (lowered??) if we have a La Nina.

          • barry says:

            I would say the mainstream view of climate change would be severely tested if the (classic) trend since 1998 returned to extend for 25 years in the surface data sets, or for 30 in the satellite data sets. So I could be “proved wrong” by 2022. And would happily admit to it.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, August 2, 2017 at 6:02 PM:

            I would say the mainstream view of climate change would be severely tested if the (classic) trend since 1998 returned to extend for 25 years in the surface data sets, or for 30 in the satellite data sets. So I could be “proved wrong” by 2022. And would happily admit to it.

            I’m afraid “the mainstream view of climate change” can’t rely on temperature readings alone, as the claim is about a specific CAUSE of temperature change, noe about temperature change itself …

          • Des says:

            Kristian,

            Surely if temperatures continue to rise despite reduced solar intensity then there would be no other explanation. Unless you want to come up with more BS like Salvatore, who is claiming that volcanoes actually RAISE temperatures.

          • Gbaikie says:

            We are living in a period of time, when the oceans are cold and we have polar ice caps.
            One could say we are within an ice age which has been happening for millions of years. One can also call the global climate, an icebox climate and the human species evolved within this icebox climate.
            Anyhow, a cold ocean refers to the entire ocean, rather just the surface of the ocean.
            The ocean surface warms or cools over time periods of decades or centuries, whereas the bulk of the ocean warms or cools over periods of thousands to ten thousands of years.
            If the entire ocean was 1K warmer this would be a massive increase of the heat content of the ocean. And within your icebox climate, the entire ocean has been a couple of K warmer than our present ocean temperature.
            And at times when Earth wasn’t in an icebox
            the entire oceans have been more than 10 K
            warmer.
            Now when just considering the surface of ocean (100 meter depth) one has a lot heat content and this surface water determines or is, Earth’s average temperature.
            Now in terms of solar cycle, mainly it’s a change in the magnetic output of the sun.
            The solar minimum has less sunspots and less solar magnetic strength. It’s effect upon earth is to reduce the density of the high atmosphere. And it increases the amount of cosmic radiation reaching earth.

          • Des says:

            Actually – what I should have said is that Salvatore claims that volcanoes either raise or lower temperatures, depending on what mood he is in.

          • barry says:

            Kristian, as I’m of the opinion that CO2 increase causes warming, and CO2 is increasing, I would be convinced I was wrong after a long enough period of no warming – a statistically significant deviation from prior trend. That could become apparent as early as 2022.

            I am fully aware that, should arming continue, there will be all manner of alternative theories put forth form the skeptical milieu, all remaining quite different, each postulator as convinced as another that his/hers solves the riddle.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, August 3, 2017 at 1:10 AM:

            Surely if temperatures continue to rise despite reduced solar intensity then there would be no other explanation.

            The elimination method. Really?

            Des, you need to show how YOUR proposed physical mechanism is actually causing the observed warming. You can’t just go “then there would be no other explanation”. Why not? Do you know of ALL possible explanations? That’s not how science work. At least, it’s not how science is MEANT to work.

          • Gbaikie says:

            My proposed physical mechanism is the sunlight warms the transparent ocean surface.
            Why our current global climate has always remained at least 5 K cooler than other earth climates for last few million years, is not as simple to understand.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, August 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM:

            Kristian, as I’m of the opinion that CO2 increase causes warming, and CO2 is increasing, I would be convinced I was wrong after a long enough period of no warming a statistically significant deviation from prior trend. That could become apparent as early as 2022.

            I’m fully aware of the fact that you’re “of the opinion that CO2 increase causes warming”, barry.

            The problem is, though, that there are absolutely NO observations available from the real Earth system to back up such an opinion. Nothing to provide any kind of evidence for the following causal relationship: +CO2_atm => +T.

            And thus you have no scientific REASON to assume that more CO2 in the atmosphere would necessarily cause net warming inside the Earth system. This relationship has to be physically, empirically established first, as an operative process in the real Earth system. And only THEN could it be a valid premise on which to build an hypothesis about “anthropogenic global warming”. But is has never been established, barry. Not even remotely so. It is all theoretical claims and assumptions. Nothing else. No actual evidence. Still to this day …

          • bobdroege says:

            I would say AGW was all washed up if

            There were trends in two of the data bases, one satellite and one like GISS, where the trend was less than 0.05 C per decade and the uncertainty was less than 0.05.

            Summer sea ice extent greater than 7 million square kilometers.

            Or any other metric that indicated climate conditions have returned to those of the period 1940 to 1980.

          • Nate says:

            Kristian,

            ‘Nothing to provide any kind of evidence for the following causal relationship: +CO2_atm => +T.’

            Usually in science, the most convincing evidence is when detailed predictions are made, and then they are confirmed, such as when Einstein predicted the stars’ positions would shift near a solar eclipse. This was observed. As were several other predictions over decades.

            Same with AGW. Detailed predictions were made in the late 70s. A period the Earth’s temp had been flat and wiggly for several decades. The prediction was that rising CO2 would cause temps to rise up over next several decades by nearly 1 C, clearly out of the background wiggles. There would arctic amplification. There would be faster N. Hemisphere rise. There would faster rise over land. There would be diminishing arctic sea ice. There would be sea level rise. There would be warming in West Antarctica. See e.g. here https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

            All of these predictions have been confirmed, even the amount of warming, within errors. By the usual standards of science, these results are convincing.

            Since then, there have been many additional lines of evidence, such as ocean warming and stratospheric cooling.

          • Nate says:

            Kristian,

            ‘Nothing to provide any kind of evidence for the following causal relationship: +CO2_atm => +T.

            Let me add that we unfortunately dont have an alternate Earth with all else equal but without added CO2.

            All we have available is Earth prior to, and after, the rise in CO2. And of course, simulations.

  28. Jake says:

    Question for Des, maybe a little off topic, but since you seem to be pretty comfortable with statistics maybe you can help clarify a point of confusion. In reference to the UPenn manual, the final answer to the solutions on the final page are what I find troubling. The first solution produces a delta P of 0.14 (as I was trained, that 4 would be subscripted to indicate that it’s the first insignificant digit), which is then rounded DOWN. To my mind, if the first insigfig is any value other than zero the value should be rounded UP, because the value should never be MORE precise than the solution to delta P indicates it to be …..

    Yes? How can we improve how much trust we have in numbers due to, what amounts to, arbitrary rounding principals.

    Thoughts? Is there a statistical principal which governs this math? It’s a curiosity which has bothered me …….

    • Des says:

      Firstly – I’ve never seen this subscript thing you speak of. Perhaps it’s an American thing. Then again – I’m not a professional statistician.

      Secondly, I don’t see a need to round at all. The concept of significance is not as set in stone as these textbook rules seem to suggest. It can be argued that the 4 in 0.14 is more significant than the 4 in 0.94.

      Also, unlike most simplistic textbooks, the quoted error is not half the limit of reading, it is a standard deviation. If you don’t know what standard deviation is I’m afraid you’ll have to look that up for yourself, but let’s just say that it is a number which gives an indication of the error, but in a probabilistic way. As a rule of thumb, about 68% of scores lie within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within two standard deviations, and 99.7% within three standard deviations.

      So if it is determined that the standard deviation of each thermometer reading is say 0.3 degrees, then the standard deviation of an average of 100 such readings (often instead called the standard error) will be 0.03 degrees. This means that there is a 68% chance that the actual mean lies within 0.03 degrees of your calculated mean, a 95% chance that the actual mean lies within 0.06 degrees of the calculated mean, and 99.7% chance that it lies within 0.09 degrees of your mean. If you average a million scores, those probabilities are associated with errors of 0.0003 degrees, 0.0006 degrees and 0.0009 degrees respectively.

      This is the main reason I wouldn’t round the 0.14. If I want a 95% confidence interval for the mean (ie. two standard deviations), I would want to double the unrounded 0.14 before I even think of rounding.

      All this assumes that we are playing with a NORMAL distribution. There are a number of reasons why this distribution is not normal. One is that the distribution is discrete and not continuous. But the number of data points is so high that the error due to this is imperceptible. A second reason it is not Normal is that temperatures on successive days are not independent. Again, the sheer number of data points all but removes that error.

      • Jake says:

        Des, thanks for the response. Actually, that particular nuance came out of a British Quant Chem book, a method for signifying that a number was insignificant but carried along in a series of calculations to help eliminate rounding error. I have found it very useful, and have also noted it’s something a couple of very good physicists I know have done as well.

        I understand why the average of a large group of values gains precision, and cringe when folks start ranting about that statistical consequence here. They don’t seem to understand that there is an improved confidence in the average, not the temperature.

        That’s not really where my question was directed. My complaint with statistics has always been that the numbers are lost in a sea of equations and there is a lack of qualitative understanding what the final value represents. In propagating two numbers with uncertainties, the answer must be one with less precision, that’s logical. The final uncertainty should contain only one digit, that’s only logical. The whole concept would be express a value with some range of possible error. Why round down, and express the value as better than the statistics says it should be? Seems counterintuitive ….

  29. ren says:

    First Week of August Forecast

    Below-average temperatures will spread across the northern Plains on Wednesday and into the central Plains and upper Midwest on Thursday.

    High temperatures will be up to 25 degrees colder than average for early August, which corresponds to temperatures topping out in the 60s and 70s. A few areas in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota may see highs only in the 50s Thursday.
    https://www.wunderground.com/news/cool-mild-start-august-2017-plains-midwest-south-east

  30. A fair good answer Des.

  31. crakar24 says:

    test

  32. crakar24 says:

    Link for all the deniers

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data/news-story/c3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783

    Remember this is just the tip of the ice berg

    One commenter summed it up nicely

    Extraordinary!

    We are now to believe that past records are correct but there has been equipment failure at a number of sites, when the BOM was quite prepared to list inaccurate figures until challenged.

    We can no longer trust the BOM to impartially record temperatures.

  33. crakar24 says:

    Des/Barry/Snape your response to temp averaging is in on its way

    Cheers

  34. crakar24 says:

    Ha yeah you just sit there in your ivory tower ready to pass judgment LOL

    • barry says:

      Put my hand out to shake hands, got a slap in the face. Ah well.

      I work in different dungeons, while you hand-wave from your ivory window.

      • crakar24 says:

        Ha put your hand out to shake hands, I don’t mind if someone disagrees, if they do they can show reasons why they don’t. When people respond with abuse and sarcasm I know they have nothing to respond with.

        If you want to reach out and shake hands then I suggest you treat your opponents with respect regardless of their position.

        Should not be too long now before Godwins law is invoked and I am called a denier again………….

      • barry says:

        If you want to reach out and shake hands then I suggest you treat your opponents with respect regardless of their position.

        I try, as I did above. Despite you calling me a moron upthread after I’d been civil. I tend to go by the silver rule.

        Hard to take your invitation seriously after the earlier ‘respect’. Maybe we can improve things.

  35. crakar24 says:

    I thought obtaining the manufacturer and model number of the thermometers used by the BOM would be a simple task but no, that information is not available

  36. crakar24 says:

    LOL yeah right Barry whatever

    • barry says:

      Do I take this to mean you believe BoM owns all the thermometers at the weather stations they get data from? Or were you trying to convey something else?

    • barry says:

      Have you considered writing to the Bureau for the information you want, or for them to point you in the right direction for it? BoM has standards for weather stations and probably has that information.

  37. crakar24 says:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT_Observation_practices_WEB.pdf

    Have a read of this, and then explain to me how through statistical manipulation you can get a thermometer with a resolution of 0.1c to produce a measurement with a resolution of 0.001c

    • Des says:

      There are FORTY pages. Name your pages.

      • crakar24 says:

        Why don’t you read the whole thing Des, however you are particularly lazy I will give you page numbers if you want

        • Des says:

          What reason would I have for reading the whole thing?

          • crakar24 says:

            Ummmm lets see maybe expansion of your knowledge on a subject? things like that you know normal stuff for those that dont know everything

          • Des says:

            So you’re into expanding your knowledge on climate?
            I suggest you watch this playlist on how climate actually works:
            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL902AF247F4163F61

            Unless you understand the workings of climate, you can’t possibly understand how climate CHANGES.

            When your finished watching that, watch this playlist before you try to talk to me about statistics:
            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL10921DED3A8BFF53

            I have watched them all because I actually have an interest in the subjects. Despite your last comment, you will come up with an excuse as to why YOU are exempt from getting an education.

            And honestly …. do you really expect me to believe that YOU read all 40 pages. No – you skimmed to the section that provided what you thought was a denial opportunity. That’s all you guys ever do.

          • crakar24 says:

            This may come as a suprise Des but i am edumucated

            What i read shocked but alas you feel you already know what needs to be known so decided not to read it.

            For example did you know the BOM have no idea if thier thermometers are reading the correct temps?

            Thats right they get them out of the box from the supplier and put them in the screen, they dont calibrate them in any way on arrivel nor do they calibrate them in the screen nor do they ever calibrate them them during the life of the thermometer.

            The PRT thermometer works on resistance, they dont plug them in to the screen and then calibrate so they have no idea if they are reading the correct temp.

            But of course you already knew that so no need to read the PDF, the biggest joke of all is they pretend a thermometer with a resolution of 0.1 C that is not and never will be calibrated can now suddenly produce temp data to the accuracy of 0.001C

            I suggest you read it and get edumucated Des

          • Des says:

            That’s right. The BOM doesn’t need to calibrate them. They are calibrated by the manufacturer.

            With all this talk about precision, you are yet to attempt to explain how averaging a million readings each year would cause a steady rise over decades. Why a rise? Why not a fall?

          • Crakar24 says:

            Come on Des you would demand Roy calibrate his SATs at every opportunity but yet to protect the bom you now claim there is no need to cal the thermometers even after years of service. Your dishonesty is appallingly

          • barry says:

            That’s right. Roy calibrates the satellite sensors by hand pre-launch…

          • Crakar24 says:

            WTF are you talking about Barry please stop the rubbish, the SATs are calibrated regularly how dishonest can one possibly be

          • barry says:

            So where are those page numbers you promised, crakar?

  38. ren says:

    Is the delta of the Colorado River is green?
    http://www.weatherplaza.com/en-US/sat/?region=usa.ir

  39. ren says:

    In Sydney and Melbourne also you do not run out of the rain.

    • Des says:

      This is NOT the weather channel.

      • crakar24 says:

        This is not your blog

        • Des says:

          Correct. Now … if only 坏人 would make the same admission we can get back to discussing CLIMATE.

          • ren says:

            It is good to be in touch with reality.

          • crakar24 says:

            OK Des you kick off the discussion and explain to all us DENIERS how a blanket of co2 can warm the earth, take your time mate

          • Snape says:

            Crakar
            Hasn’t this topic already been discussed Ad nauseam?

          • Snape says:

            Crakar

            I’m guessing you don’t understand how a blanket keeps a PERSON warm!

          • Des says:

            crakpot
            I gave you a link to those climate videos. They explain everything. Have you looked at them yet?

          • crakar24 says:

            Des wanted to discuss climate, I gave him an opportunity to discuss climate with me and in response he points to a youtube vid and he changes my username to a childish smear.

            This is a very good example as to why the climate debate has reached an impasse. People like Des talk a big game but when the opportunity arises to debate an issue they baulk at it and simply reduce the debate to an abusive rant.

            Its so sad the reputation of science is being trashed right before our very eyes.

          • crakar24 says:

            Snape I have never discussed this issue with you

          • crakar24 says:

            Sorry snape I forgot to add, I am well aware of how a blanket keeps a PERSON warm however I fail to see how this relates to CO2.

          • Des says:

            Do you seriously think it is possible to provide an answer to that question in a blog post? If you were at all serious about getting an answer you would watch the videos. The fact is – you don’t want to know.

          • Crakar24 says:

            I already know Des however I suspect your version is not only different but also completely flawed. I was asking for your view on how it all works not the view of your currently favoured authority figure

          • gbaikie says:

            -crakar24 says:
            August 3, 2017 at 5:35 AM

            OK Des you kick off the discussion and explain to all us DENIERS how a blanket of co2 can warm the earth, take your time mate-

            I am not warmist believer, which makes me heretic or denier
            to the Marxist globalize/homogenize religion.
            But I am a lukewarmer [most hated by leftists which of course makes me feel all warm and fuzzy]. And lukewarmers generally think CO2 might cause some warming- though lukewarmer can tend to be overly timid and may accept the pseudo science of “global warming” or “climate change” or latest invented trademark of the religion. But I would also say that lukewarmer also seemed to find some courage when attacked by the crazy Lefties [or they had not realize how completely irrational they were- and are educated by the response], Anyhow.
            CO2 could warm by blocking some of the IR spectrum from leaving Earth.
            The usual way radiation is blocked is by some reflective material and/or things which could absorb the radiation but are the same temperature. Or radiation is a cooling process- it’s transfer energy by electromagnetic energy. Or if preventing something by cooling via electromagnetic energy it doesn’t lose energy or retains that energy. Or the heat is trapped. Though everything “traps heat” to some extent, or we all be at absolute zero temperature.
            Now the believers have wide range of crazy ideas which involves the idea that CO2 can add energy- or make something hotter.
            And this due to the idea that since earth radiate on average 240 watts, some reason must to found to explain that since a perfect blackbody radiating 240 watts in vacuum would be -18 C, something must making Earth not be -18 C average temperature and instead about 15 C. Some think CO2 is the prime mover in causing Earth not to be -18 C.

          • David Appell says:

            gbalkie: What do lukewarmer models project for the temperature in 2100?

        • lewis says:

          And then, some of us denier / lukewarmers don’t care if the CO2 is making the atmosphere retain a least bit more heat. In fact, it wouldn’t bother me if all the glaciers melted. I much prefer warmer to colder. So, if mankind is warming the atmosphere by adding co2, then I think that is a good thing.

          BECAUSE: if it’s not getting warmer, it will probably get colder and I can tell you this: if it snows in the upper Midwest and that snow doesn’t melt off in the spring so that grain might be grown, then that chapter in history will be a lot more interesting than if NYC and Miami flood.

          • barry says:

            Thanks, that completes the list.

            It’s not happening.

            If it was happening we couldn’t tell.

            Even if it’s happening it’s so slow it makes no difference.

            Even if it’s happening there are more important things.

            If it happens it will be good.

            Bring it on, I’ll like it.

          • gbaikie says:

            It is rather interesting that 15 C [59 F] is considered warm, and that most of the people which would be enslaved with excessive taxation aren’t even living where there is even an average temperature of 15 C.
            If people want to be cooled by air conditioner they might want 72 F degrees [22 C] but I generally don’t like it that cold.
            Though I like beer or ice cream to be colder.
            And 15 C is too cold for the homeless, and US average temperature is about 12 C.

            Now, there is element of racism connected to average temperature, the pseudo science of racism thought that it was the temperature of living in the tropics which made people lazy.
            Or the frigid temperatures of Germany or Soviet Union helped
            people become more civilized.
            Of course, this quite ignorant of history.

            Maybe the element of cold made them fanatically warlike- so as to get somewhere warmer [kidding- mostly].
            Christmas has more meaning if it generally snows.
            So all the goodwill and peace to Earth stuff [because it’s cold and one can thankful to have a warm hearth].
            And isn’t bringing Christmas [in a hideous form] what Leftism is about?

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            “In fact, it wouldnt bother me if all the glaciers melted. I much prefer warmer to colder.”

            Lewis again narcistically thinking only of himself.

        • gbaikie says:

          More about this:
          “Though everything traps heat to some extent, or we all be at absolute zero temperature.”

          A volume of mass zillions of atoms, a rock, traps heat due to the lack of surface area in comparison to it’s amount of atoms. Or rock as sand spread out so has more surface area to radiate, will radiate more energy- though pile of sand, though every grain may have huge amount surface area, has limited surface area which lose heat via radiation [a pile sand traps heat]. Or since gravity clumps matter together, it’s causing universe not to at absolute zero [of course another aspect is gravity also causes stars to exist which convert mass into energy [fusion].
          In terms of universe, most of it’s mass is not formed into masses by gravity- it’s mostly atoms of hydrogen and helium and this mass doesn’t have heat or temperature. Gas has temperature due it’s velocity which involves collision [lot’s of collisions] and most of this mass isn’t having much interaction or collisions with other atoms. Anyways gravity creates [around planets] an atmosphere of gas and atmospheres of gas don’t loss energy by radiating it. So atmospheres trap heat, in sense that what gives them a temperature is collisions of lots of molecules, but no energy is lost between gas molecules colliding with each other. What occurs with these collision is transfer of velocities of gas molecules. Or a gas molecule going 100 mph and hits another gas molecule going 10,000 mph, and 10,000 mph molecule slows and the 100 mph molecule goes faster.
          So with zillions of collision within say cubic centimeter of volume the gas one gets an average velocity- and this has temperature relative to non gases- liquids or solids. And if liquid or solid has same temperature as gas, the gas doesn’t lower it’s average velocity, but if liquid or solid is a cooler temperature, then gas will lower it’s average velocity. Or if object is warmer than the gas, the gas will increase it’s average velocity [gas gets warmer].
          And roughly most of molecules of atmosphere are colliding with each other and could say the process of gas molecule only colliding with itself, “traps heat”.

          Now in terms of the pseudo science, trapping heat is term, they only want to apply to trapping radiant energy. Atmospheres of gases don’t trap radiant energy very well, but this is the focus of this religion. Clouds work fairly good in regards to trapping radiant energy- but clouds aren’t gases.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “In terms of universe, most of its mass is not formed into masses by gravity- its mostly atoms of hydrogen and helium and this mass doesnt have heat or temperature.”

            Of course it has a temperature. Same as any gas.

            BTW, most of the universe (74%) is dark energy. 21% is dark energy. Things like hydrogen and helium make up only 5% of the universe.

          • David Appell says:

            Meant that 21% is dark *MATTER*

          • gbaikie says:

            Well dark matter [or energy] means undetected, and once they find some, they give it some goofy name.
            Meanwhile, things are moving forward:
            “They also calculated that a typical galaxy has 10 to 100 times more cold gas than astronomers had suspected. That could account for the missing mass.

            We were surprised by how much cold gas there was, Werk told Science News.

            Chris Churchill told Science News that the new data have almost convinced him that that a halos cool gas can make up a galaxys missing matter. An astronomer at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, he did not work on the new study. Churchill says he wants to better understand how Werk knew the hydrogen gas she was looking at was cool, not hot. Only then, he says, will he truly be convinced.

            But, he adds: I think shes probably right.
            https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/galaxies-stash-mass-clouds-gas

            I would guess, that the females are always right.

  40. Des- in regard to volcanic activity versus the climate.

    I say major volcanic activity lowers the surface global temperatures for a year or so after the occurrence on balance.

    In addition since 1600 ad over 80% of major volcanic eruptions have been associated with minimum solar activity periods of time.

    DES- since we are entering a minimum period of solar activity I think there is a good chance of increasing geological activity.

    Time will tell.

    • Des says:

      Salvatore,

      Following is a list of all eruptions since 1600 of VEI 5 or higher, as supplied by the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program. They have 11000 eruptions in their records – if they don’t know about a volcano, no one does.

      I have included only VEI 5+ because they are the only ones which are powerful enough to cause global dimming. There is one exception – the 1783 Laki eruption. This is a completely different type of eruption to all the others – an ultra-miniature version of the eruption that caused earth’s greatest mass extinction in the late Permian. Despite being technically only a VEI 4, it probably released more SO2 than Tambora.

