Urbanization Effects on GHCN Temperature Trends, Part I: The Urbanization Characteristics of the GHCN Stations

January 14th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’ve previously posted a variety of articles (e.g. here and here) where I address the evidence that land surface temperature trends from existing homogenized datasets have some level of spurious warming due to urban heat island (UHI) effects. While it is widely believed that homogenization techniques remove UHI effects on trends, this is unlikely because UHI effects on trends are largely indistinguishable from global warming. Current homogenization techniques can remove abrupt changes in station data, but cannot correct for any sources of slowly-increasing spurious warming.

Anthony Watts has approached this problem for the U.S. temperature monitoring stations by physically visiting the sites and documenting the exposure of the thermometers to spurious heat sources (active and passive), and comparing trends from well-sited instruments to trends from poorly sited instruments. He found that stations with good siting characteristics showed, on average, cooler temperature trends than both the poorly-sited locations and the official “adjusted” temperature data from NOAA.

I’ve taken a different approach by using global datasets of population density and, more recently, analysis of high-resolution Landsat satellite based measurements of Global Human Settlements “Built-Up” areas. I have also started analyzing weather station data (mostly from airports) which have hourly time resolution, instead of the usual daily maximum and minimum temperature data (Tmax, Tmin) measurements that make up current global land temperature datasets. The hourly data stations are, unfortunately, fewer in number but have the advantage of better maintenance since they support aviation safety and allow examination of how UHI effects vary throughout the day and night.

In this two-part series, I’m going to look at the latest official global GHCN thermometer (Tmax, Tmin) dataset (Version 4) to see if there is evidence of spurious warming from increasing urbanization effects over time. In the latest GHCN dataset version Tmax and Tmin are no longer provided separately, only their average (Tavg) is available.

Based upon what I’ve seen so far, I’m convinced that there is spurious warming remaining in the GHCN-based temperature data. The only question is, how much? That will be addressed in Part II.

The issue is important (obviously) because if observed warming trends have been overstated, then any deductions about the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are also overstated. (Here I am not going to go into the possibility that some portion of recent warming is due to natural effects, that’s a very different discussion for another day).

What I am going to show is based upon the global stations in the GHCN monthly dataset (downloaded January, 2023) which had sufficient data to produce at least 45 years of July data during the 50 year period, 1973-2022. The start years of 1973 is chosen for two reasons: (1) it’s when the separate dataset with hourly time resolution I’m analyzing had a large increase in the number of digitized records (remember, weather recording used to be a manual process onto paper forms, which someone has to digitize), and (2) the global Landsat-based urbanization data starts in 1975, which is close enough to 1973.

Because the Landsat measurements of urbanization are very high resolution, one must decide what spatial resolution should be used to relate to potential UHI effects. I have (somewhat arbitrarily) chosen averaging grid sizes of 3×3 km, 9×9 km, 21×21 km, and 45 x 45 km. In the global dataset I am getting the best results with the 21 x 21 km averaging of the urbanization data, and all results here will be shown for that resolution.

The resulting distribution of 4,232 stations (Fig. 1) shows that only a few countries have good coverage, especially the United States, Russia, Japan, and many European countries. Africa is poorly represented, as is most of South America.

Fig. 1. GHCN station locations having at least 90% data coverage for all Julys from 1973 to 2022.

I’ve analyzed the corresponding Landsat-based urban settlement diagnoses for all of these stations, which is shown in Fig. 2. That dataset covers a 40 year period, from 1975 to 2014. Here I’ve plotted the 40-year average level of urbanization versus the 40-year trend in urbanization.

Fig. 2. For the GHCN stations in Fig. 1, the station average level of urbanization versus the growth in urbanization over 1975-2014, based upon high-resolution Landsat data.

There are a few important and interesting things to note from Fig. 2.

  1. Few GHCN station locations are truly rural: 13.2% are less than 5% urbanized, while 68.4% are less than 10% urbanized.
  2. Virtually all station locations have experienced an increase in building, and none have decreased (which would require a net destruction of buildings, returning the land to its natural state).
  3. Greatest growth has been in areas not completely rural and not already heavily urbanized (see the curve fitted to the data). That is, very rural locations stay rural, and heavily urbanized locations have little room to grow anyway.

One might think that since the majority of stations are less than 10% urbanized that UHI effects should be negligible. But the seminal study by Oke (1973) showed that UHI warming is non-linear, with the most rapid warming occurring at the lowest population densities, with an eventual saturation of the warming at high population densities. I have previously showed evidence supporting this based upon updated global population density data that the greatest rate of spurious warming (comparing neighboring stations with differing populations) occurs at the lowest population densities. It remains to be seen whether this is also true of “built-up” measurements of human settlements (buildings rather than population density).

Average Urbanization or Urbanization Growth?

One interesting question is whether it is the trend in urbanization (growing amounts of infrastructure), or just the average urbanization that has the largest impact on temperature trends? Obviously, growth will have an impact. But what about towns and cities where there have been no increases in building, but still have had growth in energy use (which generates waste heat)? As people increasingly move from rural areas to cities, the population density can increase much faster than the number of buildings, as people live in smaller spaces and apartment and office buildings grow vertically without increasing their footprint on the landscape. There are also increases in wealth, automobile usage, economic productivity and consumption, air conditioning, etc., all of which can cause more waste heat production without an increase in population or urbanization.

In Part II I will examine how GHCN station temperature trends relate to station urbanization for a variety of countries, in both the raw (unadjusted) temperature data and in the homogenized (adjusted) data, and also look at how growth in urbanization compares to average urbanization.


1,294 Responses to “Urbanization Effects on GHCN Temperature Trends, Part I: The Urbanization Characteristics of the GHCN Stations”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. stephen p. anderson says:

    Satellite data has challenges, but it still seems a lot less complicated. I’m unsure how any objective individual can call satellite data an outlier.

    • Willard says:

      Objective individuals seldom if ever become troglodytes.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Satellite data isn’t an outlier.

      If you want to see some outliers take a look at how Bindidon manages to mangle data via gridding strategies in this comment section.

      The main argument supporting gridding strategies is that collection sites represent a random sample. The gridding/kriging effort itself is in fact a strategic attempt to over representation of some areas over others as if there was the representation of a random sample within the grids themselves.

      Nowhere will you find a study that studies that problem.

      There is also the matter of control of the data. As Roy mentions here GHCN is providing less information to the public. Why?

      But that doesn’t even touch on controls over the data to ensure its reliable.

      A huge percentage of weather station info is provided by authoritarian/communist powers that everybody seems to be in agreement with is engaged in wholesale disinformation programs!

      The global surface data collection efforts are a complete flop in just about everyway possible. Reliability of data, representation of data, and even how we process that data to allegedly turn non-representative data into global data.

      Actually does global data even matter? Well some do especially about Antarctica where it seems data is getting sparser. How about central greenland? Oh but we need to know the most about sea ice so we are regaled constantly about the Arctic. An arctic melting that isn’t going to raise sea level even an inch.

      Why should we worry about Russian and Chinese disinformation when we have our own system of disinformation?

    • barry says:

      outlier (n): a person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set.

      Ok, spot the outlier.

      https://tinyurl.com/2m4cgss8

      And again.

      https://tinyurl.com/8bwh9e4e

      So, not ‘satellite data’.

      The UAH 6.0 global temperature record is an outlier when compared to the other global temp records, because it differs most from the rest.

      Well that was easy.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Apples and oranges Barry.

        UAH measures the lower troposphere dude! They disagree with RSS but RSS has no confidence in their data and previously were colder than UAH