      1600-1644
      Huaynaputina (1600)
      Katla (1625)
      Furnas (1630)
      Vesuvius (1631-32)
      Hokkaido-Komagatake (1640)
      Parker (1640-41)

      1645-1715 (MAUNDER MINIMUM)
      Sheveluch (c1652)
      Long Island (1660)
      Toya [Usu] (1663)
      Shikotsu [Tarumai] (1667)
      Gamkonora (1673)
      Tangkoko-Duasudara (1680)
      Fujisan (1707-08)

      1716-1789
      Katla (1721)
      Shikotso [Tarumai] (1739)
      Katla (1755-56)
      Grimsvotn [Laki] (1783-85)

      1790-1830 (DALTON MINIMUM)
      Mount St Helens (1800)
      Unknown eruption (1808)
      Tambora (1815)
      Galungung (1822)

      1831-
      Cosiguina (1835)
      Agung (1843)
      Sheveluch (1854)
      Askja (1875)
      Krakatoa (1883)
      Okataina [Tarawera] (1886)
      Santa Maria (1902)
      Ksudach (1907)
      Novarupta [Katmai] (1912)
      Colima (1913)
      Cerro Azul (1916-32)
      Kharimkhotan (1933)
      Bezymianny (1955-57)
      Agung (1963-64)
      Mt St Helens (1980-86)
      El Chichon (1982)
      Pinatubo (1991)
      Mount Hudson (1991)
      Puyehue-Cordn Caulle (2011-12)

      That makes 11 major eruptions during the 110 years of minimums (one per decade) and 29 major eruptions during the remaining 307 years (one per 10.6 years). Barely a difference.

      Now of course there will almost certainly be other historical eruptions which were never recorded. But if the Smithsonian doesn’t know about them then neither do you. So where exactly do you pull this 80% figure from?

      Hopefully you will start to understand why people here take your claims with a grain of salt, when you continue to come up with these unresearched, unsourced, nonsense claims. It seems you are prepared to say whatever thought enters your head – let’s call that the Trump Syndrome. (Although there are clearly countless maladies that could take that name.)

  41. Cracker we need to see global oceanic sea surface temperatures now +.358c and global temperatures some +.4c above 30 year means to start to come down sooner rather then later given the very low solar activity.

  42. AndyG55 says:

    Apart from the 2015 El Nino, absolutely no measureable change since 2001. Still within any possible error margin, no matter what others imagine.

    Thanks for that Roy.

    • Des says:

      Except for ANY El Nino year, the average for the first 7 months of 2017 are the warmest on the UAH record. Try again.

    • barry says:

      Within margin of error, 2001-2014 is either strongly cooling, warming or flat. In short – too little data to say anything about long-term trend.

      Not that this stops a whole bunch of spin.

  43. No NOAA is ignoring their own data that is what I am saying which is amazing but true.

    • David Appell says:

      What is your opposition to AGW based on? Your repeated predictions aren’t convincing in any way — so why would you oppose the fact of AGW? What’s driving that.

  44. I am going to send over Weatherbell data for June and July which came from NOAA.

    Show me NOAA data, from them as the source. It won’t match because they do not use their own data.

    • Des says:

      The NCEP/NCAR package is a REANALYSIS package. I suggest you research what that is. The monthly NOAA temperature anomalies are strictly thermometer readings from official weather stations, NOT reanalysis data.

      But your trusted buddy is not the only person who has published NCEP data. But his data stands out as vastly different to the rest. So I think you need to explain what methodology (doctoring) he uses that makes his data so different from the others (eg. Moyhu).

    • Des says:

      And once you’ve researched reanalysis data, please respond to my earlier post(s) concerning volcanoes.

      • Des if you want to believe NOAA fine. I don’t.

        • David Appell says:

          Yet you never give a reason.

          Clearly what you don’t like is the conclusion of the data. For some reason you’re opposed to the facts that humans are now changing climate. What is your opposition to that? Have you ever thought about it?

      • barry says:

        You have no idea what you are saying (read below). Weatherbell use NOAA data that has been reanalysed by NOAA – its a model output. NOAA typically headline the thermometer-based record.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”NOAA typically headline the thermometer-based record”.

          Using a climate model to synthesize 70% of the temperatures.

        • barry says:

          They have several data streams, some based on model output (which Salvatore prefers) and one based on the thermometers that is not reanalysed (not modeled). This is the one they headline.

      • http://revelado.org/geophysicalevents.pdf

        Here you go Des the data showing a solar/volcanic correlation.

        We will agree to disagree on this as well as what temperature data is accurate which is not.

        Time nevertheless will tell if AGW is real or not and just how much influence does very low solar activity have on the climate.

        • Des says:

          Do you even read your links to check for credibility?

          The last period of reduced solar activity was the Dalton minimum, and your link says this ran from 1793 to 1830 (I am not disputing this).

          They then go on to say that of the 31 volcanoes on their list (which comes from the same source I quoted) since 1650, that 25 occurred in one of the periods of reduced solar activity (Maunder and Dalton minimums).

          But their list of 31 includes 17 volcanoes SINCE 1830.

          Please explain what inspired piece of mathematics Casey used to take 31 volcanoes, and subtract not only the 17 post-Dalton volcanoes but also those between the Maunder and Dalton minimums, and come up with 25.

          I am dying to hear what creatively twisted logic you will use to explain this away.

  45. http://www.noaa.gov/news/june-marks-14-consecutive-months-of-record-heat-for-globe

    My case forgot to add link.

    NOAA does not use their own data which does not show 14 consecutive months of record heat for the globe.

  46. barry says:

    Groan. Salvatore, you’ve linked to Weatherbell’s anomaly maps for Jun and July 2017 (which don’t give any information on ranking). Then you link us to the NOAA press page for June 2016.

    For Pete’s sake. Not even the same year.

    And yes, there were many record-breaking months in the global surface data sets for the 2015-16 el Nino period.

    There were several record-breaking months in the satellite record over that period, too.

    What on Earth do you mean NOAA don’t even use their own data? NOAA publish the thermometer record. Weatherbell uses modeled NOAA data (reanalysis).

    Please check your sources more carefully.

    • So the Satellite data and Weatherbell’s data according to you Barry are both wrong.

      While the biased NOAA data is correct.

      Go with it, I will never accept it .

      If however Dr. Spencer’s data and Weatherbell’s data still show temperatures this high a year from now I will have to say I am wrong.

      That is as fair and objective as I can be.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Salvatore…”If however Dr. Spencers data and Weatherbells data still show temperatures this high a year from now I will have to say I am wrong”.

        Salvatore, don’t give up on yourself so easily. The alarmists have been moving the goalposts since 1988.

        We all know the atmosphere-surface interface is extremely complex (except for alarmists) and we still know very little about the Sun and it’s cycles.

        The PDO was only discovered in 1977 and Tsonis et al discovered a symbiotic relationship between the phases of the PDO, AMO, ENSO, and other oscillations that affects warming/cooling. There was supposed to be another change in global warming circa 2000 when the PDO changed phase but not much appeared to happen. However, we’ve had little or no global warming since.

        Of course, alarmists have retroactively adjusted temperatures to make it appear as if it has warmed significantly. They not only move goalposts they rewrite the historical record to suit their theories.

      • barry says:

        Your casual slander is tiresome.

        • David Appell says:

          I agree. Gordon’s slander is just a coverup for his lack of knowledge and inability to understand the science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Your casual slander is tiresome”.

          I am sure Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same when they knock on a door and are met with POVs based on logic. That’s the way you alarmists strike me. You have your little manual with its propaganda and when someone points out your belief system you find it tedious.

        • barry says:

          I’ve invited Jehova’s witnesses in for a debate and a cup of teas. They don’t fare well in the debate and resort to repeating their mantra – politely of course.

          Minus the politeness, you look a lot like them.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore Del Prete says:
        If however Dr. Spencers data and Weatherbells data still show temperatures this high a year from now I will have to say I am wrong.

        Ha!

        Of course you won’t.

        Just like you always do, you’ll make up some excuse about why you were wrong — Jupiter didn’t align properly with Mars, or a three-legged dog walked in front of you on the way to the bus stop. Something.

    • barry says:

      So the Satellite data and Weatherbells data according to you Barry are both wrong.

      They’re not ‘wrong,’ they’re estimates.

      Rather than barrack for a favoured data set, I familiarize myself with their strengths and shortcomings, each of which has plenty.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Rather than barrack for a favoured data set, I familiarize myself with their strengths and shortcomings, each of which has plenty.”

        And your expertise is based on….?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”So the Satellite data and Weatherbells data according to you Barry are both wrong.
        Theyre not wrong, theyre estimates”.

        So, AMSU instruments don’t measure temperature data from oxygen molecules, they just estimate them??? If that’s the case, thermometers do the same.

        I think the word you want is ‘average’, not ‘estimate’.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “So, AMSU instruments dont measure temperature data from oxygen molecules, they just estimate them???”

          They measure radiation from oxygen atoms in the atmosphere. A model is used to convert radiation intensities to temperature. It’s not a simple model. UAH won’t even share their code.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”A model is used to convert radiation intensities to temperature. Its not a simple model. UAH wont even share their code”.

            It’s not a model, it’s a computer program. Roy has revealed that he wrote a program in Fortran. Models synthesise data in a virtual world, computer programs, in the case of UAH, analyze real data.

            Big difference.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Its not a model, its a computer program.”

            Computer programs *are* models, ding dong.

          • David Appell says:

            In fact, *every* scientific calculation is a model, D-D.

      • barry says:

        No, Gordon. The processes to derive temps from multiple different satellites over time, from multiple channels to vector in on the lower troposphere (or middle troposphere), to account for satellite drift and orbital decay, and to winnow out the difference between sea surface and sea ice for SSTs….

        These judgments and more are what makes them estimates. Averaging is only one part of that processing. The surface data also has a range of different challenges.

        They. Are. All. Estimates.

        If you think the satellite temp data sets are somehow perfect, you are either completely ignorant or utterly deluded. Or have you missed the fact they undergo periodic adjustments, too? No, you haven’t, and you’re blathering as usual.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”These judgments and more are what makes them estimates”.

          A thermometer in a room is an estimate. A thermometer on a wall estimates the temperature in a room based on the air molecules in its vicinity. It’s even worse when that thermometer is in a box in a field at variable altitudes.

          It depends on the error level you are willing to live with. I don’t think the UAH data sets are any further off than a thermometer in a box at different elevations spaced up to 1200 miles apart. In fact, I think they are superior.

          A temperature in a box measures a high and a low each day and the two are averaged, no matter how far apart they may be. The sat scanners sample bazillions of O2 molecules in any one position of the scanner and they sample 95% of the planet.

          The adjustments to which you refer are minor and likely account for no more than a fraction of a tenth of a degree. However, any good scientist is committed to including all variables that might affect the outcome.

          The orbital error fixed circa 2005 was well within the declared error margin.

          When those temps align favourably with radiosonde data, I think they have the accuracy to be a reasonable estimate.

        • barry says:

          So now you agree that they are estimates.

          Progress.

    • barry says:

      So the Satellite data and Weatherbells data according to you Barry are both wrong.

      You still don’t notice, after I pointed it out, that the anomaly maps at Weastherbell you linked are for Jun/July 2017, and the NOAA article was about the anomaly for June 2016. Different years, Salvatore.

      Were you trying to link those things together? If not, I can’t figure out what point you were trying to make by posting them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”What on Earth do you mean NOAA dont even use their own data?”

      NOAA imports it data from independent temperature collectors from around the world then they discard over 70% of it while synthesizing that missing data using less than 1500 stations. They admit that and I have posted a link to that admission.

      I think what Salvatore means is that NOAA does not use their own satellite data, which, of course, is analyzed by UAH.

      • Des says:

        “NOAA does not use their own satellite data”.

        Wrong again. It is called NOAA STAR.
        But what exactly do you mean by “their own”? The data for ALL satellite records comes from NASA, not NOAA.

      • barry says:

        NOAA uses satellite data as part of their reanalysis package, a process that combines many components to produce a modeled output of combined observations.

        This is the source that Salvatore seems to prefer. Modeled observations.

        NOAA publishes UAH satellite data and anomaly maps. They also use NESDIS Starr satellite data for mid-troposphere, and provide time series for RSS, NESDIS and UAH at their website.

        And Salvatore compared June/July anomaly map 2016, with Jun anomaly map for 2017.

        This point is getting lost in the ‘skeptic’ overdrive to bash something.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “NOAA imports it data from independent temperature collectors from around the world then they discard over 70% of it while synthesizing that missing data using less than 1500 stations. They admit that and I have posted a link to that admission.”

        Time to post that link again.

      • barry says:

        Has he ever?

  47. What on Earth do you mean NOAA dont even use their own data? NOAA publish the thermometer record. Weatherbell uses modeled NOAA data (reanalysis).

    Which is not accurate, Barry. You made my point.

    • Des says:

      “Which is not accurate.”
      Huh???

      • The thermometers which are subject to all kinds of errors and do not have adequate global coverage.

        How one can go with that is beyond comprehension given satellite data and the other NOAA data.

        • Des says:

          Please show your understanding of reanalysis by explaining how the “other NOAA data” is arrived at. You don’t like thermometers, and the reanalysis package doesn’t use satellite data, so please explain what measurement tool you believe the reanalysis data is based on that makes it better.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DES…”Please show your understanding of reanalysis by explaining how the other NOAA data is arrived at”.

            Please…allow me.

            NOAA has access to nearly 6500 surface stations globally. They have slashed the reporting stations to less than 1500 stations and they apply the latter data to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to SYNTHESIZE the data from the slashed 5000 stations.

            Of course, the result is a statistical analysis therefore it requires a confidence level. Not to be outdone, NOAA lowers the confidence level to the neighbourhood of 50% then claims record warming.

            NASA GISS gets their data from NOAA and does the same, sometimes using confidence levels below 50%.

            NOAA is absolutely corrupt. They are politicians who represent climate alarmists.

          • barry says:

            They have slashed the reporting stations

            You have repeated this lie dozens of times. It’s despicable.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          “The thermometers which are subject to all kinds of errors”

          Such as?

    • barry says:

      Let me get this straight, Salvatore. You prefer global temperature data that is produced by models.

      Why?

  48. ren says:

    Extremely high temperatures at the top of the stratosphere over the Antarctic Peninsula.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00923/0dke8wcx8qq4.png
    In the lower layers is the opposite.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00923/js1pavwzssjq.png

  49. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Has anyone noticed what temps do in relation to humidity from water being dumped on forest fires? Here in AK it was colder than normal for much of the summer until there were several large fires being fought. The humidity shot up and so did temps. There was a doused fire smell accompanying the humidity despite being several hundred miles away. Since fighting forest fires is a relatively new phenomenon might this be a factor? Until relatively recently fires were allowed to burn themselves out whereas now they are extinguished mostly w/water via crew and aircraft. For those seeking to explain such tiny changes in temps perhaps millions of gallons of water being added into the atmosphere is a factor? Granted rain far eclipses man.

    • David Appell says:

      The amount dropped by planes is miniscule compared to the atmosphere.

      Every square meter of Earth has an average of 25 kg of water vapor above it. Probably higher in Alaska.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Probably higher in Alaska.”
        ??

        An average of 2.5 cm or 25 kg, with vast majority in tropics.

        I was driving out of LA, and got to pass of about 3000 meters, and went from hot day, to big drops of rain, a lot of it, and lightening.
        It was like, why is ground wet [not cloudy], then traffic comes to crawl, mins later dumping rain, and quite air cool. Then getting out of high pass, 15 to 30 mins later, warm weather again [though windy and higher elevation]].
        Or about 1/4″ of rain in that spot.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh yes, with pretty good faked chart superpositions…

      Look here, Salvatore:

      http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c809c471970b-800wi

    • barry says:

      Hahahaha! The Nat Geo map is an idealized Atlas picture. It doesn’t represent the actual size of sea ice in the Arctic in 1971, or any other year. Furthermore, there is no date attached to the Nat Geo map. Is it meant to represent daily sea ice minimum? Yeahright.

      • gbaikie says:

        It was probably intended to show “permanent” sea ice or generally what area could roughly be traveled during late summer months. Or Nat Geo has been an explorer club for more than century. So a useful map in general for summertime exploring in the arctic. Of course explorer would get actual weather reports rather depended on that map- other than a general idea.

        • gbaikie says:

          wiki:
          “The National Geographic Society (NGS), headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States, is one of the largest non-profit scientific and educational institutions in the world. Founded in 1888, ”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Society

          I wasn’t sure when started and wanted to check it- and also might have been somewhat confusing it with:
          “The Explorers Club is an American-based international multidisciplinary professional society with the goal of promoting scientific exploration and field study. The club was founded in New York City in 1905, and has served as a meeting point for explorers and scientists worldwide.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Explorers_Club

          And some reason I thought it was started by the Brits [which neither of these were]

        • barry says:

          gbakie – I think it’s far more likely that they drew the sea ice to allow clear labeling and geographical divisions on the map.

          One text of the map says, “This map shows the North-West passage as charted in 1955-7…”

          • gbaikie says:

            I think in 1970s NGS considered themselves fairly competent
            cartographers.

          • barry says:

            I’m sure they were. I’m sure that their portrayal of the North West passage in 1955-7 is fairly accurate. But it’s not a representation of the sea ice in 1971, then, is it?

            Unlike the rest of the world, arctic sea ice is a formation that changes by millions of square km every year. There was no satellite data to map it, only information from ships passing the edges at various times and places and land sightings from places that could see it. So they could chart it in whatever way made the map clearest.

            It’s bonkers to believe this atlas is a true representation of the actual concentration in (some unspecified date in) 1971.

            There are long-term records of overall concentration collated from ships and land-sightings as mentioned above, dedicated to precision rather than cartographical needs. 1971 has a much greater area than recent years.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”more Arctic ice now then in 1971.”

      Salvatore, fact and reality don’t impress alarmists. They are true believers and nothing short of sub-zero temps on the Equator in summer would impress them. Even at that, they’d claim it was predicted by global warming theory.

    • barry says:

      Oh, you reckon the Nat Geo atlas of sea ice is based on actual data, do you?

      Or did you comment off-topic just so you could say, “alarmists” and “believers?”

      • Des says:

        OMG – they think a 1971 printed map contains actual ice data. I suppose they believe that the National Geographic published an update to this map with every issue. Do they ANY sense of judgement whatsoever?

    • David Appell says:

      Baloney, Sallvatore.

      For 20th century Arctic sea ice extent, see Figure 2a and 2b in this paper:

      “History of sea ice in the Arctic,” Leonid Polyak et al, Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 17571778.
      http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf

  50. sky says:

    Monthly values can fluctuate through a wide range. But, as long as global anomalies fail to remain consistently below ~0.25K and the tropics manifest considerably higher values, there is no evidence of any impending secular cooling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      sky…”But, as long as global anomalies fail to remain consistently below ~0.25K and the tropics manifest considerably higher values…”

      Show me this Tropical warming.

      http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/june/JUNE_2017%20map.png

      While you’re at it, besides the warming produced by the 2016 El Nino, where are there consistent average temps in excess of 0.25C since 1979?

      • dr No says:

        Gordon, you survived the heat wave!
        But judging by your recent comments, it may have exacerbated your deteriorating brain function.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no..”But judging by your recent comments, it may have exacerbated your deteriorating brain function.”

          I’ve noticed, I have deteriorated from Mensan level to merely brilliant. ☺

          Same with my looks, I have deteriorated from devastatingly handsome to plain handsome.

          “Oh, Lord it’s hard to be humble,
          When you’re perfect in every way” ….Mack Davis

          Another part of song:

          Now, some folks say I’m egotistical,
          Hell, I don’t even know what that means,
          It must have something to do with the way,
          That I fill out my tight new blue jeans.

          or something to that effect.

      • Des says:

        Show you the tropical warming? Just look at this month’s UAH anomaly for the tropics. It is the highest in the record outside El Nino and the first month of the lag period after El Nino.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Show me this Tropical warming.”

        A map of a single month isn’t going to show you warming!

        Just for once, LOOK AT THE DATA.

        UAH LT v6.0 for the tropics shows a trend of +0.12 C/decade, the same as the global trend.

        • David Appell says:

          PS: This blog no longer accepts links to UAH’s own data. Brilliant.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”A map of a single month isnt going to show you warming!”

          Every month has looked the same for the past several years at least. The UAH 33 year report indicates little or no warming in the Tropics.

          • barry says:

            Every month has looked the same for the past several years at least

            Then why do you want to exclude 2016 from trend analysis?

            Because people with an agenda tend to contradict themselves.

            Want a visual centred on the tropics?

            Global anomaly Feb 2017

            Global anomaly Jan 2017

            Or you could check the perfect estimates in the UAH data. Handily, Roy has provided monthly data for the tropics in the article at the top of this thread.

            Mar 2016: 1.10 C
            Feb 2017: 0.07 C

            Every month the same for the last several years. In the tropics. Yeahright.

          • barry says:

            Here’s a linear trend analysis of UAHv6 tropics from 1979 to 2015.

            UAH tropics

            I excluded all data after December 2015, just for you, Gordon.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Every month has looked the same for the past several years at least.”

            Stupid.

            Just look at Roy’s chart at the top of this post.

    • barry says:

      Reading comprehension:

      sky says, “as long as global anomalies fail to remain consistently below ~0.25K…”

      … speaking of the future.

      Gordon says, “where are there consistent average temps in excess of 0.25C since 1979?”

      Speaking of the past.

      Gormlessly helping sky’s point. Because if past temps are lower than future temps…

      Not that such a short time frame means much, the anomalies since the end of the 2016 el Nino have failed “to remain consistently below ~0.25K.” One month out of the 14 following the el Nino has been below that mark.

    • barry says:

      sky, temps into the future would have to be below -0.15 K (UAH anomaly data) a month for several years to show a change to cooling.

  51. SNOWREADY says:

    What will you think if temperature anomalies don’t fall rather fluctuate between .19 and .45c ?

    • Des says:

      For the last 5 years, 0.19 to 0.45 is only the 35th through 90th percentile.
      So we would expect 45% of months to lie outside that range.

      The median for the last 5 years is 0.230.
      Some confidence intervals are:
      50%: 0.14 to 0.34 (meaning every second month has been outside)
      80%: 0.08 to 0.45
      90%: 0.05 to 0.55
      95%: 0.04 to 0.72

      But we haven’t had a strong La Nina in that 5 years (or even a moderate one). If we did, I would expect some negative months. Of course, when that happens the cooling freaks will forget the La Nina and claim an ice age has begun.

      • Snape says:

        Des

        Given a moderate to strong la nina, I would expect some negative months as well, but think it’s possible the 13 month mean will never again dip below average.

        • Des says:

          I think there’s a good chance that a repeat of the 73-74 La Nina would do that.

          And one thing I’ve wondered … since the record began in 1950, we’ve had three El Ninos rated ‘very strong’, but we have not had a single La Nina with that rating. I’m wondering if they are supposed to be rarer that very strong El Ninos, or if we have just been “unlucky” not to have had one in that time. If we got one of those we would surely get the sort of monthly anomalies which would send the likes of Salvatore into a mouth-watering frenzy.

          • Snape says:

            Oh, my gosh, he would be insufferable!!

          • Not really, if temperatures drop associated with a La Nina I would have to reserve judgement as to if solar was some of the cause of the temperature drop.

            What I am looking for to see if solar is in play is an increase in albedo, major volcanic activity ,lower overall sea surface temperatures and a more meridional atmospheric circulation.

          • Bindidon says:

            Des says on August 4, 2017 at 3:13 AM

            since the record began in 1950…

            Des, you mean this or similar I guess:
            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html

            But there is also an historic MEI record starting 1871:
            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html

            Here is an update of a comparison I made last year:

            http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170804/8dgxjhbs.jpg

            It is interesting to see that 2015/16 differs from all El Ninos before: it is the first time we notice temperature anomalies way above the El Nino signal. (We should exclude 1981/82 as comparison date because of the overlay by St Helens & El Chichon.)

          • gbaikie says:

            ” Salvatore Del Prete says:
            August 4, 2017 at 5:33 AM

            Not really, if temperatures drop associated with a La Nina I would have to reserve judgement as to if solar was some of the cause of the temperature drop.”

            How can you tell if La Nina wasn’t caused by the solar minimum, or if we were approaching solar max, we could get double peak of El Nino [or both are currently expected by some].

          • Des says:

            Bindidon
            Mt St Helens would not have had an effect on global climate. It was too far from the equator. It is generally agreed that the last three eruptions to affect global climate were Pinatubo, El Chichon and Agung.

    • gbaikie says:

      If did this until Dec 2017, it would be an up uptrend and keeping with my idea of about 1 C increase by end of Century.
      If it did this until Dec 2018, it would be a return to the pause- but still the same of about 1 C increase by end of century is possible. Though it would be weird if continue within such a tight range for so long.

      • gbaikie says:

        Oh if did that until Dec 2017, I suppose Salvatore Del Prete
        would say he was wrong, but it wouldn’t change my view that this solar cycle could cause cooling and if continue to Dec 2018, I would see it as confirmation of the solar cycle’s cooling effect.

  52. ren says:

    Sudden spikes density or speed of the solar wind can cause a volcanic eruption.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00923/7jws15c1vjgo.gif

  53. gbaikie says:

    “Sunspot AR2670 (the remains of old sunspot AR2665) has a stable magnetic field that poses little threat for solar flares.”
    http://www.spaceweather.com/
    As you may or may not recall AR2665 was rather nasty sunspot, and rotated with solar surface, and now a more modest sunspot- which could fade before passes beyond sight [again]. Also it maybe have been doing a lot when on backside of the sun [they were detected large eruptions and thought it might return as nasty as it left us. Anyways, AR2665/AR2670 and some other little sunspot has prevented streak of spotless days.

    Now last time we got almost a year of spotless sun [last minimum] we had stage dancing line near sun’s equator before it when spotless. And was said to be expected. So should it be expect this time around?

    • ren says:

      “This is a coronal hole (CH), a region where the sun’s magnetic field peels back and allows gaseous material to escape. The resulting solar wind is traveling toward us faster than ~600 km/s. Geomagnetic storm levels could reach G2-category (moderately strong) during the late hours of Aug. 4th, subsiding to G1-category (minor) on Aug. 5th. High-latitude sky watchers should be alert for auroras mixed with waxing gibbous moonlight.”

    • ren says:

      A small amount of spots mainly causes a decrease EUV radiation.
      http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

      • ren says:

        It can be seen that the shortest UV radiation is much lower than in cycle 23 at the same phase of the cycle.

      • ren says:

        Radiation changes have to be seen in percentage. Such a look says something about possible changes in the temperature and density of the upper atmosphere.

  54. barry says:

    Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell predicted in 2009 we’d be experiencing temps like the 1970s by 2030. We’re halfway there. How well do you think his prediction is going?

    • It is to early Barry, but my prediction was based on very low solar parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general which has not taken place until year 2017.

      Sub solar activity in general did not start until year 2005.

      .

      Another point I want to make is I think the cooling if it comes will not be slow and gradual but more in a step like fashion because I think if solar is low enough and long enough in duration it will drive the terrestrial items that control the climate to some sort of thresholds.

      In addition the cooling if it does occur will not be in a straight slope down it will be irregular.

      But if satellite data and Weatherbell data which show the same results more or less(odd is it not, I wonder why)show global temperatures as they are now a year from now and solar is in the tank I will be very worried about my prediction.

      My low solar/climate play again is a slight increase in albedo, lower sea surface temperatures will result in lower global temperatures.

      Sea surface temperatures +.352c which is high I want to see at least a +.20 c deviation or less.

    • barry says:

      I really appreciate that you commit to a prediction. So, what happens will be interesting.

  55. Deborah Matcham says:

    If I were you fellows, I would not predict. The average for the nineties does not have a average fall in thermal citing, only a indirect heat induction from nowhere, stating this,’cool me down’.
    If this heat induced by thermal raising in radar, radium and volcanic activity raised this anomality, is it due to a lack of electrical volition movement of our earth? So called, running out of power to turn on axis’?
    I am raising the question of, have we killed our earth already with too much industry?
    If so we could be getting a heatwave raise the the earth stops turning and a frozen earth appears in 30 seconds.
    Some do see this, some do not.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Oh definitely, Deb.

      Our negative escalation of the barometric tension has impacted Earths ability to hyper-synthesize the parabolic reluctance effect. You probably agree it is like a buoyant capillary undulating in a transitory vector field. And, that is compounded by the magnetic stress moment tangent to the angular polarity. And, this has yet to be modeled!

      This, as you know, is unprecedented.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ger* “You probably agree it is like a buoyant capillary undulating in a transitory vector field”.

        Are you referring to the curl or the gradient?

        Reminds me of Monty Python in the Holy Grail when King Arthur was asked the question, ‘What… is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?” Arthur replies, ‘What do you mean? An African or European swallow?”. The troll get chucked into the abyss because he couldn’t answer the question.

    • David Appell says:

      Pseudoscience. And not even good pseudoscience.

    • gbaikie says:

      “I am raising the question of, have we killed our earth already with too much industry?”
      No.
      Too much industry really is about the industrial revolution, which is roughly doing more useful work in a shorter time period, which created economic growth or increased the general wealth.
      Or I could remind you, that when you die, you can’t take the wealth with you [though funerals try to give the impression that this is not true [though funerals are actually for the living, I will note].
      Or Human have always had industry, but humans only recently would more efficient industry. Or our cities without modern vehicles and if instead used horses, would have huge problem with a vast amount of horse manure- they were many written tracts describing a future of cities getting unbearable amount of horse manure and having no solution for this impossible future problem.
      Now one could religious problems with having our current large cities [which would be impossible with horses trying to drag in all the needed freight]. Now older technology could have had cities with canals to handle transportation- perhaps someone should point this out to the people of New Orleans which is sinking fast. But they probably think you were insulting them and/or ignoring their problem. Or canals might seem romantic if you stuck with Venice, but there isn’t a great desire to depend upon them, everywhere. And paddling and sailing has it’s problems. Anyhow there nothing particularly non toxic about piles of horse manure and not everyone wants to smell it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      deb…”If so we could be getting a heatwave raise the the earth stops turning and a frozen earth appears in 30 seconds”.

      One side may get frozen but the other would be extremely hot, like the Moon.

      Re industry, I don’t think industry is the problem, it’s the greed factor. The corporate mentality is about maximizing profits at the expense of treating workers fairly and keeping the environment as clean as possible.

      CO2, the basis of many debates on these blogs, is an odourless, invisible gas which is portrayed by alarmist photographers as a black, smoggy emissions, most of which is steam. CO2 in it’s current concentration is harming no one and has the benefit of increasing crop yields.

  56. Snape says:

    Des wrote:
    “And one thing Ive wondered since the record began in 1950, weve had three El Ninos rated very strong, but we have not had a single La Nina with that rating. Im wondering if they are supposed to be rarer that very strong El Ninos, or if we have just been unlucky not to have had one in that time. If we got one”

    I’ve wondered about this too. Emily Becker would be a good person to ask.
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/butterflies-rounding-errors-and-chaos-climate-models

  57. Also SNAPE AND DES and BINDINON make for good give and take.

    We need opposing view points to keep us all in check. lol

    • Bindidon says:

      I agree, Salvatore. But what I don’t accept is injury against institutions and btw their collaborators.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bindidon…”what I dont accept is injury against institutions and btw their collaborators”.

        That has more to do with butt-kissing to authority rather than being scientific and skeptical. It’s a rather peculiar teutonic characteristic.

        The US government has no problem investigating them and NASA GISS for retroactively manipulating the surface record.

      • barry says:

        It’s very selfish to cause injury while butt-kissing.

  58. Bindidon says:

    Robertsons repeated injuries concerning NOAA being ‘corrupt’ are simply disgusting, especially because this person never would be able to present any legally usable proof of what he pretends.

    I hope one day he and others pretending similar garbage will be punished for such basely, unfair behavior.

    A good way to show Robertsons thorough incompetence in NOAA’s domains is for example to compare NOAA with UAH in the satellite reading context.

    NO.AA does not publish TLT time series; so the comparison is made here using TMT (mid-troposphere) published by both institutions:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170804/d39xgc9j.jpg

    The sum of all monthly differences between NOAA STAR and UAH for the period 1979-2017 is equal to… 0.0004.

    A very similar chart could be shown when comparing STAR and UAH at TLS (lower stratosphere) level.

    But in fact, the degree of NOAA’s “corruption” is best detectable when having a look at its comparison with Had.CRUT4.5:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170804/3oyfzwgj.jpg

    And since according to people a la Robertson Had.CRUT is “corrupt” as well, let us have a closing look to both when compared with their common source, the GHCN stations:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170804/ve2dtygt.jpg

    The red/blue plots are of course exactly identical to those in the previous chart but were subject to a quite different scaling due to the huge GHCN anomaly deviations.

    You literally “see” here the huge amount of work needed to homogenise GHCN data into a valuable time series.

    • Bindidon says:

      Data sources:

      – NOAA STAR TMT:
      http://tinyurl.com/yckymxbt

      – UAH6.0 mt:
      http://tinyurl.com/ya47bsob

      – NOAA global:
      http://tinyurl.com/hglcz3g

      – Had.CRUT4.5 global:
      http://tinyurl.com/h7l6jab

      – GHCN V3 adjusted:
      http://tinyurl.com/y7v27t5e

    • gbaikie says:

      — Bindidon says:
      August 4, 2017 at 1:00 PM

      Robertsons repeated injuries concerning NOAA being corrupt are simply disgusting, especially because this person never would be able to present any legally usable proof of what he pretends.

      I hope one day he and others pretending similar garbage will be punished for such basely, unfair behavior.

      A good way to show Robertsons thorough incompetence in NOAAs domains is for example to compare NOAA with UAH in the satellite reading context.–

      Well problem is Robertson is Canadian and he lot’s Canadian bureaucracies to address in terms of their vast levels of corruption. Of course, NOAA is corrupt. What bureaucracy isn’t?
      Your desire to punish Robertsons reminds of Canadian obsessive to limit free speech.

      • Bindidon says:

        Of course, NOAA is corrupt. What bureaucracy isnt?

        That’s a bit simple-minded, gbaikie. You keep here off the main problem: NOAA isn’t only a bureaucracy.

        It is an institution where lots and lots of persons do serious work and didn’t merit to be injured / harassed by people like Robertson – or trolls like g*e*r*a*n etc etc.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Bin, by attempting to insult me, you just lost another “debate”.

          Maybe cool off a little and try again.

          I’m here to help.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Bindidon says:
        August 4, 2017 at 3:10 PM

        Of course, NOAA is corrupt. What bureaucracy isnt?

        Thats a bit simple-minded, gbaikie. You keep here off the main problem: NOAA isnt only a bureaucracy.

        It is an institution where lots and lots of persons do serious work and didnt merit to be injured / harassed by people like Robertson—

        Ah, but the people ensnared in bureaucracy, have more a personal experience- and know how hopeless it is.
        Giving them some hope, would be a good thing.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”Well problem is Robertson is Canadian and he lots Canadian bureaucracies to address in terms of their vast levels of corruption”.

        Actually I’m Scottish by DNA which you can’t change with a legal document. As far as corruption in Canadian bureaucracies I have no idea what you mean. Unless you are a raving right winger who cannot stand ordinary people and poor people benefiting from government social programs.

        Personally, I like the fact I can be seriously ill and have all my hospital bills covered. I have nothing against government pensions, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation either.

        • gbaikie says:

          See above for def of corruption.
          I guessing you can’t define a free press.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Actually Im Scottish by DNA which you cant change with a legal document. As far as corruption in Canadian bureaucracies I have no idea what you mean. Unless you are a raving right winger…”
          Scottish, Canadian and right winger.
          Sounds like you might put Mark Steyn in that group.
          Or I know no other name that comes to mind at the moment.
          I don’t think he is right winger, but I think others could think so. But Canadian and I guessing he has Scottish somewhere in DNA. And has written books. And frequently discussed his various ordeals with a Canadian governmental commission.

        • gbaikie says:

          ” barry says:
          August 4, 2017 at 6:00 PM

          limit free speech

          Oh rubbish. Telling someone to shutup because theyre an idiot/slimeball/whatever is not censorship.”

          Of course not, you, slimeball.
          Roy could ban your speech on his blog- still not censorship.
          But govt are servants, and should shut up mind their
          own business.

          [then you mindless bots [something it didn’t like, part 1}

      • barry says:

        “limit free speech”

        Oh rubbish. Telling someone to shutup because they’re an idiot/slimeball/whatever is not censorship. It’s a lame political argument to make when some disagrees with someone. Some actual instrument of force is needed to make the charge. The only thing like that possible in this environment is a host banning a participant.

        • gbaikie says:

          Part two:
          Or censorship can only done by a government:
          censorship, def:
          “The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”
          Or:
          “The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

          I think that censorship is an admission that you have lost an argument”
          http://www.yourdictionary.com/censorship#3WXprKBfFUB4KLUR.99

          • gbaikie says:

            hmm, didn’t like three, chop it smaller:
            Or in other words the state is granted the power to use force.
            Or non government can’t legally, imprison you.
            And using this granted power for censorship is another example of common corruption of government.

          • gbaikie says:

            test.
            If works, I give up

        • barry says:

          What has that got to do with Bindidon?

          • gbaikie says:

            “I hope one day he and others pretending similar garbage will be punished for such basely, unfair behavior.”
            ???

            Maybe God is suppose to do the punishing.

            All I know, is Canada is famously punishing, and we got US pol expressing such desires in that direction.
            And of course Europe been doing this sort of thing for quite some time.
            Though not claiming it doesn’t happen is the US.

          • barry says:

            Gagged by hope of punishment. Oh it all makes sense now.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Bin, with all your adoration of NOAA, you should also mention that they said 2014 was the “warmest year ever”.

      Then, after the 2015 SOTU speech, they qualified with the “48% probability” nonsense.

      Harm done, then cover your rear.

      Nothing to see here, move along….

      • Bindidon says:

        Unlike you I use to respect the work of others.
        Move along!!!

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Well, if you choose to ignore the facts, you’re not alone. There are several willing to jump in your sinking boat.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Bin, a little “physics” for you. “Work” is force multiplied by distance. So when NOAA says one thing, and then says something else to negate what they said earlier. The “distance” is ZERO.

          So, their “work” is zero.

          But, they weren’t interested in positive accomplishment. They were interested in “agenda”.

          You just don’t see that as “corruption”.

          But, I’m here to help.

        • barry says:

          Then, after the 2015 SOTU speech, they qualified with the 48% probability nonsense.

          No, the 48% thing was shown in press briefings before the SOTU.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon only says NO.AA (etc) is corrupt because he can’t disprove their data, and the easy and lazy way out is just to call them fraudulent.

      Doing this is actually a sign of desperation, an indication one can’t show the science is wrong. It doesn’t accomplish a thing except label the claimant as incompetent and desperate.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks Mr Appell, but… incredible but true: I am able to think by my own.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie pontificates: “Doing this is actually a sign of desperation, an indication one cant show the science is wrong. It doesnt accomplish a thing except label the claimant as incompetent and desperate.”

        Yes Davie, I was reminded of your inability to show the calculations as to how the Sun could heat the Earth to 800,000K. Surely, you’ve done the calculations by now. All you have to do is show us.

        (I won’t hold my breath.)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”he cant disprove their data, and the easy and lazy way out is just to call them fraudulent”.

        I have explained over and over why they are corrupt. They have taken real data from 6500 global surface stations, discarded 77% of the real data then synthesized the discarded 77% using lest than 1500 stations in a climate model.

        Why would anyone do that when they already have the real data? It’s fraudulent to do such a thing but you think it’s OK.

        The only possible reason they would do it is to manipulate the temperature record to show a warming that is not there. By weeding out stations showing cooling and retaining stations showing warming they can find a warming trend, but that’s not good enough to show record warming so they manipulate the confidence level downward till a year shows record warming.

        How you can sit there and accept such chicanery as science is totally beyond me.

        • NOAA IS CORRUPT I WOULD NEVER USE THEIR DATA.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “I have explained over and over why they are corrupt. They have taken real data from 6500 global surface stations, discarded 77% of the real data then synthesized the discarded 77% using lest than 1500 stations in a climate model”

          You have not proved this.

          So your “explanation” is meaningless. Prove it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bindidon…”A good way to show Robertsons thorough incompetence in NOAAs domains is for example to compare NOAA with UAH in the satellite reading context”.

      Your cherry-picking and mathematical obfuscations are not necessary. NOAA shows a trend 1998 – 2015, UAH does not. NOAA lists several recent years as warming records, UAH does not.

      No comparison.

      BTW…NOAA did not initially show a trend from 1998 onward, the trend appeared when they devised new ‘statistical’ methods for examining the data retroactively.

      Until you can explain why NOAA feels it is necessary to discard 77% of it’s surface global data and synthesize the discarded data in a climate model using data from less than 23% of the data it retains, you should stifle yourself.

      NOAA is corrupt and they are currently being investigated by a US senate committee. In your appeal to authority you are unwilling to do good science and consider that obvious fact.

      In fact, I don’t think you’d recognize good science if you saw it. Have you ever heard of the scientific method?

      • dr No says:

        Blah blah blah.same old. same old same old …

        I suppose your recent heat wave was fake.

        I suppose the recent record temperatures for Australia were fake.

        I suppose the current heat wave in Europe is fake.
        “Swathes of southern and eastern Europe have sweltered in temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius in a heatwave nicknamed “Lucifer”, which has killed at least two people across the region.”

        Honestly, as the pile of evidence becomes genormous, it is a continuing source of amazement to me to still deniers digging their holes. And Gordon is one of the busiest.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “NOAA is corrupt and they are currently being investigated by a US senate committee.”

        THey’re being “investigated” by one of the biggest climate deniers in the US, who has received lots of campaign money from the oil and gas industry.

  59. SNOWREADY says:

    One of the reasons I came to Dr spencers is to hear different views on climate science

  60. Using thermometers which don’t cover the globe and are location dependent is a ridiculous way to come up with a global temperature average.

    How many thermometers do they have in Antarctica and the Arctic ,over the oceans ,mountains etc etc?

    NOAA data from this source is ridiculous.

    As I said Weatherbell’s data , satellite data and radiosonde data are the data I will use.

  61. Bindidon says:

    Well it’s about 01:45 am here, time to sleep a little while.

    Before doing, I recall the statement of one of the most stubborn commenters I ever encountered:

    NOAA shows a trend 1998 2015, UAH does not. NOAA lists several recent years as warming records, UAH does not.

    No comparison.

    Some people never, never will be able to understand that there is no reason for surface and tropospheric temperature measurements to show the same behavior.

    It is exactly the same nonsense as if you would request troposphere and stratosphere to behave the same:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170805/s4cd467l.jpg

    And such persons lacking even the simplest knowledge really ask you:

    Have you ever heard of the scientific method?

    Cela fait bien longtemps que je n’avais plus autant ri, Robertson. Merci beaucoup!

  62. Bindidon says:

    They have taken real data from 6500 global surface stations, discarded 77% of the real data then synthesized the discarded 77% using lest than 1500 stations in a climate model.

    If Robertson was an scientifically educated, honorary man, he would
    – run over the entire GHCN dataset
    – register all those stations which still exist but no longer contribute to the dataset
    – reintegrate them into the contributing station set
    – collect the data they produced
    – reintegrate that data into the whole data stream
    – compute the new time series resulting out of the new stream
    – compare it with the existing one.

    Unfortunately, he is neither.

    • barry says:

      Bin, he has repeated that lie over and over. He’s been shown the truth a dozen times and never commented on it. Just keeps repeating the canard.

      Deceitful and wilfully blind. Sad.

    • barry says:

      you are unwilling to do good science

      Says GR. The irony.

      What’s his idea of good science? A senate committee.

  63. barry says:

    The latest NOAA revision (ERSSTv5) lowered recent temps.

    The biggest adjustment they made in the noughties lowered the whole global temp trend.

    They’re not quite perfect at being corrupt. Maybe some adroit skeptic can rationalize these facts for us within the fraud narrative.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “Maybe some adroit skeptic can rationalize these facts for us within the fraud narrative.”

      You already did that for us–“Theyre not quite perfect at being corrupt.”

    • barry says:

      Oh I have more. I have become quite good at emulating the vapid nonsense skeptics produce. I’m not quite perfect at it, though. Hopefully there will be more entertainment from the experts.

    • BARRY , they have adjusted up much more then down. They are frauds sorry but that is how I see it.

      • David Appell says:

        Wrong, Salvatore.

        Adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.

        See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Corrections”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends corrections REDUCE the long-term global warming trend.

        “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
        DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
        https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

      • barry says:

        Salvatore, that’s right. The overall effect of all adjustments still leaves the adjusted long-term record running a bit cooler than the raw record.

  64. barry says:

    Gordon’s repeated lie about NOAA ‘slashing’ weather station data is a prime example of how the skeptical community get it arse-backwards, and how the casual slander is based on total ignorance. In Gordon’t case, it is willful ignorance.

    NOAA didn’t ‘slash’ several thousand weather stations from the data base. They added them. Meticulously. In a large-scale collation project in the 1990s.

    Once again (iteration 24), here are the facts. Gordon has been shown this many times, and has never commented, and repeats his baseless, slanderous lies.

    This is the original study that describes what happened.

    http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

    Because numerous institutions operate weather stations and because no single repository archives all of the data for all stations, we employed five acquisition strategies to maximize the available pool of data: 1) contacting data centers, 2) exploiting personal contacts, 3) tapping related projects, 4) conducting literature searches, and 5) distributing miscellaneous requests…

    3. Duplicate elimination

    A time series for a given station can frequently be obtained from more than one source. For example, data for Tombouctou, Mali, were available in six different source datasets. When merging data from multiple sources, it is important to identify these duplicate time series because 1) the inclusion of multiple versions of the same station creates biases in areally averaged temperature analyses, and 2) the same station may have different periods of record in different datasets; merging the two versions can create longer time series….

    GHCN version 2 contains mean temperature data for a network of 7280 stations and maximumminimum temperature data for 4964 stations. All have at least 10 yr of data. The archive also contains homogeneity-adjusted data for a subset of this network (5206 mean temperature stations and 3647 maximumminimum temperature stations). The homogeneity adjusted network is somewhat smaller because at least 20 yr of data were required to compute reliable discontinuity adjustments and the homogeneity of some isolated stations could not be adequately assessed….

    the period of record for these stations is highly variable. For example, some of the station data were digitized by special projects during the 1970s and therefore have no later data….

    And following is the main reason there are fewer weather stations in the GHCN data base after this collation project ended in the 1990s.

    Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them

    Completely contradictory to Robertson’s lie, NOAA undertook various projects to recover weather station data from around the world – millions and millions of records mostly on paper – that do not supply their data in the GHCN format, or even electronically. This was done mostly by hand, copying numbers from pieces of paper to a computer data base.

    IOW – NOAA didn’t ‘slash’ stations, they added historical records that were not part of the automatic process they received electronically from around the world. Once the project ended, the number of stations automatically reporting continued to report. The large number of stations prior to that is a result of hard labour, not, as Gordon lies, because they summarily ‘slashed’ them.

    This is just one example of skeptics making accusations without checking anything.

    Observe, Gordon will say nothing of the substance of this post or the study cited. He will continue to lie in ignorance. As many skeptics do, having read some ill-informed blog screed and swallowed it whole with no evidence of any genuine skepticism to show for it.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      barry, see if this simple example helps:

      Suppose I offer you a 10-fold return on an investment. You invest 1000 with me, and I will return 10000 next week. Pretty good investment, right.

      But, next week comes and you want your money. I tell you there was only a 48% chance you would get your money back.

      Are you ready to invest with me again?

    • barry says:

      I’m ready for an example that fits the facts.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry, are you in denial that NOAA claimed 2014 was the “warmest year”, then after the SOTU address, they came out with the 48%?

        • David Appell says:

          All warmest year claims have an associated probability attached to them — that’s simply good science.

          Those who don’t understand that don’t understand mathematics.

      • barry says:

        Why are you changing the subject?

      • barry says:

        BTW, NOAA presented the 48% thing before the SOTU in press briefings. Someone’s been telling you porkies.

        I can prove that, too.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          I’m talking about this release: “Annual Global Analysis for 2014”.

          What date do you show it was made public? I remember it coming out the next day or two after the SOTU.

        • barry says:

          They showed slides in the press briefings before the SOTU, and it was posted online the day before.

          Here are Wayback Machine snapshots of the slides from the 18th and online web page from the 19th of January 2014. SOTU was Jan 20.

          You can see the dates in the web address. We know the press saw the slides because the Daily Mail put out an article mentioning the 48% thing on the 18th.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, thanks for all the research.

            Now it gets even more interesting. So both the press AND the president knew that it was “more unlikely than likely” that 2014 was the warmest year. Yet, it was presented in the SOTU, and reported in the press, as FACT!

            Looks like some collusion to me.

          • barry says:

            Maybe the 48% thing is overblown, G. It was then the highest ranked annual anomaly in the record. Twice as likely as any other year to be the warmest. They could have said, “most likely,” to be perfectly precise.

            I also doubt the Pres went web surfing in the days before the SOTU. Likely someone advised him; who knows if they went into mathematical detail. When you make a speech, you don’t say that employment is up “5% (+/- 0.3%).” You just give the round figure.

            But the point is, NOAA didn’t hide the fact, they just didn’t headline it. The press were fully briefed, and NOAA has no control over how they report it. David Rose in the Daily Mail chose to emphasise it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The polite term is “spin”.

            To claim that 2014 was the “warmest year”, when the reality was “more unlikely than likely”, is
            “spin”.

            But, that’s one of the ways to keep the AGW hoax alive.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”They could have said, most likely, to be perfectly precise”.

            What is precise about ‘most likely’?

            Why would NOAA claim that when their own sat data claims 2014 was the 4th warmest?

            Why does NOAA completely ignore their own sat data? NASA and the American Meteorological Society awarded medals for excellence to UAH for their data sets made from NOAA sat data.

            The fact NOAA used a 48% confidence level is a testament to their corruption.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…” So both the press AND the president knew ”

            Obama hid his climate action plan from Congress. Someone that nefarious would most definitely see to it that NOAA put out fudged data to show warming. The US Environmental Protection Agency was staffed with the most extreme climate alarmists.

          • barry says:

            To claim that 2014 was the warmest year, when the reality was more unlikely than likely, is
            spin.

            What does it mean when the second highest anomaly – 2010 – has an 18% chance of being the warmest year?

            That to me makes 2014 ‘most likely’ warmest year (back then). To you it would seem that no year in the record is more likely than another to be the warmest, because 48% isn’t greater than 50%

            ?

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “To claim that 2014 was the warmest year, when the reality was more unlikely than likely, is
            spin.”

            Since all measurements have an associated uncertainty, so do all conclusions.

            The scientifically accurate statement is that a certain year has a certain percentage possibility of being the warmest year. Even the coldest year in a record has some positive nonzero probability of being the warmest year, though in practice it’s extremely small.

            That’s simply what science provides. Those who don’t understand that are ignorant — and not interested in the science at all.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The fact NOAA used a 48% confidence level is a testament to their corruption.”

            All results — ALL — have a confidence level.

            To assert otherwise is unscientific. It shows you don’t understand mathematics and science.

          • barry says:

            Even the coldest year in a record has some positive nonzero probability of being the warmest year

            Maybe if the confidence limit is something like 99.9999% instead of 95%. But for an in-depth analysis you’d use more than just surface temperature data, rendering the uncertainty virtually, if not completely, non-existent.

        • barry says:

          The second link comes from a link that was/is on the main page of the NOAA State of the Climate 2014 (global) report that was posted on the 19th. You can see the date in the address bar.

        • barry says:

          Sorry, “Global Analysis – Annual 2014” is the title of the main page, as you said.

    • barry says:

      Here’s one for you.

      You are the government supplying grants for science projects. NOAA asks for a large sum to pay interns, students and staff to collect historical records from around the world and collate it by hand. You ask why. More data is better, they say.

      You’re feeling generous, so you give the grant and get a 4-fold increase in historical weather station data as your return.

      NOAA puts out a report saying they discovered that using the online data only gives almost exactly the same result as using the larger data set data you paid for.

      Does it make economic sense to give them more money for the same purpose?

    • Bindidon says:

      barry, here is a kind of zeroeth step in a direction showing how ridiculous Robertsons claim about weather station slashing by NOAA in reality is.

      You select out of GHCN’s metadata file all CONUS stations and generate two temperature time series:
      – one with all 1,852 stations having contributed between 1880 and 2017;
      – one by allowing per 5 degree grid cell only one randomly chosen station (there were only 51).

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170805/pjg8iwuk.jpg

      What a tremendous discrepancy!

      Doing the same at global level gives 923 of all 7,280 stations:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170805/zghzdl74.jpg

      Of course CONUS is in comparison with the whole Globe a very stable piece of land wrt climate, so you need far less stations to obtain a good fit.

      You could also select the data of all GHCN stations having contributed up to right now in June 2017:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170805/ds6t7jd7.jpg

      and compare the stuff with the entire record.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binidon….”showing how ridiculous Robertsons claim about weather station slashing by NOAA in reality is”.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

        If you take the time to go through this site it’s all explained in detail:

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

        • Bindidon says:

          Here again you show that you do not want to understand anything here.

          The point, Robertson, is not how many GHCN stations no longer contributed with their readings to the temperature record.

          The points are:

          – how many of them became simply redundant, because they measured nearly the same as their neighbours?
          – how many stations does a landscape really need to have a consistent record?

          It seems that you were not able to grasp the meaning of the two GHCN graphs in my comment above. They were discussing that exactly.

          Moreover: did you ever hear about GHCN V4 daily? About 6,000 of about 100,000 stations there contribute actually to the daily TAVG temperature record.

          You know nearly nothing, Robertson. That makes you a pretty good follower for Goddard, McIntyre, Gosselin, WUWT, the 3rd viscount of Brenchley etc etc.

          Go for them!

          I will really enjoy you stopping to pin your rubbish behind my comments all the time.

    • barry says:

      Thanks, Bin.

      There have been quite a few amateur tests comparing ‘dropped’ stations with those that haven’t been dropped, and it was found that removing them made a very slight difference. Keeping the dropped stations made the record slightly warmer. So if NOAA was trying to jimmy the climate record to be hotter, they shot themselves in the foot with this so-called ‘slashing.’

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”There have been quite a few amateur tests comparing dropped stations with those that havent been dropped, and it was found that removing them made a very slight difference”.

        Your alarmist propaganda has reached the level of religious dogma. Dropping 77% of the stations in a data base will most certainly affect the outcome especially when applied to a climate model programmed by alarmists.

        You are in such deep denial but from what I have experienced with ‘certain’ Australians, that’s typical.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Dropping 77% of the stations in a data base will most certainly affect the outcome….”

          What “affect?”

          Let’s see your calculations and numbers….

          [Of course, I realize you have no calculations or numbers, but it’s fun to reveal that you have no science at all.]

        • barry says:

          Gordon, you’re simply wrong about this.

          Whenever it’s explained to you, you do not respond to the explanation, just repeat the same stuff over and again like you never saw the information.

          THAT is dogma in the truest sense.

        • barry says:

          Your alarmist propaganda has reached the level of religious dogma. Dropping 77% of the stations in a data base will most certainly affect the outcome especially when applied to a climate model programmed by alarmists.

          Please explain how this is so. With some detail.

          Explain how these ‘models’ are put together.

          Stop repeating the mantra and make some kind of substantial point.

          • lewis says:

            Barry,

            Actually, reading back through the previous 30 or so posts, you make it clear you have a bias towards warmist ideology. This is to be differentiated from a bias towards only the facts.

            Lewis

          • barry says:

            Thanks for the review.

  65. SNOWREADY says:

    I am a sceptic about anything to do with climate change wether it be agw natural warming impending ice ages or anything to do with climate. It seems the more data we get the more questions we get. I do find it all very interesting.

    • barry says:

      I’ve noticed that lately there has been growing doubt that the world is spherical rather than flat. You can get a huge amount of information on you tube.

  66. SNOWREADY says:

    I’m a sceptic of the sceptics. What mean is I’m not 100 percent sold on any climate theory.

    • Mickey Prumt says:

      That’s great. You must be very smart.
      Can you explain us again what is the skeptics’ climate theory ?

      • gbaikie says:

        Yes, I want to know it.
        I can explain my theory if you want.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          My “theory” is that Warmists, Alarmists, and Lukewarmers all have differing levels of confusion about climate science, leading to the mis-informed position that “CO2 produces warming”, with some kind of nebulous, undefined, ever-changing “greenhouse effect”.

          But, the evidence is so strong, pervasive, and well-documented, maybe it is more than a “theory”.

        • gbaikie says:

          My theory is that Warmists, Alarmists, and Lukewarmers all have differing levels of confusion about climate science, leading to the mis-informed position that CO2 produces warming, with some kind of nebulous, undefined, ever-changing greenhouse effect.

          Well, greenhouse gases might prevent Earth from cooling as fast as it might without them. It seems evident to me that clouds can prevent nights from getting as cold as they would other otherwise.

          Without using sun shade or without blocking the sunlight, I think I know how to make Venus cooler. And I think without increasing the amount of sunlight reaching Mars [such reflecting additional sunlight from orbit] I think I know how to increase Mars average temperature [though I don’t think warming Mars requirement for settlements on Mars, nor is cooling Venus a requirement for settlements on Venus].

          And what think could cool Venus is not by removing CO2 gas, nor would warming of Mars include adding CO2 gas [or “super greenhouse gases or any greenhouse gases [because I think such things would create at most an insignificant effect- maybe a few degrees].

          Of course also I don’t think there any need to cool Earth or prevent it from getting warmer. I do think being able to prevent Earth from becoming cooler [anything more 1 degree cooler] is important to do. And don’t have any particular idea of how to make Earth warmer, if we need it to be warmer.
          So guess first question is does anyone know how we could warm Earth if Earth become cooler?

          • Albebo rules the climate world along with the oceans and if extreme solar can influence them then you have the solar climate tie in.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Albebo rules the climate world along with the oceans and if extreme solar can influence them then you have the solar climate tie in.”

            I wrote one post and it ate, so make it shorter.
            To cool venus I would somehow get rid of it’s acid clouds-
            mine them or add water to dilute the acid and replace with
            water clouds. Either could increase the amount of sunlight
            reflected. But what thinking is getting rid of convectional
            heating at the high elevation of Venus

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh that worked.
            With Mars I would add a “tropical ocean” to warm the planet.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “To cool venus I would somehow get rid of its acid clouds-
            mine them or add water to dilute the acid and replace with
            water clouds.”

            Any added water would immediately boil, adding to the planet’s greenhouse effect.

            Those sulfuric acid clouds are there for a reason. So is the lack of water — a runaway greenhouse effect.

          • gbaikie says:

            “gbaikie says:
            To cool venus I would somehow get rid of its acid clouds-
            mine them or add water to dilute the acid and replace with
            water clouds.

            Any added water would immediately boil, adding to the planets greenhouse effect.”

            Water at 1 atm pressure boils at 100 C. And at 1 atm of pressure on venus, the air temperature is about 70 C- or
            70 C water at elevation where it’s 1 atm of pressure, wouldn’t boil. Though the water would evaporate.
            At 55 km elevation Venus atmospheric pressure is .53 atm
            and the temperature is about 27 C, see table at:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
            Such pressure and air temperature occurs on Earth.
            Or 1/2 atm is roughly 5.5 km in elevation. Or:

            “La Rinconada is a town in the Peruvian Andes located near a gold mine. At 5,100 m above sea level, it is the highest permanent settlement in the world.”

            Which has low average temperatures but daytime highs can have air temperatures above 27 C.

            “Those sulfuric acid clouds are there for a reason. So is the lack of water a runaway greenhouse effect.”

            Another option is to mine the clouds for the Hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. So from the H2SO4 one gets H2 + O4 + the sulfur

        • Mickey Prumt says:

          gbaikie

          “I can explain my theory if you want.”

          No, it’s ok.
          The skeptics theory would be enough.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well I would say the “greenhouse effect theory” has an enough
            vaqueness about it to allow many ideas about how climate
            works. For example even though it’s irrationally concise about idea of greenhouse effect adding 33 K and only greenhouse gases causing this increase- it allows many factors to be connected or identified as a greenhouse gas.
            As example Ozone [O3- or oxygen] is counted as greenhouse gas- and it doesn’t absorb long wave IR. Likewise clouds are “counted” and clouds are droplets and particles of water.
            And wiki:
            By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:

            water vapor, 3670%
            carbon dioxide, 926%
            methane, 49%
            ozone, 37%
            That is quite vague, but a large sect of the religion, is agreeable to idea that CO2 is rather unique. Or some claim that without CO2 in the atmosphere [which is impossible, but it is said] there would be no warming form other greenhouse gases- or Earth’s average temperature would be -18 C rather than 15 C.
            And despite the whole idea began from an idea of what causes glacial and interglacial period was that it’s Earth’s CO2 concentration- there isn’t any evidence to support the idea.
            Or though it’s also vague on details, most accept milankovitch cycles cause glacial and interglacial periods.

            Or one could say the theory skeptics support is the theory of Milankovitch cycles. But also widely accepted by supporters of greenhouse theory.
            Or broadly both skeptics and believer accept Milankovitch theory and the greenhouse theory.
            Or similar to Nazis and Soviets, both supported some kind of totalitarian government to control the world- and both called it socialism.

          • gbaikie says:

            water vapor, 36-70%
            carbon dioxide, 9-26%
            methane, 4-9%
            ozone, 3-7%

            And since here:
            The Milankovitch Theory:

            http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/student/howard2/theory.htm

            Or here:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

            Greenhouse effect theory:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh and [Milankovitch Theory]:
            “His theory concludes that ice caps at the poles increased and decreased in size as a reflection of the insolation at high latitudes. Specifically, he used calculations from the 65N to develop his model.”

            Is wrong.

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh, if you think it’s wrong to say something is wrong.
            Science is mostly about finding out what is wrong.

            Or only reason I would want to provide a theory, is so you [all] might have the capacity to determine if it’s wrong.

            And there is vast ocean of wrong in this world.
            Or idea the science is ended, is wrong.

  67. SNOWREADY says:

    We are using climate data from 1981 to 2010 and trying to draw conclusions about the climate our planet has a billion years pluss of undocumented climate history.

    • barry says:

      Global temp record starts in 1850. BEST have a longer thermometer record.

    • barry says:

      Northern America was covered in a kilometers thick ice sheet 20,000 years ago. So presumably that could happen again any day because we don’t know enough to say otherwise.

      • Snape says:

        Off topic but fun:

        I was thinking about what might happen if you touched an 800,000 K planet that couldn’t rid itself of heat.

        My best guess is your finger would freeze.

        • gbaikie says:

          hmm. if finger freezes, why wouldn’t the ocean and skies freeze. Or I started by wondering how how one touches a planet with a finger.
          My first inclination is to try to think of something with a lot of gravity [though touching with you finger is also problematic]. So let’s see something almost a blackhole- like a neutron star: wiki:
          “Neutron stars that can be observed are very hot and typically have a surface temperature around 600000 K.” Continuing:
          “They are so dense that a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a mass of approximately 3 billion tonnes, or a 0.5 cubic kilometre chunk of the Earth (a cube with edges of about 800 metres). Their magnetic fields are between 10^8 and 10^15 times as strong as that of the Earth. The gravitational field at the neutron star’s surface is about 210^11 times that of the Earth.”
          Can’t see why it’s not a sphere- let’s make it sphere.
          So 1 lb of butter weighs 2x 10^11 lbs: 200,000,000,000 lbs
          or 100 million tons. Or put nail on surface, it flatten to some microscopic thinnest- or fingers are not safe anywhere near this.

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh, was reading that wrong, so, want chunk about about 100 meter radius or less- make around mass of Earth.
            And all have to do is get km cubic volume of earth:
            1.0810^12 so 2.16 x 10^12 “matchboxes”.
            Or double check Earth mass should be 2.1610^12 times
            3 billion tonnes: 3 x 10^12 kg. Or 6.48 x 10^24 And earth is
            5.9723 x 10^24 kg. Well, somewhat close.
            Now what is volume of normal “matchboxes”- apparently 15 cubic cm. So 32.4 x 10^12 cubic cm.

            And cubic km is how many cubic cm- billion cubic meters and 100 x100 x100 = 1 x 10^15 cubic cm. Or somewhere around 100 meter radius which has 4.1910^6 cubic meter which is 4.18 x
            10^12 cubic cm vs 32.4 x 10^12. Or 200 meter is 3.3510^7
            3.35 x 10^13 vs 3.24 x 10^13
            So slightly less than 200 meter in radius. And because smaller [denser] it will have more gravity than Earth though it has same mass. And forget figuring that out. Though there calculator which I might even have bookmarked [somewhere].

            Anyhow, can touch it with a finger.
            But what about the 800,000 K part.
            Well if it was 800,000 K it might not vaporize.
            But I will leave it there.

          • Snape says:

            gbaikie

            Planets aren’t nearly as dense as neutron stars or black holes, so I don’t think gravity would be a problem. And yes, much too hot for an ocean to freeze.

          • Snape says:

            gbaikie

            Nobody else seems interested, so I’ll end the suspense…lol.

            If your finger got burned, the planet would have rid itself of a small amount of heat via conduction, right?

            Next thought, “what sort of object doesn’t emit any heat?” Well, it definitely would be really cold. Absolute zero, as far as I know. That’s why I think a person’s finger would freeze.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”Next thought, what sort of object doesnt emit any heat?”

            No object emits heat, they all emit infrared energy. Heat cannot be emitted, it is a property of mass and in order to move heat you have to move the mass.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Heat cannot be emitted, it is a property of mass and in order to move heat you have to move the mass.”

            Boneheaded and absolutely stupid.

            I really don’t understand why you take pride in being stupid. Care to explain that?

          • gbaikie says:

            So have 200 meter diameter neutron star.
            It’s around Earth’s orbit when sun is forming. And it gets the great bombardment- huge space rocks smashing into it but with a rain of smaller rocks [small in terms dino killer rocks- and lots of even smaller ones.

            Now, what happens when space rocks hit 200 meter diameter neutron star- or since it’s smaller, one can think of it as neutron star hitting the space rocks.
            So take say the Moon [1/80th of mass of earth] and 200 meter neutron stars same mass as Earth hitting which hitting the Moon at 20 km/sec.
            Not sure, but things are going to get very hot.
            Could it “tunnel” thru the Moon?
            Would stick into the moon and the Moon vaporizes?

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh anyhow, it could be encased within the core of the Moon, and lunar surface can cool- and it could be around 800,000 K and not loses much heat.

          • lewis says:

            Let me recommend the book “What if” by Randall Munroe of xkcd fame.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Northern America was covered in a kilometers thick ice sheet 20,000 years ago”.

        You observed that directly I presume? How exactly did that kilometre thick sheet form?

        • David Appell says:

          Milankovitch factors.

          Why don’t you go learn how scientists determine the past? It’d be a better use of your time than your lies and nonsense here.

          • lewis says:

            So David, you believe the Milankovitch theory?
            When does the ice start accumulating again?

        • barry says:

          Mo, researchers worked that out by noticing how mountaintops had been carved by something through Northern Europe, Russia and America/Canada, as well as other geological formations. They figured it must be ice producing the same carved patterns. This was verified by independent observations of evidence that sea level had been much lower at the time.

          https://history.aip.org/climate/cycles.htm

          Where do you think skeptics get the idea that ‘climate has always changed’? They rely on the paleo record. Which everyone agrees on. Except maybe you, perhaps.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snowready…”We are using climate data from 1981 to 2010 and trying to draw conclusions about the climate”

      No one is talking climate based on the UAH data, we are talking global warming, which is a meaningless number related to the averaging of temperatures around the globe.

      The climate focus came into it when alarmists could not see the global warming they had predicted so they changed the focus to a fictitious generic climate which allegedly spans the globe. No one can really offer a rebuttal against something that is pseudo-science.

      BTW, the UAH record ranges from 1979 – 2017. You have lost 7 years.

      Having said all that, 18 years with no warming is significant. It’s enough to determine that CO2 has essentially no effect on atmospheric temperatures.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Having said all that, 18 years with no warming is significant.”

        Gordon lies again.

        linear trend of UAH global LT v6.0 over last 18.0 yrs = +0.12 C/dec

  68. Harry Cummings says:

    Barry

    You are a very smart dude but mate you got to open both eyes

    1. what is a skeptics theory There isn’t one that why they are skeptics

    2. When did they start using .000 was that in 1850 or 1853

    3. When you collect data from the 3rd world and pay them for it they will give you all the data you want

    HC

  69. ren says:

    Operational 50 km Nighttime SST Charts for 2017.
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/50km_night/2017/sstnight.8.3.2017.gif
    Here you can see where the temperature is going down in the south.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00923/jhqs7tt6cyd1.png
    I find that the night temperature best shows the actual sea surface temperature.

  70. ren says:

    “Damn right we worry, and maybe us doing it will save a few skeptics’ lives someday because of the warning we’ll provide. So stop trying to keep us from saving you, because the experts won’t. Their role, it seems, will be to prevent panic, and no warnings will be forthcoming from them even when it actually happens. (It’s not their fault, of course; they can only do as they’re told by the Interior Department.) Your best hope is to watch this space and spaces like it for the only warning you’re likely to get, and try to enjoy life in the meantime. There won’t be much enjoyment afterwards.”
    http://www.isthisthingon.org/Yellowstone/archive/2017/08/YML_EHZ_WY_01-20170805.png

  71. Bindidon says:

    Gbaikie says on August 2, 2017 at 10:10 PM

    Heat is transported via ocean and global atmospheric conventional cells from tropics towards poles. Oceans warm the world.

    This is nothing new, Gbaikie is right! A look at the Global ocean heat content chart for the period 1950-2016, published by JMA, the Japanese Meteorology Agency

    http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html

    is eloquent enough.

    An interesting point however is this: though JMA is not at all known to rely on so called pause buster data, I miss exactly that wonderful 18-year-pause on their chart!

    Maybe the oceans don’t like pauses nor hiatuses.

    Today I downloaded JMA’s OHC dataset:

    http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_data_en.html

    and tried, though it was clear that the exercise wouldn’t have any real value, to superpose ocean heat content and sun spot number plots in a common chart, by shifting & scaling here and there:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170805/yb2bcdfg.jpg

    It was just for fun, Salvatore!

    • Bindidon says:

      Data source for the Sun Spot Numbers:
      http://tinyurl.com/yc8zhpvg

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bindidon…”I miss exactly that wonderful 18-year-pause on their chart!”

      sorry to rain on your parade but a quote from your link states: “It is virtually certain that globally integrated upper ocean (0 700 m) heat content (OHC) rose between 1950 and 2016…”

      Virtually certain??? What kind of pseudo-scientific gibberish is that? Either you are certain or you are not. This virtual data obviously came from a model projection not actual measurement.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “This virtual data obviously came from a model projection not actual measurement.”

        Wrong.

        It comes from the ARGO buoys.

        • Crakar24 says:

          No that can’t be right DA, argo was rejected as being inaccurate so we went back to hauling bucket and ship intake temps and thus the 18 year pause/call it what you want never actually existed

      • Bindidon says:

        As usual, you behave as what you are, Robertson: superficial, arrogant.

        You, raining on any parade? For that to do you lack everything necessary.

        Learn to read before you write, Robertson: so you will avoid to disturb other persons having to reply to your thoroughly redundant garbage.

        On the page

        http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_data_en.html

        you immediately see:

        Data description

        The analysis is based on in situ observations only.

        *

        A hint which might help you in trying to escape out of your simple-minded, primitive way of thinking:

        The persons writing on these web pages are Japanese.

        Thus when they write: ‘It is virtually certain that…’, so it might be possible that they translated something out of their native tongue that had originally a slightly different meaning.

        Until now I really thought that to such things only teenagers would need to be pointed out.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Bindidon says:
      August 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM

      Gbaikie says on August 2, 2017 at 10:10 PM

      Heat is transported via ocean and global atmospheric conventional cells from tropics towards poles. Oceans warm the world.

      This is nothing new, Gbaikie is right! A look at the Global ocean heat content chart for the period 1950-2016, published by JMA, the Japanese Meteorology Agency

      http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html

      is eloquent enough.

      An interesting point however is this: though JMA is not at all known to rely on so called pause buster data, I miss exactly that wonderful 18-year-pause on their chart!

      Maybe the oceans dont like pauses nor hiatuses.–

      But ocean do have large mixing events. Short terms mixing ocean cools in terms of air temperature, long terms it warms [increases heat content of ocean]. Though bringing more surface water poleward [which might call mixing] releases more heat in atmosphere [warms air] and could have net loss of ocean heat content.
      Hmm, maybe that points to cooling mechanism, I have been wondering about- so in terms south polar region. Or Antarctic has always been seen as cooling mechanism- or a part of the icebox climate.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks for the very interesting reply, gbaikie. You write way way higher than the incredibly low niveau of the commenter above.

        … and could have net loss of ocean heat content.

        Yes yes! It would be very interesting to be able to follow heat escape out of the tropical oceans up to the troposphere, and to look how it moves polewards.

        Imagine a widget able to display Roy Spencers monthly anomaly maps in sequence on youtube! The same one could imagine with OHC monthly data.

        What I want to do now is to examine the latitudinal repartition of OHC, by averaging 25 1 deg cells out of

        http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_data_en.html

        into one 5 deg cell.

    • barry says:

      Bin, I think you were being humorous, but no one uses ERSSTv4 for ocean heat content. And you’re right, it doesn’t get used at all by JMA, even for the surface temp product.

    • David Appell says:

      Why don’t you respond in the same thread. No one knows what your “ok” is supposed to mean. How would they?

      • Des says:

        I have asked him to continue the thread on countless occasions. It’s hard to tell whether he is being deliberately annoying or he has difficulty grasping simple concepts. I suspect the latter.

  72. ren says:

    At approximately 10am on August 2nd, Sinabung treated us to one of its biggest pyroclastic flows since its started erupting in 2013.
    https://twitter.com/supereruption/status/893413072848564224

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    Bindidon…reposted from an earlier post so more people can view the chicanery of NOAA.

    binidon….”showing how ridiculous Robertsons claim about weather station slashing by NOAA in reality is”.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

    If you take the time to go through this site it’s all explained in detail:

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

    • David Appell says:

      What “chicanery” has NO.AA been up to?

      It’s a scurrilous claim, so you need to explain it, not just post a link to some other denier. Present your evidence.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Its a scurrilous claim, so you need to explain it, not just post a link to some other denier…”

        I posted a direct link to NOAA!!!! NOAA admitted slashing the stations, the so-called denier listed the slashed stations station by station.

        You can verify his claims quite easily but you’d rather sit on your ass and dismiss him as a denier.

      • barry says:

        NOAA says:

        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.

        Poor Gordon. Seems he can’t read.

        See what I did there, Gordon. I clicked on your link and read what was said. I also quoted all of the relevant text.

        If I can do it, so can you. But you never – as in not ever – read what’s posted on this. You cite Chiefio, who has never crunched all the numbers fully to see what difference it would make (he’s be surprised), and NOAA explaining what I’ve explained to you countless times in more detail.

        So come on, ask for an actual conversation. Commit to trying to understand. Demonstrate that your faculties are more sophisticated than diving for the same old superficial mantra and avoiding a deeper understanding.

        BTW, the online data updated each month now has 2500 stations.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “If you take the time to go through this site its all explained in detail:
      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

      That post is completely incoherent.

      Just junk. It would be quickly rejected by any science journal in the world.

      • barry says:

        Chiefio never crunches all the data to see if his complaint (which is based on fibs anyway) would make a difference.

        Others have done it. He has studiously avoided it.

        A little note from ‘Chiefio’:

        While the “spin” put on my position has tended to say there is active intentional removal of thermometers for malicious effect; I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any persons intent, only the result.

        Or he could read a few papers and find out exactly what happened wouldn’t have to nuance his “spin.”

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry claims in deep denial…”Gordons repeated lie about NOAA slashing weather station data is a prime example of how the skeptical community get it arse-backwards…”

    Once again, and for about the 15th time:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

    NOAA’s own admission from link above:

    “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”

    Another source in minute detail, showing the slashing:

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

    • David Appell says:

      That “chiefo” link is incoherent. And there’s no reason to believe him in the first place, vs peer reviewed science.

    • barry says:

      Yes, you’re in deep denial. I’ve provided information which you’ve never responded to in the many months you’ve brought this up and I’ve replied to it.

      You’ve never commented on the original study I cite that explains the evolution of station records and how they have been and are gathered.

      You’ve never responded to the substance of my posts. Never.

      You just repeat what you are saying.

      Yes, you’re in deep denial. I answered on your latest links just above. I quoted the relevant portion from NOAA. Highlighted the parts you can’t see. If I can click on links you provide and talk about them, why can’t you?

      Here’s your opportunity, Gordon. You seem to be on the case now.

      Rather than write it all out again, click this link to my post halfway back up the thread, and respond to it here.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-257810

      READ the original paper that describes what happened (it’s not long), READ my comments, and respond with with substance, not with the same old same old.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon never replies to to most posts, let alone the substance of them.

        • barry says:

          One more chance to see if he says something substantive.

          If not, I’ll content myself with a one-word reply to his empty accusations on this in the future.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Gordon never replies to to most posts, let alone the substance of them”.

          I tired of your idiotic responses.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Ive provided information which youve never responded to in the many months youve brought this up and Ive replied to it….”

        I have responded till I’m black in the face, till I was a big disgrace to the Aborigine race, and you responded with gibberish while ignoring my links.

        Sheesh, you politically-correct lot have even got Rolf Harris apologizing for his alleged racism in his song, My Boomerang Won’t Come Back.

        I am not interested in your references to the 1990’s, I am interested in what NOAA posted as late as 2013, till the Obama admin stifled them and got them outputting alarmist propaganda.

        NOAA admitted in 2013 they had slashed 6000 stations to under 1500, yet you carry on about them increasing the number of stations. Now we have Bindidon defending them after I corrected his allegation that I was lying.

    • barry says:

      A little note from Chiefio:

      While the “spin” put on my position has tended to say there is active intentional removal of thermometers for malicious effect; I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any persons intent, only the result.

      Or he could read a few papers and find out exactly what happened wouldnt have to nuance his “spin.”

  75. coturnix says:

    well, now with the last few years it sure looks like a linear trend with around 0.7-1.0*C/100y slope; so, global warming is real, isn’t it?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      coturnix…”well, now with the last few years it sure looks like a linear trend with around 0.7-1.0*C/100y slope; so, global warming is real, isnt it?”

      Yes, yes…we’ve discussed that. One El Nino at the end of a series does not a trend make. I believe it was Shakespeare said that.

      Wait for it. It might take a year, but if the current conditions are reflected in past conditions, a La Nino will come along and even the EN out.

  76. Bindidon says:

    How is it possible to think I would rather trust in ‘Musings from the Chiefio’ than in NOAA or GISSTEMP?

    More ridiculous you die.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bindidon…”How is it possible to think I would rather trust in Musings from the Chiefio than in NOAA or GISSTEMP?”

      As I said, you’re an idiot.

      Chiefio has merely collated the practices, or should I say malpractice, of NOAA and revealed their chicanery. You are the idiot who prefers to go on believing NOAA is right even though Chiefio has revealed to your their abject dishonesty.

      • David Appell says:

        His/her post is unreadable. Pure junk. It was written to draw in people just like you, who do not know how to think and how to judge science. It clearly worked.

  77. Bindidon says:

    What about a little experiment showing how about 37 % of the 7,280 GHCN stations behave when compared with the full set?

    The idea was
    – to see which stations contributed to the record during 2017; there were 2,686;
    – to select out of the complete GHCN monthly dataset (unadjusted or adjusted, makes no difference here) those records produced by these 2,686 stations;
    – to compare the monthly time series generated out of these records with the time series originating from the full dataset.

    Here is the result:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170806/o2fac7sx.jpg

    You see: I performed this way a brute force slashing of not less than 4,594 stations.

    The comparison of the two 60 month running means makes further explanations superfluous, so incredibly similar are their plots.

    But let us nevertheless point out that the slashed GHCN record shows lower linear estimates for both 1880-2017 (0.212 C / decade instead of 0.232) and 1979-2017 (0.302 instead of 0.431).

    So it is evident to me that when NOAA collaborators produce such charts, the decision to separate from redundant data of course is inevitable.

    To the ignorants I say right now: I love slashing !!!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binidon…”To the ignorants I say right now: I love slashing !!!”

      Because you are an idiot.

      You have proved conclusively that you are a follower who appeals to authority and you don’t have the scientific guts to be a skeptic.

      Imagine someone so stupid that he thinks it’s OK to slash 77% of the stations from a global database and arrive at an accurate description of global temperatures.

      I agree with one thing, through the abuse of statistics it’s possible to declare any degree of warming you want. However, only an idiot would use statistics where real data is available. Or an absolute charlatan.

      • Bindidon says:

        I have no problem with you calling me an idiot, Robertson.

        What else could a person write who doesn’t understand so simple matters?

        I don’t like warmists, Robertson. And be sure that persons like you let me appreciate them even less than before.

        Simply because warmists and Robertsons in fact are the two sides of one and the same worthless piece of money.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binidon…”I have no problem with you calling me an idiot, Robertson.”

          That’s good. I could have used other terms like moron, imbecile or dolt, but I thought idiot to be a much kinder term. I was thinking of you.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Imagine someone so stupid that he thinks its OK to slash 77% of the stations from a global database and arrive at an accurate description of global temperatures.”

        Prove it.

        Quotation and citation.

        Prove something just once in your life

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Prove it. Quotation and citation”.

          I have posted the link from NOAA several times in this thread alone. Either you have a serious problem with comprehension or you’re just plain in denial.

          Of course, there is another possibility. You have read the link where they admitted slashing surface station data and understand it but you feel a need to maintain the propaganda alarmists are spreading. In that case, you are deceitful.

    • Regardless satellite data is the best most accurate data.

      Others may not see it that way ,so be it.

      That is what I will go by.

      • Bindidon says:

        As I told you, Salvatore: then all is good for you.

        I guess with ‘satellite data’ in fact you mean ‘UAH6.0 data’, don’t you?

        Buona notte.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bindidon…”I guess with satellite data in fact you mean UAH6.0 data, dont you?”

          It’s actually NOAA data from satellites they launched in 1978 that UAH turns into data sets.

          NOAA is in deep denial of their own data. To make matters worse, NOAA has altered their own surface data retroactively. Their chicanery knows no limits.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore Del Prete says:
        “Regardless satellite data is the best most accurate data.”

        An expert at RSS disagrees. And he knows far, far, far more about the subject than you do. You’re just cherry picking.

        Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)

        “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”

        http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
        video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0

      • Des says:

        “Others may not see it that way”
        That includes Carl Mears, the guy who publishes the RSS satellite data. He says that the land-based record is much more accurate.

        • Des who cares what an individual says much less him a AGW enthusiast.

          • Des says:

            So an individual who has no clue as to how they really put together the satellite record doesn’t care what an expert has to say on the matter. I suppose you think there is no adjustment going on in the satellite record.

    • Bindidon says:

      Some of you know this, but I think it is worth to underline that the chart above comparing two GHCN dataset variants has nothing to do with the ‘end products’ generated by GISS, NOAA, Had.CRUT, BEST, JMA etc etc.

      Here is a comparison of GISS land-only with the ‘slashed’ GHCN record:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170806/eahyewut.jpg

      The black plot shows us what remains out of the blue one after lots and lots of work through e.g.
      – elimination of reading outliers;
      – homogenisation.

      I truly would wonder if Roy Spencer didn’t have similar charts to present us!

  78. barry says:

    Gordon, a skeptic website gathered comments and replies on the station dropout issue. You may want to familiarise yourself with the subject beyond ‘Chiefio’s’ opinion.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/timeline-of-the-march-of-the-thermometers-meme/

    The timeline begins with ‘Chiefio’s’ opinion and then links the responses.

    The same skeptic website then issued an invitation to Chiefio to respond to these comments.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/guest-post-invitiation-to-chiefio/

    Which he declined.

    I see where you get your ‘style’ from.

  79. barry says:

    Gordon, plenty of people (except Chiefio) including from the ‘skeptic’ side have analysed the pre and post cutoff weather stations to see if excluding them makes a material difference.

    It doesn’t.

    In fact, if you take all the stations and compare with only the stations that are continually updated, the warming trend for the total stations set is warmer. The opposite of what you imply.

    Chiefio’s biggest mistake was to think that because high latitude stations with cooler absolute temperatures didn’t get updated near the end of the record, that this meant warmer temps were being recorded, raising the trend.

    The boofhead didn’t realize that station data is anomalized, which removes the absolute difference. He also didn’t realize that the high latitude stations have a higher warming trend than lower latitudes, so when they dropped out of the record, that actually cooled the whole record. But only by a little, barely noticeable.

    Chiefio is wrong on so many counts.

    Here are a few graphs from people – mainly skeptic commentators –
    who did crunch all the numbers to see if Chiefio’s complaint (slander) made any material difference.

    WUWT

    “This test indicates that higher elevation stations tend to see higher rates of warming rather than lower rates of warming. Thus, dropping them, does not bias the temperature record upward. The concern lies in the other direction. If anything the evidence points to this: dropping higher altitude stations post 1990 has lead to a small underestimation of the warming trend.”

    Dr Roy Spencer

    “But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset”

    Clear Climate Code

    “It is certainly not the case that the warming trend is stronger in the data from the post-cutoff stations.”

    The Blackboard [skeptic website] analysis

    “We can also compare stations with records post-1992 to those without, to quickly replicate the work that Tamino and the CCC folks did on addressing E.M. Smiths whole station dropout argument”

    and

    “Since no one has looked into it yet, we can consider the case of Northern Canada and see if station dropout there has had any effect on temperatures”

    Answer – slightly lower using only ‘dropped out’ stations – the opposite of what Chiefio implies (but never actually says).

    Comparison of all long-lived (>100yrs) weather stations with full record.

    Skeptic Jeff Condon:

    “I also verified the dropout issue seemed to have little effect back when this was being discussed. No posts on it but if anything the stations cut short seemed to have slightly greater warming trend.”

    These are mostly skeptic websites and opinions. Unlike Chiefio, they have done tests with all the data to compare, finding that his accusations on the drop-out issue are meritless.

    • barry says:

      Roy Spencer found no appreciable difference with drop out. WUWT posted that removing high-altitude stations made no appreciable difference. Jeff Condon agrees. Others confirmed.

      This – all this – you steadfastly ignore.

      You’ve been provided a link to the original paper describing how data was collected, and historical data transcribed up to 1997.

      This you steadfastly ignore – for over a year of me repeatedly linking it and citing it for you.

      I quoted the NOAA doc you linked and highlighted the bits you seem to have ignore.

      This you ignore, too.

      You ignore every comment that challenges your mantra.

      If I’m outraged at anything it’s your willful blindness, dogged refusal to answer any challenge to your misconceptions, and repeated slander based on that stubborn, pig-headed, self-induced ignorance.

      Dogma. You live and breathe it. Trenchant refusal to investigate alternative information and opinion. You are no skeptic.

      • Crakar24 says:

        I would have thought a reduction in sample size would reduce the accuracy of the result. You could apply a few lines of code that covers over the cracks but as trenberth once said its hard to measure temps where no station exists or words to that effect. 🙂

        • Des says:

          “I would have thought a reduction in sample size would reduce the accuracy of the result.”

          Now apply that logic in reverse – INCREASING the number of data points INCREASES the precision of the average. You get it now!

        • barry says:

          I would have thought a reduction in sample size would reduce the accuracy of the result.

          That’s right.

          But the statistical uncertainty between 1600 and 6000 weather stations measuring twice daily for 30 days is not of great significance.

          Let’s just take the mean record – one value per day – over a month.

          1600 readings at 30 readings per day is 48 000 readings per month.

          6000 reading at 30 readings a day is 180 000 per month.

          Now work out the uncertainty if thermometer readings are accurate to 1 C.

  80. ren says:

    Yesterday was interesting in Yellowstone.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00923/sf3n8wntlp73.png

    • barry says:

      No.

      Concentration (extent) often goes up for a day or more, but ultimately the minimum occurs in September.

      You can see from your NH pic that it went up around July 16 and again around July 22, but the overall trend for the month is downward.

  81. Des says:

    People here are claiming that we are back to the “pause”.

    I considered the distribution of UAI anomalies over the past decade (Aug 07 to Jul 17). For March-May 2015 and May 2016, the El Nino was classified as weak. So I considered it to have lasted from June 2015 to April 2016. Given the 5 month lag, I considered the EFFECTS of the non-weak El Nino to have lasted from Nov 2015 to Sep 2016.

    So I removed Nov 2015 to Sep 2016 from the distribution. I did exactly the same for every El Nino and La Nina in the past decade, ignoring months classified as ‘weak’, and shifting by 5 months to account for the lag. This gave me a distribution of ENSO-neutral temperatures over the past decade, with a median, upper and lower quartile, 90th and 10th percentiles.

    Following is how the months since the El Nino fit into that distribution:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99L08byUAxVdElSRUVGTmhIWmM/view?usp=sharing

    Not a single month below the median. If that ain’t ENSO-neutral warming, I don’t know what is. The median of the post El Nino months is 0.12 above the decadal minimum. And since the midpoint of the comparison decade is only 5 years ago, that is a rate of 0.24 degree per decade.

    Of course, deniers will continue to compare the current ENSO-neutral anomalies to the peak of the 97-98 El Nino in order to get their ‘pause’, while hypocritically precluding us from bringing the 15-16 El Nino into the comparison.

    • Bindidon says:

      Thanks Des, good work.

      Last year something different concerning ENSO made me busy for quite a while: the difference between ENSO signals at sea surfaces and the tropospheric reactions.

      While lots of people especially at WUWT claimed the 2015/16 Nino edition be much stronger than 1997/98, all ENSO series told something different:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170806/lmcsutsm.png

      The reason for this different understanding soon was clear: all these people (with werner brozek as frontman) thought UAH would be best to measure El Ninos intensity. Nonsense.

      One year later your comment reminds me I had an open question, still without an answer: if the strong 2015/16 edition was weaker than the preceeding one (and even weaker than the one in 1982/83), where did then the extra tropospheric warming in 2015/16 come from?

      • Des says:

        It seems you have much more knowledge about the details of this topic than I do.

        However, from a statistical perspective, I don’t agree with you starting all of your graphs at zero in January. Looking at the ONI, that choice has artificially separated the two data sets. Both El Ninos reach the same peak in the ONI data, and that shouldn’t be affected by what the ONI was doing a year beforehand. I haven’t really looked at the other indices, but I would guess you’ve artificially separated them too. Comparisons should always be relative to a long-term mean, not an arbitrarily chosen data point.

        I don’t agree with using ANY global temperature data to measure ENSO. But at the very least it should be detrended.

        I can’t answer your question. All I will say is that there is more to El Nino than just higher temperatures, so there is more than one way to consider its ‘strength’. It is not a one-dimensional concept. The ONI focuses on sea surface temperature anomalies, which is basically what causes the extra heat. So if heat is what you are interest then I think the ONI is the way to go (or at least the starting point). If you were interested in drought or precipitation then you might analyse a different ENSO metric. I don’t like the idea of MEI trying to combine all the metrics into a single magic number, which ultimately doesn’t tell you anything about any single component of ENSO. The answer to your question might lie in not considering ENSO as something that can be measured by a single number, and not relying on single magic number to gauge what an ENSO event is doing.

        • Bindidon says:

          Thanks once more Des, this time for these precise answers.

          What concerns the zero start in January of the two ENSO phases: this is a copy/paste of Bob Tisdale’s idea who regularly published that at WUWT.

          But even if you choose different periods or compare using e.g. the 12 biggest anomalies among them: the result keeps the same: 2015/16 is way weaker than the two other big guys of the recent past.

          What concerns your critique against MEI I can’t react to.

          But I guess Klaus Wolter who works since over 30 years in that domain will have had some reasons to propose this integrative approach.

          A detail at the end: while searching for some info within my link set, I found this, maybe it could interest you if you weren’t there before:

          http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/quinn/

          • Des says:

            ONI … three strongest months of each El Nino.

            82/83: 2.1 2.1 2.1
            97/98: 2.2 2.2 2.3
            15/16: 2.2 2.3 2.2

            So by that index (the one best equipped to indicate the ability of the equatorial Pacific to shed heat to the atmosphere), the last two were almost identical, and both were stronger than the first.

          • Des says:

            Oops – error.
            97/98 should be 2.2 2.3 2.3

          • Bindidon says:

            Des,

            you are right. It seems that I integrated ONI in the graphics, but not in the ranking.

  82. ren says:

    The simple question: what will be winter in the north when the temperature drops by 0.1 degree?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  83. Crakar24 says:

    The cloud of scientific fraud encircling the bom just got a bit thicker.

    The third version from the bom to explain how 0.4c has been removed from the raw data measurements prior to being recorded is because each automatic weather station has a smart card installed programmed to clip the minimum temps below a software determined threshold. This is fraud, oh and BTW July 2017 WAS the hottest July on record…….yeah right of course it was.

    • Des says:

      So whenever someone makes a mistake it is fraud?
      I guess then Spencer and Christy must have been committing fraud for the first 19 years of the UAH data set when they refused to correct for orbital decay.

      But of course there’s a difference. BOM is reacting immediately the glitch has been pointed out to them. Spencer & Christy waited 19 years. (But note – I am not claiming it was fraud. I’m simply using your standard.)

      Tell me – given the thousand or so weather stations in Australia, and given that the vast majority either never get down to -10 (and there is no issue with a reading of -9.9), and most of the rest only get that low on a handful of days each year, how much do seriously think this will affect the national average? I think 0.01 degrees would be a gross overestimate.

      • Crakar24 says:

        Your vehement defence of the BOM makes you look silly, your smearing of Roy makes you look arrogant and obnoxious.

        Perhaps you don’t understand software code nor how to write it?

        If a section of code limits a number to a specific threshold then the code was written with that intent.

        If one was to state well who cares about whether the station accurately measures the temp or not then perhaps they would fit right in at the bom however I doubt an institution with a shred of integrity would employ them.

        The number of acorn sat stations is approx. 110. However stations not part of acorn sat are used to “homogenise” the data.

        Questions asked the BOM have declined to answer

        1, how many stations have software installed to limit raw cold temps
        2, what are the thresholds set at
        3, how long has this practise been in place
        4, produce the unadjusted and adjusted raw data for comparison (assuming the unadjusted raw data still exists)
        5, provide full disclosure for the justification to apply software.

        The BOM have so far refused to respond to any requests

        • Des says:

          Your vehement defence of Roy makes you look silly, your smearing of the BOM makes you look arrogant and obnoxious.

          I’ve just checked all stations amongst the ‘coldest 50 towns in each state’ back to the start of 2013. Only 5 stations have had ANY temperatures reach -10 in that time, all in NSW:
          Thredbo (7 times)
          Thredbo Village (2)
          Perisher Valley (13)
          Cooma Airport (2)
          Goulburn Airport (1)

          Roughly 1100 stations, roughly 1700 days in that time, two readings per day (max & min). That’s about 370000 data points, of which 25 were affected, for a total discrepancy of 25.5 degrees.

          So it looks like I was way off. That would have affected the annual Australia-wide averages by less than 0.0001 degrees.

          Yep – massive. Someone should get the boot over that one.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Des the more you type the more stupid you look.

            1, I have never felt the need to defend Roy so this statement is false
            2, the bom refuse to state which stations have this software applied, they also have refused to state what the numerical threshold is for each station. What you also don’t know is what the real raw data value was before it was adjusted ergo you just wasted your time.
            3, you don’t know what time scale, I suggest you go back to 1993.

            Once again your defence of the bom is pathetic, not only in your arguments to defend them but also your religious fervor applied

          • Des says:

            Refuse to?? Would you please link me to their refusal.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Why do I have to keep following you around with a brush and shovel?

            You got access to the Australian newspaper?

            You got two working eyes (actually you only need be)

            Read the story by Graham Lloyd, read how he asked the BOM the same questions and the BOM refused hiding behind an internal review.

            Do you need an internal review to state how many aws have smart cards, how the software works etc?

            No of course you dont unless…………
            Unless the BOM have no idea how many have cards and what software is loaded. Oh noes its worse than we thought

        • Des says:

          So so believe what you read in Murdoch-run newspapers. How sad.
          Just like all those idiotic Trump supporter who believe Fox news.
          Rupert Murdoch – the biggest embarrassment to come out of Australia – bigger than Vegemite, Nicole Kidman & Pauline Hanson.

          • crakar24 says:

            Des,

            I have no idea how what you wrote relates to the topic at hand and therefore could not possibly respond in a meaningful way.

          • Des says:

            My only error was placing this comment in the wrong level of this thread. You know exactly which comment of yours I am referring to.

      • Crakar24 says:

        Des, forgot to mention as per the first page of the PDF I supplied that you never bothered to read. The thermometers have a resolution of 0.1c so a change of 0.01c would never be seen.

        • ren says:

          It will now be a big problem with average temperature. It is now clear that the temperature will take extreme values in summer and winter. The cause will be an increase in UVB radiation at the surface of the earth, with a decrease in cloudiness.
          It can be seen that the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is a climate stimulator, just like the oceans.

          • Crakar24 says:

            I thought UV will drop with the solar minimum and it is indeed to be an extended min then UV will drop even further?

          • REN can you explain why you a decrease in cloudiness may occur?.

            I see an increase in global cloud coverage coming due to increasing cosmic rays and UV AND EUV light declining all due to very low solar activity.

            UV/EUV light already weak.

          • why you think forgot the word think.

          • ren says:

            EUV produces ozone and BUV breaks up ozone. When there is less ozone BUV is not absorbed.

          • ren says:

            I mean high pressure areas.

          • ren says:

            Ozone photochemistry is driven by the interaction of the Sun’s radiation with various gases in the atmosphere, particularly oxygen. The understanding of the basics of ozone photochemistry began with Chapman (1930), who hypothesized that UV radiation was responsible for ozone production and proceeded to lay the foundation of stratospheric photochemistry: the Chapman reactions. He proposed that atomic oxygen is formed by the splitting (dissociation) of O2 by high energy ultraviolet photons (i.e., packets of light energy with wavelengths shorter than 242 nanometers).
            http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm

          • ren says:

            Ultraviolet (UV) is an electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength from 10 nm to 400 nm, shorter than that of visible light but longer than X-rays. UV radiation constitutes about 10% of the total light output of the Sun, and is thus present in sunlight.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

        • Right on Cracker . They do not like data which shows cooler global temperatures then the fake NOAA ridiculous misplaced misread thermometers they use.

          In addition to top it off their thermometers have lousy coverage and sparse coverage.

          It is all piece meal the way NOAA does it.

          Forget that data source. Never will I pay attention to it.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Sal,

            The bom fiddling does not end there, Rutherglen has a raw data trend of-1c/100y adjustments and homoginating turn that into a +2.7c/100y.

            Darwin, amberely and many more show similar results. Perth has a square wave modulation per month for many years.

            The bom list the top 5 hottest temps ever recorded on home page however the sea side town of Albany has been the hottest at over 54c in the data base. This temp is so ridiculous it shows just how incompetent the bom are.

            If the bom knew about it it would appear on the home page, or they would change the data as it is obviously an error.

            But hey according to Des all theses mistakes dont make a difference anyhoot.

            What a joke

          • Des says:

            I just looked up Albany’s temperature record. It’s highest temperature is 44.8. Where do you come up with your BS claims.

            This record was on Feb 8 1933, so I suppose the BOM faked that one to show warming did they? The two previous days had been the hottest ever days in Geraldton – 46.4 and 46.0. The 8th was also 44.6 in Perth. The 9th was 45.1 in Carnarvon, only 0.7 below their highest ever.

            Clearly there was a massive heat wave in WA at the time. Your implication that being on the sea precludes those temperatures is laughable. I live a couple of km from the coast in Sydney and we have had a eight 40+ days in the last 12 years, including two 45 degree days.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Quick, quick I need a deflection so I can back out of the whole I have dug regarding the bom I know I will write some smoke a mirrors about Albany lol, lol, lol, effing lol

          • Crakar24 says:

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.009741.daily.txt

            19330208

            One day you will learn bullshit only gets you do far

          • Des says:

            OH …. so you didn’t mean Albany, the ‘sea side town’. You meant Albany AIRPORT, 10 km from the coast.

            And you didn’t mean ‘over 54c’, you actually meant 51.2.

            The story just keeps changing.

          • Norman says:

            Crakar24

            After looking at your data on Albany, Australia, the 51.2 C is most likely a data input error. Things like this can take place when large amounts of data are put into a file. This one error would not change any long term graph and may not even be noticed. You may want to let BOM know they have an error in there chart.

            I found a similar error in a Government disaster report. They had some flood condition reported in the Billion dollar range and it looked wrong. I emailed an official and let them know, it should have been a million dollar disaster. Data entry mistakes do take place.

            I looked at the NOAA records for February 1933 for Australia and the highest near Albany was at Perth with a 41.1 C record. The hottest record in all Australia for February 1933 was 46.1 C from the NOAA data.

            Also look at the two days around that anomaly. The day before this spike the logged data was 32.8 C, then you have the 51.2 C, then the following day it is back down to 38.8. It seems maybe the actual number might that been 41.2 (Perth had a 41 C reading the same day, Feb 8th on the NOAA record list).

            I would conclude it is a data entry error and not use this as some type of argument that the BOM is dishonest.

          • Des says:

            Norman,

            I Found online a copy of “The West Australian” from two days later.
            http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/2818430
            They reported the following temps around WA on the previous day (the day after the 51.2 in Albury):

            Denmark 106 (41.1)
            Bridgetown 112 (44.4)
            Corrigin 112 (44.4)
            Donnybrook 112 (44.4)
            Mingenew: Feb 5 – 120 (48.9); Feb 6 – 122 (50.0); Feb 7 – 124 (51.1)

            The “Albany Advertiser” of Feb 9 …
            http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/6411262
            … reports the Feb 8 temperature in Albany to be 112.6 (44.8). This is precisely the temperature that is reported by BOM for the “Albany” station which is on the coast. But the 51.2 degree reading is for “Albany Airport Comparison” which is 10 km inland. Here is the comparison between “Albany” temperatures and “Albany Airport Comparison” temperatures for the four days surrounding Feb 8 1933:

            Feb 6
            Albany: 27.9
            AAC: 33.3
            +5.7

            Feb 7
            Albany: 27.7
            AAC: 32.8
            +5.1

            Feb 9
            Albany: 32.8
            AAC: 38.8
            +6.0

            Feb 10
            Albany: 27.0
            AAC: 30.8
            +3.8

            For other days the difference is not as great, for some it is greater, but it seems to be the very hot days which give these large differences. Given all this, I don’t find the reading of 51.2 to be surprising at all.

          • Bindidon says:

            Des,

            I don’t understand this crank paranoia leading to consider even smallest mistypings as intentional fiddling.

            ‘Errare humanum est’

            This is a rule that some people love to use when they made mistakes, but never when others did.

            In the GHCN unadjusted record, you can see a few strange lines concerning the temperature measurements at the GHCN station with the id ‘70089606000’ (Vostok, Antarctica):

            70089606000 -78.4500 106.8700 3420.0 VOSTOK 3468R -9HIICno-9x-9ANTARCTICA A

            One of these lines in the record is

            700896060002014TAVG-3000 C-4450 C-5930 C-6530 C-6240 C-6290 C-6830 C-6510 C-6210 C-5440 C-4030 K -320 OC

            It lists the 12 monthly average temperatures entered into the system for this station in 2014.

            Look at the december value: it is -3.20 C instead of -32.00 C.

            This is the consequence of a mistyping: the operator manifestly entered ‘-320O’ instead of ‘-3200’ and the system reacted with ‘-320 O’ because it parsed the ‘O’ as an option.

            This was detected at NOAA: the error is not present in the GHCN adjusted record. The mistyped value was replaced by ‘-9999’ (undefined value).

            Thats all…

          • Norman says:

            Des

            The only problem I am having with this 51.2 C recorded temperature as part of the official record is that it exceeds the highest record temperature for all Australia (which is listed as 50.7).

            So even if this came from an Airport 10 KM away that showed higher temperatures than the city of Albany, it would still be the established highest temperature on record for the continent of Australia.

            I would strongly believe it is a typo-error and maybe they will see it and correct it.

            Here is the official highest recorded temperature in Australia.
            https://www.infoplease.com/science-health/weather/highest-recorded-temperatures

          • barry says:

            A quote worth noting from the SMH.

            Among the more famous not to make the record books was the 53 degree temperature taken in Cloncurry, in north-west Queensland, in 1889.

            “We found documentary evidence for that which showed the measurement was taken in – would you believe – a beer crate nailed to the side of a house,” he said. “That would certainly have affected the reading … which was probably somewhere around 47 degrees.”

          • Crakar24 says:

            Barry pre 1900’s data is ignored by the bom due to a lack of a Stevenson screen

          • Des says:

            Norman,

            All I can say is that if you go to the BOM Weather Station Directory, search for Albany, and select ‘Albany Airport Comparison’, the data there for this station only goes back to 1965. So for whatever reason they aren’t using the data for 1910-1964 in their records, despite the data being available in the ACORN-SAT file that was linked to. I don’t know for sure about the reason for this exclusion, but I suspect it is due to the BOM’s doubt as to the integrity of the data. In reference to Barry’s comment about Cloncurry, there is no data in the Weather Station Directory for Cloncurry before 1939, almost certainly for that reason. Contrary to the dolt’s claims, the BOM has chosen not to use a lot of data whose source they don’t trust.

          • Crakar24 says:

            A dolt that’s a new one, does it compare well with moron?

        • ren says:

          Mg II index data
          The Mg II data are derived from GOME (1995-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), GOME-2A (2007-present), and GOME-2B (2012-present). All three data sets as well as the Bremen Mg II composite data are available (see links below). In late years the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of its value near 280 nm in 1995, so that the GOME data have become noisier. The most recent information on our Mg II data can be found in Snow et al. (2014).
          http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html

          • ren says:

            “He proposed that atomic oxygen is formed by the splitting (dissociation) of O2 by high energy ultraviolet photons (i.e., packets of light energy with wavelengths shorter than 242 nanometers).”

  84. It is a joke as well as the data NOAA puts out.

  85. Crakar24 says:

    Different country same manipulation, same result.

  86. Crakar24 says:

    While Des is banging away on his keyboard attempting to defend the bom let’s remind ourselves of the excuses so far.

    First excuse: the thermometers are broken.
    Second excuse: all low temps are automatically adjusted up and then checked manually at a later date
    Third excuse: automatic weather stations have a smart card with software loaded onto them which automatically adjusts low temps to a pre defined level.

    The bom refuse to divulge information such as:
    1, how many stations have smart cards
    2, do they all adjust the low temps up
    3, do any adjust the high temps up/down
    4, how long had this practice been place
    5, justification??????

    Remember we are talking about the raw data before it is recorded and yet Barry and Des etc somehow defend this these actions

  87. Bindidon says:

    This is the information of BOM concerning the Rutherglen station:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

    This the ‘interpretation’ by the site called ‘JoNova’ of what happened:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bom-claims-rutherglen-data-was-adjusted-because-of-site-move-but-it-didnt-happen/

    Read the documents carefully, and build your meaning.

    I did, especially as I saw at JoNova one more of these typical graphs showing ‘adjustments’ of raw data:

    http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/rutherglen-tmin.jpg

    You can’t imagine how many of these charts I had to see in the last years at sites like WUWT, Climate Audit, Goddard’s, NoTricksZone, etc etc etc.

    Interestingly, all these sites show discrepancies between raw and adjusted data ONLY if it goes in the expected direction, i.e. adjusted warmer than raw.

    Plenty of GHCn stations were proudly displayed when showing an adjusted record with a trend higher than that of the unadjusted variant!

    But until now I did not discover even one showing adjusted data which was cooler than its raw origin.

    The reality, as far as the GHCN record is concerned, is quite a bit different.

    Here is a chart showing, for all 7,280 GHCN stations, the linear trend estimate calculated for their respective activity period:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170806/3g3ux7rx.jpg

    Indeed, there are some more at the left, warm side than at the right, cool side: the left curve’s integral is higher than the right’s one.

    But that can’t change anything to this situation below:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170806/rp6j7eyn.jpg

    You see how much tinier the difference is than these sites all suggerate to you. That is the reason why none of these sites show you that graph.

    Linear trend comparisons in C / decade

    1. 1880-2016
    – unadj: 0.214 +- 0.006
    – adj: 0.229 +- 0.006 (7 % higher)

    2. 1979-2016
    – unadj: 0.399 +- 0.032
    – adj: 0.424 +- 0.031 (6 % higher)

    In comparison: the move from UAH5.6 to UAH6.0 was a necessary action from the point of view of Roy Spencer; but it resulted in a trend decrease by about 19 % (from UAH5.6 at 0.155 C / decade down to UAH6.0 at 0.124).

    And what you certainly never see as well is this:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170806/oq8cr28y.jpg

    Simply because they always tell you ‘GISS cools the past to get the present warmer’.

    How could they continue to pretend that after having published a graph showing GISS land-only being warmer than GHCN in the past and cooler in the present?

    *

    Be sure I dont appreciate at all these warmistas with their recurrent hotter than evah. But the medals other side isnt even half a bit better!

    • crakar24 says:

      Bin,

      I appreciate the effort you went to in compiling the above comment and agree there is more than meets the eye with GISS etc.

      We are however discussing the BOM in Australia where we have a square wave modulation applied to temp adjustments based on a calendar month.

      With the Rutherglen example is there any evidence to support a station move?………..no there is not, more importantly is there a smart card fitted which clips the Tmin temps to a predetermined threshold like the BOM has admitted exists at least 7 stations.

      There may be justifiable reasons to adjust the raw data up/down whatever AFTER it has been recorded in the record for future reference.

      To adjust the raw data before it is entered into the record is a whole new level of at best incompetence and at worst scientific malpractice.

      • Des says:

        So let me get this right. On the one hand you are claiming that adjustments are made BEFORE the data is recorded, but on the other you are claiming to have seen the unprocessed data in order to make you claim that “Rutherglen has a raw data trend of-1c/100y adjustments and homoginating turn that into a +2.7c/100y”.

        So which is it? Was the raw data recorded or wasn’t it?

        • Crakar24 says:

          I don’t understand this new line of defence of the bom, are you saying rutherglen also has a memory card in it containing software designed to adjust the raw data before it is recorded in the acorn sat data base?

    • barry says:

      Bindidon, the land adjustments for GHCN have warmed the long-term record. However, the sea surface temperature adjustments cooled the long-term record – by more. The combined effect is that the global long-term adjusted trend is lower than raw.

  88. crakar24 says:

    Des please stop, the more you type the more credibility you lose, your blind faith in AGW is betraying you.

    If you go to this page you will see the list of all time hottest temps in Australia, do you see Albany in the list Des?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/extreme/records.shtml

    Of course you don’t because the BOM are an incompetent and corrupt institution.

    Whats that Des? You crunched the numbers and this erroneous data point makes no difference to the overall trend?

    How many times do you need to “bump up” the temps at some sites and drop the temps down at others before you start affecting the trend?

    • barry says:

      Lot of cold records under -10 C. Isn’t the charge that BoM deliberately cuts cold temperatures?

      • crakar24 says:

        Its not a charge Barry its an admission from the BOM.

        • barry says:

          Yeah, I read that the temperature recording device automatically clips readings below -10 C for Thredbo. They have high min/max limiters on some devices it seems, for the purpose of rejecting anomalous readings. Maybe the settings on this one were done improperly, or they just need to adjust the limit.

          Do you know if they attempting to verify the reading? What is the reading they give for it now?

          I noted that the lowest temps for Thredbo given by BoM are less than -10 C.

          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_071032_All.shtml
          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009500.shtml

          Is this thermometer error a big issue? Because it means that thermometers everywhere in Australia are also dicky?

          • Des says:

            I have checked all sites which can possibly reach -10. All of them show the real temperatures – they are no longer clipped to -10. The worst was Perisher. It had 13 instances in the past 4.5 years. I wonder if c has bothered to calculate what difference that would make to annual averages for Perisher.

          • Crakar24 says:

            Do you people realise how silly you look?

            1, adjusting raw data before it is recorded is an abuse of the scientific method

            2, you have no idea what cards are in what stations and what the software loaded is designed to do

            The bom acknowledged there are at least 7 stations and you condone this action?

          • MikeR says:

            The originator of the garbage re Thredbo and Goulburn is Jennifer Marohasy a “scientist” (I use the word in the loosest possible sense ) who is an employee of the Australian right wing think tank, the IPA. The IPA is a down under affiliate of the Heartland Instute ( see- https://tinyurl.com/yd6hobuq) and Jennifer’s role is naturally to generate controversy about climate change.

            She manages to do this aided and abetted by radio and TV shock jocks and the Murdoch press. She has even managed to crack the big time at Bretbart News.

            You can read some of her nonsense here – http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/bureau-inconsistencies-need-urgent-independent-inquiry/.

            This is just one example that demonstrates her capabilities.

            Among her many core incompetencies are a misunderstanding of statistics, scientific instrumentation, quality control and inabilty to read and/or understand technical documentation.

            I have made a number of comments on her blogs, which of course, arouses the anger of the cheer squad. Some people may find the exchanges entertaining and simultaneously depressing.

            If you want to get a glimpse of her scientific prowess then read the ironically titled “skilful monthly rain forecasting” blog (and comments).

          • barry says:

            Out of curiosity I checked the weather station in the article for coldest readings since 1990, when it first became operational.

            Prior to last July there are 4 readings below -10 C, all at least -10.1.

            No temperatures are exactly -10C, so this has never been an issue in the past.

            Some scandal.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” MikeR says:
            August 7, 2017 at 5:11 AM

            The originator of the garbage re Thredbo and Goulburn is Jennifer Marohasy a scientist (I use the word in the loosest possible sense )”

            I spent a few mins following your links. I knew nothing about Jennifer and still don’t, but I didn’t see any claim about her being scientist.
            “Should we find ourselves at war again, is there an institution or individual capable of providing an accurate short or long-term weather forecast?

            Dr John Abbot and I are working towards better medium-term rainfall forecasts, as explained in the highlights to our latest research paper:”

            So this is about regional short range forecast- which is important.

            You say:
            “Neville did you read my comments above? Clearly not. Jennifers grandiose claim that she outperforms the BOM is unjustified. She is predicting rainfall for a few specific locations while the BOM makes predictions on a regional basis.”
            Maybe this about the difference of what is regional?
            In terms of a theatre of a military operation?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Jennifer Marohasy (born 1963) is an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger. She was a senior fellow at the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs between 2004 and 2009 and director of the Australian Environment Foundation until 2008.She holds a PhD in biology from the University of Queensland. She is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming.”

            So she is biologist and has done stuff on environmental issues.
            Has worked with Dr John Abbot, who has book:
            https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Dr-John-Abbot-ebook/dp/B00S5L5Y0W
            which I haven’t read.

          • MikeR says:

            Gbaiki did you read Dr Marohasy’s paper? From the sounds of it, you didn’t.

            She makes claims in her paper that her technique outperforms the BOMs based on a comparison beteeen her forecasts for specific locations with regional based forecasts that encompasses hundreds of locations . There were a number of other issues with the paper that suggests that whoever reviewed the paper was asleep at the wheel (see my other comments).

            You point out correctly that Jennifer Marohasy has a background in biology and ecology. Unfortunately her limitations become blatantly obvious when she ventures into territory well beyond the boundaries of her expertise. The latest nonsense is just another example but if you want the full repertoire just read the other material on her blog.

          • gbaikie says:

            “The latest nonsense is just another example but if you want the full repertoire just read the other material on her blog.”

            I am mostly interested in what I think is important.
            Space exploration is important.
            What NASA thinks is space exploration, begs the question can NASA actually think. But it’s the army we have, rather than army we want.

            Not that interested in “climate change”. And it’s sort like saying you might not interested in the enemy, but enemy is interested in you.
            So, I got dragged into this issue of climate, largely against my will, though one can call it a bad habit I have developed, and I am willful about it.
            Speaking of war, it’s another topic which was an important issue and I think derailed possible lunar exploration.
            In what might seem quite crazy, I think space exploration is a better way to win a war- any war. So, wars in general.
            Also defeat poverty. And has been defeating poverty.
            But not really NASA’s version of space exploration.
            Or I would inclined to say US cooperation with Russia in terms if ISS, caused more war rather then it’s intention to minimize this possibility.
            Anyways, generally unless she wants to discuss important things like space exploration- I need some reason to be interested in her.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes Gbaikie, a very wise decision to steer clear of her. I just wish others had your wisdom. The whole fiasco has taken on a life of its own.

          • MikeR says:

            As a follow up to my comments above re Jennifer Marohasy.

            As I pointed out earlier Jennifer is an employee of the right wing think tank, the IPA . The IPA is well known in Australia to be a bastion of free speech and Jennifer usually tolerates dissent until the point where it becomes personally embarrassing and obvious that the Empress has no clothes.

            An example of this is the comments regarding the current imbroglio that Jennifer has manufactured see –

            http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/bureau-inconsistencies-need-urgent-independent-inquiry/.

            These debates have been vigorous and have run in the past to hundreds of comments and usually last weeks.

            This one was abruptly terminated after just 5 days after I posted the following , regarding her highly dubious claims.

            Still waiting for a response from Jennifer.

            I just hope that she doesnt precipitously close down comments in the meantime. It would then be such a terrible shame that someone reading these comments would get the impression that Jennifer isnt able to formulate a sensible response.

            However she could always plead the 5th Amendment.

            This comment was expunged from the Marohasy site soon after it appeared and then comments were immediately closed down by Jennifer. The only exception being a closing statement from herself which unfortunately did not include a sensible response to my queries.

            So much for the advocacy of free speech. It was fun while it lasted.

          • gbaikie says:

            — MikeR says:
            August 8, 2017 at 6:53 PM

            As a follow up to my comments above re Jennifer Marohasy. —

            I would note that I wouldn’t run a blog because I loved it.

            And I will take this opportunity, to thank Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. for putting up with it.
            Though one reason post here, is don’t like remembering or depending on passwords in order to make posts.
            Or, I would still be posting at Climate, Etc which is interesting, though check out it every once in a while [but don’t post].

      • crakar24 says:

        No comment about how the hottest temp ever recorded in Australia is not recognised by the BOM?

        • Snape says:

          Bindidon, des

          Comparing the ONI values of different el nino’s can be misleading. The 3.4 rectangle is rather small, and each event produces more or less warming elsewhere. These differences are not accounted for in the ONI. For example, the 97/98 was much stronger farther east compared to the 15/16.

          Just something to think about.

          • Bindidon says:

            This, Snape, is exactly the reason why I prefer MEI, as unlike to NINO3+4 or ONI, it encompasses more than SST in the tropical region 5N-5S–170W-120W.

      • barry says:

        Does it make a material difference to the temperature record?

        JoNova (Aussie skeptic website) posted an article complaining that BoM had in its ACORN records a 51.2 C temperature anomaly in 1933. Skeptic site said it was obviously an error that bumps up the monthly average by 0.2C

        http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/was-the-hottest-day-ever-in-australia-not-in-a-desert-but-in-far-south-albany/

        But you’re saying though some malfeasance from warmist BoM, this numeral has been changed? Is this right?

        So if they raise the record in the early part of the record, that makes the overall trend a bit lower, right?

        But you’re saying they lowered the value to bump up the trend (which would make a difference in the 10 thousandths of a degree per decade)?

        Searching for the issue has just made it less transparent. Do skeptics want BoM to fix obvious data entries or keep them? Not sure trying to figure it out between you and JoNova (whose website has been on BoM’s case for years).

  89. crakar24 says:

    But youre saying though some malfeasance from warmist BoM, this numeral has been changed? Is this right?

    Sigh…………..what I am saying Barry is Albany holds the record for the hottest temp ever recorded in Australia, if this is true then why is it not listed in the BOM site as such? One would think the BOM would be aware of such things correct?

    As it is not heralded as the hottest ever recorded temp then the question asked is why?

    Are the BOM not aware of its existence or do they accept it is an error, if so why after 87 years has it not been corrected?

    The rest of your comment is pure projection on your part and not worth a response, what I will say is the BOM have been aware of this temp record for some years but as yet have not bothered to resolve the issue.

    Now back to the point at hand, do you Barry condone the actions of an institution when they adjust the raw data before it is recorded? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    • barry says:

      You’re asking me to speculate on that daily reading?

      Ok. It looks like an outlier, a false reading. A mistake at source or during transcription.

      I agree with the skeptic webpage on it I linked for you.

      This is the Feb data for Albany (airport?) posted at JoNova – when BoM still had the 51.2 reading.

      DATE Temp (c)
      19330201 25.5
      19330202 29.6
      19330203 30.4
      19330204 35.2
      19330205 23.0
      19330206 33.3
      19330207 32.8
      19330208 51.2
      19330209 38.8
      19330210 30.8
      19330211 25.5
      19330212 24.2
      19330213 27.0
      19330214 30.8
      19330215 28.9
      19330216 28.2
      19330217 28.0
      19330218 26.5
      19330219 27.0
      19330220 29.6
      19330221 28.5
      19330222 23.1
      19330223 23.9
      19330224 25.0
      19330225 28.5
      19330226 25.2
      19330227 23.0
      19330228 23.2

      20 C higher than the day before. BoM now posts the highest recorded temp in Feb at Albany of 44.8 C. The average for the month is 22.9 C.

      I agree with Jo Nova – the 51.2 reading looks like a clear error.

      Do you see my problem here? I’ve got a skeptic on my left (you) saying this reading should be in the record. I’ve got a skeptic on my right – who has been posting about BoM temp record for years – saying this reading is clearly false.

      There’s only one thing these 2 skeptics have in common. They think BoM have crappy weather records. But their arguments for why completely contradict.

      To clarify, you think the JoNova article is wrong?

    • barry says:

      Are the BOM not aware of its existence or do they accept it is an error

      They had that reading at one point in time (cf JoNova), so it seems BoM thinks it was an erroneous reading.

    • barry says:

      I checked the daily temp records for Albany. Feb 8 1933 is now listed at 44.8 C.

      So BoM have changed it down from the 51.2 C reading they used to have.

      I still agree with JoNova – the higher reading just seems too unlikely.

      • crakar24 says:

        You are like Des as in you don’t read too well.

        What I am about to show you is SOP for the BOM. The more you dig the more you find.

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009741.shtml

        The above link takes you to the BOM page which tells you the following

        Site name: ALBANY AIRPORT COMPARISON
        Site number: 009741
        Latitude: 34.94 S Longitude: 117.80 E
        Elevation: 68 m
        Commenced: 1942 Status: Closed 25 Feb 2014
        Latest available data: 25 Feb 2014

        Note the date the station commenced and the site number

        Here is a link to the original BOM data from station ID 009741 also note this file still exists on the BOM website

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.009741.daily.txt

        The header on this file reads

        MAX TEMP 009741 19100101 20140224 missing_value=99999.9 ALBANY AIRPORT COMPARISON

        Once again take note of the station site ID, the year the station commenced (1910) and also note the name of the station.

        Granted the BOM may have finally adjusted the temp down to a cooler reading but the data you are claiming to show the BOM have adjusted the temps down is for a different station, the data you are providing is from 009500 not 009471.

        Welcome to the adjustocene BOM style Barry

        • crakar24 says:

          Sorry in my haste I forgot to allow you to compare the pair

          Station 009500 details

          Site details

          Site name: ALBANY Site number: 009500 Commenced: 1877
          Latitude: 35.03 S Longitude: 117.88 E Elevation: 3 m Operational status: Still Open

          Station 009741 details

          Site name: ALBANY AIRPORT COMPARISON
          Site number: 009741
          Latitude: 34.94 S Longitude: 117.80 E
          Elevation: 68 m

          Two different stations Barry good luck explaining this one LOL

        • barry says:

          Reading comments above, you kept saying ‘Albany’ not Albany Airport. I went to the BoM site and chose Albany. That’s the wrong site. Ok then.

          Unfortunately, the JoNova article which shows the old BoM data with the 51.2 C reading doesn’t specify which Albany site they got it from. Looks like it’s from Airport Comparison.

          The two different data sets have different start dates. Ok.

          Which one do they use for operational data? Is there a reason for the earlier cut-off in one data set compared to the other?

          Is the 1910 data raw, and the shorter period the one they use because of issues with the earlier part of the record (like the 52.1 reading) that render them unreliable?

          A link to the source page for the longer record might give a clue.

          I still doubt it’s an issue, but let’s try to figure out what’s going on.

        • barry says:

          I’d guess the ACORN data set (beginning 1910) is the one they use for estimating temp rends for Australia and regional.

          Now I want to know if you linked to a current data set or an old one. I backtracked through the link, and the webpage it comes from is dead.

          ?

          • crakar24 says:

            You wont figure it out Barry,

            For example the link I posted is this one, it shows stat ID 009741:

            The header file reads:

            009741 19100101 20140224 missing_value=99999.9 ALBANY AIRPORT COMPARISON

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.009741.daily.txt

            This file shows the 51.2C in 1933 Feb 08, the data begins in 1910

            This link shows the same site on the BOM page:

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009741.shtml

            This claims the station became operational in 1965 (data starts in 1965)

            The below link shows stat ID 009500 which became operational in 1877, the BOM only use data from 1900’s due to Stevenson screen implementation. This station shows a lower value than 51.2C but uts a different station, different ID, different location.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009500.shtml

            From the txt file link I gave you, you used to be able to change the ID number and view any station you wanted but now you cant only this file still exists.

            So what happened to the data from 009741 post 1965? Probably erased from the record.

          • crakar24 says:

            Sorry meant pre 1965

          • barry says:

            Where did you get this link from?

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.009741.daily.txt

            I’ve been unable to source it via the BoM website.

          • barry says:

            You wont figure it out Barry

            I’m halfway there (see below). The actual site at the Airport has only been in operation since 1965. So presumably Albany Airport Comparison weather station for Acorn is a merged data set using station data from stat ID 009500 and 009741. Acorn merges data from neigbouring stations to derive data from 1910.

          • barry says:

            So what happened to the data from 009741 post 1965? Probably erased from the record.

            Looks like the post 1965 009741 data was retained and the 009500 data was merged with it to derive an extended record back to 1910.

          • barry says:

            Ok, got some more clues and maybe an answer.

            Here is a comparison of the data from ACORN, and from the BoM weather statistics page. First set is from your old link – ACORN merged data.

            Station data ID 009741, ACORN record

            19330201 25.5
            19330202 29.6
            19330203 30.4
            19330204 35.2
            19330205 23.0
            19330206 33.3
            19330207 32.8
            19330208 51.2
            19330209 38.8
            19330210 30.8

            Second set is data for the weather station in the town of Albany Station ID 009500 – this is the one with missing values from 1965-2001.

            19330201 23.5
            19330202 26.1
            19330203 26.8
            19330204 28.9
            19330205 22.0
            19330206 27.9
            19330207 27.7
            19330208 44.8
            19330209 32.4
            19330210 27.0

            BoM have adjusted the old (Albany 009500) weather station record upwards in the early part of the record to account for the bias with the station move. Looks like temps at the Airport are warmer on average than temps in the town (in the early part of the record anyway).

            That is likely why the record stands at 44.8 for actual temp readings at the site, but is listed as 51.2 C in the ACORN merged set because of the corrections for the station move.

            Because ACORN merges weather station data to get a long-term data set, actual temp records for each individual station should be obtained from the BoM weather statistics page.

            Airport Station (009741):

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009741.shtml

            Albany Town (009500):

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009500.shtml

          • barry says:

            Just reiterating from an earlier post, I’m assuming on the evidence that these two stations were merged, but I’m only 95% sure.

            One more bit of relevant info on ACORN data sets:

            In cases where no suitable overlap data exists, adjustments in the ACORN-SAT dataset are made using data from a number of closely correlated reference stations in the region. This is done in a two-step process that first matches the old site to the reference station and then the reference station to the new site. Normally a combination of 10 reference stations is used in this process.

            For Albany station move from the town to the Airport, there is no overlapping data, so I presume they used the combination of nearby stations as a reference for the adjustment to marge the record from the different locations. BoM also used the post-2002 009500 data as another reference point.

            Notes on the history:

            Albany weather station 009500 was relocated to the Airport in 1965, and given a new designation, 009471.

            In 2002 a new weather station was set up in Albany (town) and given the old designation number 009500.

            Presumably: ACORN merged these three data sets to create the continuous Albany record, which they designated as a single station ID – 009471, same as the Airport (Comparison), using a reference network of 10 (or so) neighbouring stations to help account for any bias due to the 1965 station move.

            Observations commenced at the airport site (009741) in April 1965. There were no overlapping observations at the time. However, in 2002 a site was re-established near the former town site and using its number, and the post-2002 observations have been used to estimate suitable adjustments for the 1965 move.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT-Station-Catalogue-2012-WEB.pdf

          • barry says:

            BTW, found the current link for the txt file of ACORN Albany Airport Comparison on this page.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-networks&-network=

            It’s exactly the same as your old link, so we’ve verified that your old link is still the current ACORN data.

        • barry says:

          I found a note from BoM on the Albany/Airport site:

          “The original site (009500) had several locations in the town. The site moved in May 1913, February 1916 (unconfirmed), 1925 and 1950 (only a small move). Observations commenced at the airport site (009741) in April 1965. There were no overlapping observations at the time. However, in 2002 a site was re-established near the former town site and using its number, and the post-2002 observations have been used to estimate suitable adjustments for the 1965 move.There has been one known move since the site has been located at the airport, 150 m to the northeast on 4 August 1992. An automatic weather station was installed at this time and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996.”

          http://lab.environment.data.gov.au/data/acorn/climate/slice/station/009741

          Which offers a clue (but no resolution) on why the data start in 1965 on the BoM weather statistics web page.

          The 1933 Feb 8 max temp is listed at 52.1 at that portal.

          • crakar24 says:

            I have had that link for a number of years now, I once went trawling through the BOM maze and found it. I am surprised its still a live link as it looks like all the others have been removed.

          • barry says:

            We could find out if it is an archived or operational data set by comparing the values from the current portal to the link you have kept. If the values are the same all the way through, then your old link is probably sill current data.

            However, it wouldn’t make much of a difference to the discussion re 52.1 C recorded in 1933, as that value appears on both data sets.

            What I have so far is this:

            * Station ID 009741 (Alb Air Comp) began operating in April 1965.

            * On the BoM weather statistics page, that Station ID statistics is listed as starting in 1965.

            * The Acorn data set lists the 009741 data set beginning in 1910.

            * Albany station ID has a data gap from 1965 to early 2000s.

            It’s clear that the weather station moved from town to the Airport in 1965. I’m pretty sure BoM merged the two data sets to get the longer ACORN record, and listed it under one station under the 009741 designation for that product. I’d guess there will be differences between the ACORN record and the BoM weather statistics data based on how they tried to account for any bias associated with the station move.

  90. gbaikie says:

    “The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s glaciers. ”
    http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

    So I generally agree with the above.
    I think changes in Earth’s orbit causes glaciers to advance and to retreat globally or cause glacial and interglacial periods in our icebox climate.
    And that Milutin Milankovitch is credited “with calculating their magnitude”.
    Or that Earth orbit changes were known, but how much is significant thing.
    Now to me this is similar to discovery that space rocks hit Earth- it’s the quantification of how much space rocks hit Earth which is important.
    Also that we still lack quantification of how much space rocks hit Earth- or we have probably much better than a vague idea of how much impacts Earth.
    Or if looking at impact crater, now, people probably don’t spend much time arguing that might be from a gas explosion or something. Or we can search number of impact craters on Earth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth
    or:
    “The study looked at the ways Earth erosion affects existing craters and concluded that the current count of 70 craters larger than 6 km (3.7 miles) in diameter should be just about right.”
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-craters-are-earth-180955771/
    And I think we might be further along on the topic impactors
    as compared quantifying Earth’s changes in orbit [maybe] but we will find out more about space rocks hitting earth [it’s easily predictable- and could find many surprises].
    But idea rock hitting earth has significant effects [killed dinosaurs] and changing Earth’s orbit has significant effects [affects glaciation periods] is a start.

    • barry says:

      Have to be a mighty big rock to change Earth’s orbit meaningfully. Dunno if you were trying to tie those things together from your comments.

      • gbaikie says:

        No, it just both ideas are relatively new. I could have mentioned plate tectonic theory instead of impactors, as plate tectonic is also new. But instead it reminded of issue regarding impactors [which sort of began because Apollo Program proved that prove the lunar surface was mostly shaped by impactors rather than perhaps volcanic activity- and dating recent lunar impact craters.
        But could a large impactor such one ending dinosaurs and other large impactors affect Earth’s orbit?

        There is no doubt it would, but I never seen any numbers in terms of how much. Likewise never seen any numbers regarding lunar impactors affecting the lunar orbit.
        It might be out there, I just haven’t seen it.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Major Global Changes:
          The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
          The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth’s rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
          The impact does not shift the Earth’s orbit noticeably.”
          http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/Chicxulub.html

          Not sure what “noticeably” means.

          • gbaikie says:

            “We found that the kinetic energy of the impactor is in the range from 1.3e24 J to 5.8e25 J. The mass is in the range of 1.0e15 kg to 4.6e17 kg. Finally, the diameter of the object is in the range of 10.6 km to 80.9 km. ”
            Assessments of the energy, mass and size of the Chicxulub Impactor
            https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6391

            1.0e15 kg = 1 trillion tonnes
            4.6e17 kg = 460 trillion tonnes

            And if 1 trillion tonnes [smaller] it would have been a higher
            velocity comet. Or I say about 30 to 40 km/sec [67108.1 to 89477.5 mph] and larger mass being about 20 km/sec [44,738.7 mph]
            Or largest rocket made and launch was Saturn V [2.966 million kg or 2,966,000 kg is 2966 tonnes. And I know somewhere someone calculated how much a rocket launch would affect earth orbit [by very, very small amount] and this would be in order of trillion times more than rocket launch- though, still by some small amount.

        • barry says:

          Not sure what “noticeably” means.

          I’d guess “insignificant” WRT anything that it might make a meaningful difference to.

          • gbaikie says:

            Well, I would say uncertainly of nature of impact effect on rotation or orbit could +/- a factor of 100.
            From say mean value, what be effect if 1000 times of this- still insignificant?

            Or Chicxulub is simply the most recent known and largest
            impactor. Or an impactor of say 10,000 times of force, has in the past hit Earth though it may not have been in last 1/2 billion years. Though likely larger impactors than caused the Chicxulub crater have hit earth with last 1/2 billion years
            Wiki [link given above]:
            “The largest unconfirmed craters 200 km or more are significant not only for their size, but also for the possible coeval events associated with them. For example, the Wilkes Land crater has been connected to the massive PermianTriassic extinction event.”

            Again wiki:
            Vredefort crater diameter 300 km 2023 million years
            Sudbury diameter 250 km 1849 million years
            Chicxulub diameter 180 66 million

            unconfirmed craters 200 km or more:

            Australian impact structure 600 km 545 million years
            Shiva crater 500 km 65 million years
            Wilkes Land crater 480-500 km 250-500 million years

  91. gbaikie says:

    Oh, in case you didn’t get it, I said, no, in terms impactors affecting earth orbit in term any time within last few million years- at anytime during the most recent icebox climate of Earth.
    Or there were “small” impactors during this time period, but not anything as large as might alter earth orbit “significantly”- regardless of velocity and/or how their trajectory impacted earth.

    Or the Milankovitch cycles change in Earth orbit is due to gravitational effects, I would guess, of mostly Jupiter.

    Which can effect Mars, Earth, [Venus and I guess Mercury’s strange orbit also]. Or roughly speaking it’s related to all planets and their gravitational “dependencies” on each other.

    • gbaikie says:

      Anyhow, how to the Milankovitch Cycles affect the global climate of Earth during it’s icebox climate?

      Again, icebox climate is cold oceans and polar ice caps.

      The cold ocean gets warm surface waters within time periods of
      centuries and in terms 1 C degree difference in entire average temperature of the ocean, it has possible changes occurring over time period of thousand of years.

      Changes in average temperature of ocean [not surface] causes sea level rise. There other factors which cause sea level rise. With the 20th century rise in sea level [about 8″] about 1/3 was due to ocean thermal expansion [an increase in average ocean temperature].

      I would say changes in average ocean temperature is directly relate to global average temperature- a cold ocean means lower global average, a warm ocean means a higher global average temperature. And a warm ocean doesn’t have polar ice caps, though in term of short term, one doesn’t have polar sea ice.
      Though even with a very warm ocean, earth still get snow and one could have some glaciers- or snow pack which can last one year or most of year. Or could definitely go skiing, in same sense that in tropics one could find areas with snow to go skiing. Google it, ie:
      https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-11-19/story-about-tropical-skiing-climate-change-and-turning-lemons-lemonade

      Or very warm ocean and very high average global temperature has very little to do with “hot weather” though it’s all about or to do with tropical weather [in tropics near ocean and at sea level it never reaches freezing, and tends to have a fair amount of rain- or it has a tropical climate].

    • gbaikie says:

      But returning our icebox climate.
      We have had cold ocean and ice caps for millions of years, and “global warming” [or not including things like vastly huge volcanic activity- or nearby supernovas, etc] is not going to change this any time soon [within centuries or thousands of years].
      Now ocean temperature relates to global average temperature, but ocean surface temperature is global average temperature.
      Or ocean cover 70% of planet Earth.
      {In terms political analogy, ocean controls the vote. And ocean gives a consistent vote, land is bunch of crazies, and land does not matter in terms of the vote. The ocean is implacable [Or Lefties *must*, hate, hate it]. But continuing, the analogy to something useful, the surface temperatures do change- or they will vote for different people, and the land crazies also change their vote and tend to follow the ocean vote.}
      So the average ocean is the reality which surface ocean must follow, eventually, but ocean surface has daily, yearly,
      decadic activity. Chaos may rule on shorter time frames {Ie land could even have “some” effect] and has longer periods of dancing [movement or having a some pattern] and all these changes decades, centuries add up to changes of the whole ocean or the “reality” of ocean.

      The dominate feature of the ocean is the tropical ocean.
      The dominate feature of any planet warmed by the Sun is the tropical region. With Earth more 1/2 of sunlight strikes in 40% of surface area of the tropics. If you extend the tropical zone [poleward] so it to include 1/2 of Earth surface than one getting a super majority of the sunlight reaching this area and small minorities of sunlight reach the two other quarters of surface of the planet.
      Or as is commonly said, the tropics warms the world. But more precisely it’s the tropical ocean which warms the world.

  92. barry says:

    crakar,

    I may have found a place to get instrument data – at least the serial numbers.

    Here’s the station metadata for Albany Airport Comparison, for example.

    http://tinyurl.com/ybdm8lg4

    Instrument info starts on p. 17.

    You can get these records by clicking on ‘Additional site information’ on the average statistics page you’ve linked before. Eg:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009741.shtml

    ….which takes you to a map of the location:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=009741&p_prim_element_index=0&p_comp_element_index=0&period_of_avg=&normals_years=&redraw=null&p_display_type=enlarged_map

    ….and then under the map click the link marked ‘basic site summary’, which brings up the PDF file with metadata, including instrument changes and serial numbers (if they have the info).

  93. uk ian brown says:

    anyone any views on the possibility that the expansion of cities.the construction of roads. airports,solar farms.at the expense of green spaces may cause warming at the poles.given that forests and vegetation absorb sunlight and hard surfaces radiate heat .which rises then moves to the poles cools and descends in a continuous cycle

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      uk ian…”anyone any views on the possibility that the expansion of cities….may cause warming at the poles”

      There’s no reason to look for causes of Arctic warming since the same conditions existed in the Arctic circa 1912 and 1920.

      The warming is restricted to hot spots that move around monthly. That suggests straight weather-related issues and probably temporary conflicts between the phases of the ocean oscillations like the AO, PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc.

      Furthermore, the warming is only effective during the very brief summer months. The rest of the year the Arctic is frozen solid and +5C warming in isolated zones means nothing.

    • gbaikie says:

      ” uk ian brown says:
      August 7, 2017 at 3:59 AM

      anyone any views on the possibility that the expansion of cities.the construction of roads. airports,solar farms.at the expense of green spaces may cause warming at the poles.”

      The urban heat island effect is largely about these small regions of planet Earth.
      UHI effect is not limited to roads and building structures, and significant part of retaining heat can related to bodies of water and “irrigation” increasing the amount water vapor or humidity. Or UHI effect also causes local rain shadows-
      oh typical definition of rain shadow is lack of rain, I mean more rain:
      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UrbanRain/urbanrain2.php

      “given that forests and vegetation absorb sunlight and hard surfaces radiate heat .which rises then moves to the poles cools and descends in a continuous cycle”

      UHI effect is about absorbing heat, which is then radiated in later part of the day. Increasing air temperature is largely to do vertical structures inhibiting convection heat loss.
      A body of water would absorb more of the energy of sunlight as compared to UHI effect, but in terms land, UHI absorbs more sunlight as compared to most land features. And land feature can heat air to the highest temperature.
      Or because of increased water vapor, UHI effect are the most dangerous warming for human beings- natural land temperature is less dangerous to humans.

  94. Crakar24 says:

    Perhaps this will help people connect the dots

    http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Harry_Read_Me%20%28Page%20Numbers%29.pdf

    Search “Australia”

    • Bindidon says:

      What retired engineer Bindidon sees here
      – reminds him tedious own work;
      – deserves a lot of respect for
      — the visible accuracy in recording problem sequences;
      — the persistent will to solve problems as good as can be done.

      What is or has been your working domain, Crakar24?

    • barry says:

      I’m no expert in this stuff. But it looks to me like…

      Someone working their butt off to convert messy data and code made for programs that were tweaked to handle it into data and code that could be run on the software the hard-worker had.

      Is that the surface view correctly?

      • barry says:

        Read the whole document – not the code itself, just the commentary.

        I got this from that:

        A bunch of station data, much of it new, from various sources like the WMO and individual countries and other collections.
        Lots of different formats (all the data is digitsed already), so the coder (Ian Harrison) kept writing new code or rewriting old code to get the program to account for ever different format and not drop a value or spew out garbage.

        What is different format? EG, where there are missing values, some places put in 9.99999, others zero, others a blank, others a hash mark. Easy fix? No! Because these symbols (not the 9.99999) might be used for different variables in different ways. So he finds out that his subroutine catches them all. Has to figure out why, write a new code, test it, it fails, figures out why, adjusts the code, tries again.

        Bunch of station data has the same station number but different name/data. Some differently designated data is a duplicate for a differently designated data. He has to write code to catch all this. And the place they stick the station numbers is not uniform, so he can’t just allocate the code to one specific field, he has to make it a catch-all, except now it is probing every field and picks up data it shouldn’t. Back to the drawing board.

        He has old code that was purpose-built to previous data, but he’s dealing with new batches and they don’t work, so he has to make his code work for the new data. but now it doesn’t handle the old data as well, so he has to do more work.

        I got it basically right. Luckily, I dig his writing style, so it’s pretty entertaining. And I’ve had software issues with my own computer, and spent hours fixing them myself. His frustrations resonate, but his is on a whole different scale and complexity. It’s almost heroic, his perseverance in the face of enormous coding challenges.

  95. Crakar24 says:

    What crakar sees here is a software engineer going to great lengths to sort out a complete mess.

    Multiple data sets with the same ID or no ID each spanning different periods of time.

    And this mess is used to claim hottest year evah to an accuracy of 0.001c what a joke

    • Bindidon says:

      What is or has been your working domain, Crakar24?

      • Crakar24 says:

        Would it make a difference bin if you knew?

        • Bindidon says:

          Would I ask if not?

          • crakar24 says:

            I am not at liberty to go into details in this forum but suffice to say I have a mixture of mechanical/electrical/RF/aeronautical design and modification background.

            So to answer the real question you wanted to ask, no I did not spend 3 years at Uni learning to be a climate scientist.

            regards

    • barry says:

      Multiple data sets with the same ID or no ID each spanning different periods of time.

      I’ve cited upthread a couple of temp record papers that one of the problems was duplication, particularly when digitising old records by hand. They’d ask a country for as much weather data as they could get, and they’d find they’d been sent 6 different records for one weather station. Sometimes it was simply a matter of matching station numbers, sometimes it didn’t come with a station number, but was obviously data for a weather station they already had. Sometimes the readings didn’t match for overlapping periods.

      The issue has been known about since the 1990s, and has been handled in various ways since. IIRC, the first method was to winnow the duplicates out, and another method was to keep the duplicates but assign different IDs to them. They could still make a selection from the duplicates, or merge them to make a longer record (using neighbouring stations as a reference).

      The more I’ve read about it, the more I understand the on-the-ground difficulties, and been impressed by the various methods to overcome them and reduce error.

      BEST had a novel way of dealing with station breaks. They didn’t bother with metadata, they wrote algorithms that detected discontinuities (like a sudden jump up or down in anomalies that persisted – like when a station moves from high altitude to low, for example). Rather than trying to merge the data, they simply cut at the break and treated the portion as different stations.

      As they were only interested in sorting the data for trend analysis, this was a very clever way of by-passing the more meticulous methods using station metadata data and nearby clusters as a reference to adjust the one station.

      The way these algorithms are tested for bias is another interesting story.

      Reading up on the history of how the global data was collated and checked, I’m struck by the hard work and innovative thinking to overcome problems with data that wasn’t collected or designed with a long-term utility. Who would have cared in the 1930s that the weather station moved from a parking lot to a field? No one back then foresaw a need for a homogeneous long-term record to study long-term changes.

      From what I’ve read – the studies and papers on the nuts and bolts of the temp record – it looks like a bunch of people striving to make a decent long-term record from an enormous amount of data recorded in different ways in different places.

      • Norman says:

        barry

        Thank you for that analysis of the data record.

        The whole issue does make it appear rather uncertain of global temperatures before maybe 1960. There may be too many difficulties involved to get a precise record of past temperatures.

        I think the more current data and satellite coverage is what we can best understand global warming rate.

        I keep an open mind to the “conspiracy theory” that the data could be manipulated for political reasons. I would not claim it is a fact but I would not reject it either. I would hold in the limbo of possibilities.

        • Svante says:

          This is not the Norman I’m used to, would you mind adding something to your name if you joined recently?

        • barry says:

          Norman’s always been pretty reasonable talking to me. (Dunno what his general view on AGW is, and it hasn’t ever mattered to me)

          • Svante says:

            Norman, Barry
            I was only afraid we had two Normans here. Is this the same Norman that criticised Gordon for conspiratorial thinking on the Rick Perry page, and sent 50+ messages to g* referring him to textbook physics?

          • barry says:

            Same Norman.

        • Norman says:

          Svante

          I just read lots of different blogs on the topic. I look at Tony Heller’s blog frequently and he seems to show lots of evidence of data manipulation. I am not sure if his work is valid but be does present much on a daily basis about the temperature record.

          I have been around long enough to know that “Conspiracy theories” do take place and seem to be effective. The US attacked Iraq on false information but it made lots of money for some people.

          I was around when experts were saying eating eggs was going to give one heart attacks. The experts villainized eggs. It is a process of making something look horrible to turn the Public against it, then a new industry can move in and shift where the money flows.

          Here is how the Conspiracy can easily be a reality (not saying it is). In order to get Wind and Solar power to be developed (Wind is currently generating revenues of Billions of dollars a year in production of windmills) you must make the existing energy sources very bad so you get the Political machine to go against the established power by manipulating the emotions of the Public. Except for scientific sites I find most Climate Change Alarmists know very little science but blindly “trust” scientists like they are some infallible “gods” that can’t distort the truth for money and profit.

          • Norman says:

            Svante

            Say you own a electric generator business (maybe like GE). With the current power system of Coal and Nuclear providing most energy you do not build very many generators.

            Now you make coal dirty and destructive in the minds of the Public by paid propaganda, you offer a beautiful clean alternative and you sell a 2 MW generator for millions for each and every windmill produced. Previous production was very slow now you have this huge revenue stream of new generators that is making you rich and it does not seem to be ending anytime soon as long as you can manipulate the emotions of the general Public who are basically scientifically illiterate and could not follow the nuances of complicated debates that take place on science blogs.

          • Svante says:

            So you look at blogs and distrust science. Is this the same Norman that told Kristian about two way radiation and referred to textbook physics?

          • Norman says:

            Svante

            I do believe you are not reading my words correctly. My claim was that I do not “blindly” trust scientists as if they are infallible.

            I guess you have not been paying attention to the latest revelations of the science world and peer review when people are finding large amounts of peer reviewed science cannot be verified.

            https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/03/economist-explains-23

            People, including scientists, can be corrupted by a variety of factors (desire for fame, fortune, etc).

            You need to understand I am not saying the data IS flawed, I stated very clearly I am open to the possibility. The difference between my view and Gordon’s is that I am open to the possibility. He feels it is a certainty and a complete fact. I would not think that unless I had overwhelming evidence of such fraud. I just believe the possibility exists and will not just mindlessly reject it because it does not fit into my “world view” of reality.

          • Svante says:

            Ok, that sounds balanced enough. There is a lot of junk science about, so you have to evaluate everything.
            The main dividing line is between journals where the author pays, and those where the reader pays, do you agree?

          • Norman says:

            Svante

            25000 wind turbines now exist where before Climate Change concerns there were only a few scattered about.

            https://www.gerenewableenergy.com/wind-energy/turbines.html

            At a couple million dollars a windmill add the 25000 and it creates a 50 billion dollars worth of sales that would not have taken place outside Climate Change concerns. That is why I like to keep the mind open on that issue.

            Temperature records are not the same as textbook science. The latter has been verified over years through several tests and experiments. When I took Chemistry classes our lab would do actual testing which did verify textbook claims.

          • Svante says:

            Norman,
            Profit is no. 1 for corporations, so don’t trust them. They must be sure it doesn’t backfire though. Same thing for the reputation of a scientist.

            But really, the instrumental temperature record? How many times has it been scrutinized? How many people and groups? It always comes back to a refined version of the the same picture.

            You can pick twenty stations at random and see the same basic trend.

            It’s even been verified against proxy data:
            https://tinyurl.com/yd3xozs9

            This must be the only realistic view:
            https://tinyurl.com/ydhnq2jr

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”BEST had a novel way of dealing with station breaks”.

        After all was said and done, co-author Judith Curry revealed that Mueller fudged the final analysis causing her to withdraw her support.

        BEST, as it stands, is nothing more than yet another statistical fudge job.

      • barry says:

        Judith disagreed with the rest of the team, which was comprised mostly of skeptics.

        So I’m not sure if she, God-like, “revealed,” anything, but simply had a different point of view, which is subject, like the rest of them, to being wrong or right.

        • crakar24 says:

          BEST is not the guys that threw out the semi accurate ARGO data for the non accurate “bucket over the railing” data? That was Karl and his “pause buster” right?

          What shonky move did BEST pull again? There have been so many I mix them all up at times.

          • barry says:

            You mixed up the ARGO thing as well. The ARGO data wasn’t thrown out. That’s a quote from Bates in the Daily Mail. See if it makes sense when you read the whole quote.

            “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships”

            Threw it out and corrected it.

            All they did was rebaseline. Zero effect on trends.

        • gbaikie says:

          — barry says:
          August 7, 2017 at 5:12 PM

          Judith disagreed with the rest of the team, which was comprised mostly of skeptics.–

          Scientist or skeptics can be wrong, especially when they are a team.
          Or group think isn’t exclusive to stupid bureaucrats.

          • barry says:

            Judith is correct just because she was a lone dissenter?

          • gbaikie says:

            “barry says:
            August 8, 2017 at 1:15 AM

            Judith is correct just because she was a lone dissenter?”

            There are many things to be correct in regards to.

            One can guess she wanted to be involved for a few reasons and some of these expectations were not being realized.

            I am fairly familiar with Judith. I would say she is diplomatic and tries to get along with people.

          • barry says:

            Can’t make sense of your posts. I criticized Gordon giving oracular status to Judith’s view of BEST. Do you think her opinion is superior to her ex-colleagues? Otherwise, what are you talking about?

          • gbaikie says:

            “barry says:
            August 8, 2017 at 6:12 PM

            Cant make sense of your posts. I criticized Gordon giving oracular status to Judiths view of BEST. Do you think her opinion is superior to her ex-colleagues? Otherwise, what are you talking about?”

            I can’t fault Gordon for having a higher opinion of Judith.
            I would criticize Gordon for not agreeing that temperatures have rise since LIA.
            Or that we are recovering since the LIA, seems fairly obvious to me.
            As I would criticize Dave for not conceding that LIA was global.

          • barry says:

            I cant fault Gordon for having a higher opinion of Judith.

            Weasel words.

            Do you think Judith has a superior view on the BEST project to her ex-colleagues or not?

            If so, why?

          • gbaikie says:

            –barry says:
            August 9, 2017 at 1:22 AM

            I cant fault Gordon for having a higher opinion of Judith.

            Weasel words.

            Do you think Judith has a superior view on the BEST project to her ex-colleagues or not?

            If so, why?–

            Superior view. Hmm.

            It’s seems to me that the standard of who has a superior view is someone from outside the process:

            “McKitrick was asked last year to review BEST’s approach to grappling with the UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect. It’s fair to say he wasn’t impressed.

            McKitrick said he had discovered “serious shortcomings” in BEST’s methods and said “their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert.” He continues: “I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision.”
            https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/31/best_barnum/

            But if you want me to compare Judith view to the others in involved in the process, quote Judith view and the view
            of the “ex-colleague(s) you wish me to judge in terms of which one is superior.

          • barry says:

            What did McKitrick think of the revised paper written in light of his review?

            We seem to agree that Judith’s criticisms are not oracular, as Gordon made them out to be. That’s a guess, though, based on you being non-committal.

            The paper MCKitrick reviewed has her name on it. The revised version, too.

            I won’t speak for Gordon. As he was the one that made the claim made the claim, he may substantiate whatever ‘revelations’ he referred to.

            (Don’t hold your breath)

          • gbaikie says:

            ” barry says:
            August 9, 2017 at 11:33 AM

            What did McKitrick think of the revised paper written in light of his review?”

            Don’t know, but I would guess he would avoid giving it a second review- or there is not shortage of people who could review it and sort of loses his objectivity due his first review- someone else should review and take into account what
            McKitrick said, but make their own assessment.

          • gbaikie says:

            “We seem to agree that Judiths criticisms are not oracular, as Gordon made them out to be. Thats a guess, though, based on you being non-committal.”

            Maybe Judith’s views would be “inside baseball” rather than oracular.
            Personally I don’t think I have anyone who I consider an oracle. Though I guess, who get my news from could fit broadly into something like oracle. Or believe oracle of old were largely about news and predicting future was their glamorous side job.
            So, things really haven’t changed much.

        • barry says:

          What shonky move did BEST pull again?

          Ah. You don’t know why, but they’re shonky.

          They used absolute temps readings, mot anomalies.
          They didn’t adjust data.
          They dealt with discontinuities and jumps by assigning different ID at the breaks.

          Pretty much everything they did was on the advice of skeptics like Jeff Condon, Roger Pielke and Roman M.

          Jeff Condon and Roman M came up with with their own methods, too, independently of BEST. Using raw data they found a pretty good match to the well-known temp records, but their trends were a bit higher.

          Dunno what ‘shonky’ move BEST pulled. Anthony Watts disowned them because they made claims before their stuff was formally published. Ironically, Watts has did the same thing for years before Fall et al 2011.

          So maybe they’re all shonky.

      • barry says:

        Norman,

        I keep an open mind to the conspiracy theory that the data could be manipulated for political reasons. I would not claim it is a fact but I would not reject it either.

        I hols it as a very remote possibility. Here’s why, in no particular order:

        * The many methods papers read like honest attempts

        * 2 American, 1 British and 1 Japanese global data set agree fairly well. They have have similar and different data sets (Japanese record uses its own sea surface data set, so does UK Met Office)

        * While trends diverge post 2000 (UAHv6), the interannual fluctuation between all of them show very good agreement

        * 2 skeptic efforts to make their own global data set corroborated the well-known data sets. Both skeptic-made temp records have higher trends than the well-known ones

        * The raw data record has a higher long-term trend than adjusted

        * A completely independent data set (GSOD) corroborates the GHCN record, again with mostly higher trends for various periods

        * The station drop out issue was found to be a non-event by skeptics and others. Including the dropped station made the trend warmer than without them – the opposite of what should be the case if there was some conspiracy going on

        * Fall et al 2011 (Anthony Watts and other skeptics) examined the US temp record, comparing it with their own selected weather stations that they believed to be least contaminated. They confirmed known biases in max/min temps, and corroborated the mean temp record of NASA and NOAA

        My overview of the situation. Sadly, it is a tale of two sides.

        Skeptic criticism is usually based on irregularities with individual station records. Very few critics have done a comprehensive audit and made their own temp records from raw data. The few that did corroborated NOAA/GISS/UK Met Office.

        The Skeptic narratives have been vocal and persistent. I’ve followed up on them for years, sometimes as a participant, sometimes as an observer. Most have not held up to scrutiny. The fact that many memes that have been laid to rest still get airtime (eg, Gordon Robertson on station dropout) has led me to distrust the Skeptic view in general. However, I am always on the lookout for reasonable criticism. Such stuff can be found and can enlighten (Lucia at The Blackboard is a good example).

        As a skeptic, I’ve always got to allow for possibilities, no matter how remote. However, when considering groupthink and self-reinforcing behaviour as a factor, this is far more evident among so-called Skeptics than the target of their criticism. So it seems to me.

        On your comment, I refer you to the points above that make me think the conspiracy idea is spurious, or of little consequence re the institutional global temp records if indeed there is some groupthink bias.

  96. crakar24 says:

    I think this debate has well and truly run its course.

    What i dont and probably never will understand is how some people can turn a blind eye to evidence which casts doubt on the AGW theory. Its like they have a desperate desire for it to be real rather than embracing evidence that shows the opposite.

    This leads to frustration on my nehalf and hence the calling barry a moron, which i would like to appologise for at this time.

    Until next time

    regards

    crakar24

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      crakar…”Its like they have a desperate desire for it to be real rather than embracing evidence that shows the opposite”.

      It’s a religion with the human ego as their god.

    • barry says:

      I think that criticism is justified some of the time, but not all the time. I tend to follow stuff through as far as I’m able – I don’t turn a blind eye. I’m also frustrated by people not looking at evidence presented, or if they do, just ignoring it time after time (cf Gordon and station drop out).

      Part of the problem is drop-ins to an ongoing discussion who flick off a one-liner with no substance. This stuff is magnetic and soon everyone is at it (including me). I wish I had more discipline to ignore that stuff.

      crakar, thanks. With me a moment’s courtesy rights a thousand wrongs.

  97. ren says:

    A sparsely distributed observational network, consisting of drifting buoys, cannot resolve the surface temperature variations in the Arctic sufficiently but satellite observations can fill in the gaps of the traditional observational network.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice_temp/index.uk.php

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren …”A sparsely distributed observational network, consisting of drifting buoys, cannot resolve the surface temperature variations in the Arctic sufficiently …”

      That’s true over the entire global ocean network. The use of buoys to gather temps is seriously Mickey Mouse when you have sats that do the job far better.

      They have a nerve claiming the sat data can fill in the gaps. The sats don’t cover the 2.5% of the atmosphere at either pole so what exactly is being filled in?

    • barry says:

      What exactly is being filled in?

      Any gaps in the area 60N to 82.5N.

  98. crakar24 says:

    From the “harry” file I supplied

    I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if thats the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
    getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data

    and

    COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didnt open until 1993!

    Just a couple of examples, the latest is the BOM are destroying older data sets, you would think with a budget of 1 million bucks a day they could afford a couple of 1Tb HDDs

    • barry says:

      I looked at Cobar AWS (ID 048237). Weather data starts in 1993.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_048237.shtml

      The ACORN data set for Cobar (ID 048027) starts in 1962.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_048027.shtml

      Where are you getting your information from on Cobar AWS starting in 1962?

      • crakar24 says:

        From the PDF I linked to recently, page 29

        The ‘mismatched WMO code’ station was disengaged from it’s reference and given 48027 instead:
        1. 9471100 -3150 14580 218 COBAR AIRPORT AWS AUSTRALIA 1962 2006 -999 48237 -> 48027
        I mailed BOM as we have 94711 = COBAR AWS but they have *94710* for AWS and 94711 for COBAR MO. The
        reply was as follows:

        On 18 Jul 2007, at 8:51, Matthew Bastin wrote:
        Hi Ian,
        I hope this table helps
        Name BoM No. WMO No. Opened Closed
        Cobar Comparison 48244 94711 1/11/1997 15/11/2000
        Cobar MO 48027 94711 1/01/1962
        Cobar Airport AWS 48237 94710 11/06/1993
        Cobar PO 48030 1/1/1881 31/12/1965
        The blank in the Closed column means that the site is still open
        When Cobar Comparison site closed it transferred its WMO number to Cobar MO
        A blank in the WMO No. column means that the site never had a WMO number.
        I am not sure of the overlap between the assignment of 94711 between 48244 and 48027. I will find
        out and get back to you.

        Here are our current ‘COBAR’ headers:
        conve rte d by We b2PDFC onve rt.com
        0 -3150 14580 260 COBAR COMPARISON AUSTRALIA 2000 2006 -999 -999.00
        0 -3150 14580 260 COBAR MO AUSTRALIA 2000 2006 -999 -999.00
        0 -3148 14582 265 COBAR AUSTRALIA 1962 2004 -999 -999.00
        0 -3150 14580 251 COBAR POST OFFICE AUSTRALIA 1902 1960 -999 -999.00
        9471100 -3150 14580 218 COBAR AIRPORT AWS AUSTRALIA 1962 2006 -999 48027
        Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start
        in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! Looking at the data – the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be
        an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004, except that the latter has more missing
        values. Now, COBAR AIRPORT AWS has 15 months of missing value codes beginning Oct 1993.. coincidence?
        No. I think that that series should start there. Furthermore, the overlap between COBAR and COBAR MO
        (2000-2004) is *almost* identical:
        0 -3148 14582 265 COBAR AUSTRALIA 1962 2004 -999 -999.00
        2000 177 209 183 135 80 51 45 52 105 122 166 186
        2001 223 214 159 126 72 61 43 52 105 110 148 181
        2002 195 185 168 148 88 58 49 63 101 128 186 192
        2003 222 216 161 137 97 71 56 61 92 113 159 208
        2004 207 226 175 141 74 69 46 69 90 136 160 186
        0 -3150 14580 260 COBAR MO AUSTRALIA 2000 2006 -999 -999.00
        2000 178 209 184 136 80 52 45 55 105 122 166 186 (7/12)
        2001 223 214 159 126 72 61 43 52 105 110 148 181 (12/12)
        2002 195 185 168 148 88 58 49 63 101 128 187 192 (11/12)
        2003 222 216 161 137 97 71 56 61 92 113 159 208 (12/12)
        2004 207 226 175 141 74 69 46 69 90 136 160 186 (12/12)
        I therefore propose to extend COBAR MO using COBAR, and to truncate COBAR AIRPORT AWS at 1993.
        All BOM codes will be appended for completeness. So the new headers (with lat/lon from BOM too) are:
        0 -3149 14583 260 COBAR COMPARISON AUSTRALIA 2000 2006 -999 48244 (closed)
        9471100 -3149 14583 260 COBAR MO AUSTRALIA 1962 2006 -999 48027
        0 -3150 14583 251 COBAR POST OFFICE AUSTRALIA 1902 1960 -999 48030 (closed)
        9471000 -3154 14580 218 COBAR AIRPORT AWS AUSTRALIA 1995 2006 -999 48237
        Deleted:
        0 -3148 14582 265 COBAR AUSTRALIA 1962 2004 -999 -999.00

        • crakar24 says:

          More evidence the temp data bases are complete junk

          So.. perhaps a debugged run through? I’m quickly realising that the Australian stations are in
          such a state that I’m having to constantly refer to the station descriptions on the BOM website,
          which are individual PDFs:
          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/metadata/pdf/metadata088110.pdf
          It takes time.. time I don’t have! Though I’m pleased to see that the second FSM is helpfully
          chipping in to pair things up when possible.
          getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
          introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a
          cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
          references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
          one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
          it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too. I’ve been at it for well over an hour, and I’ve reached
          the 294th station in the tmin database. Out of over 14,000. Now even accepting that it will get
          easier (as clouds can only be formed of what’s ahead of you), it is still very daunting. I go
          on leave for 10 days after tomorrow, and if I leave it running it isn’t likely to be there when
          I return! As to whether my ‘action dump’ will work (to save repetition).. who knows?

          • crakar24 says:

            More this time from Canada

            One thing that’s unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do
            not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country’s met office, or at least the
            Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if
            these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada! Examples:
            7162040 brockville
            7163231 brockville
            7163229 brockville
            7187742 forestburg
            7100165 forestburg

          • barry says:

            Some of the reasons for multiple designations have been described upthread, as well as methods for dealing with them. Did you read any of that stuff?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            crakar…”One thing thats unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search”.

            Would not matter if they did, NOAA uses only one Canadian reporting station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic. They use 3 in California, all near the ocean and none covering the Sierra Nevada mountains where one would expect cooler temps.

          • barry says:

            Bollocks, Gordon.

          • barry says:

            none covering the Sierra Nevada mountains where one would expect cooler temps.

            Even if true, makes zero difference to trend analysis as the data are anomalized.

        • barry says:

          I found this resource helpful for quick access to brief details of weather station m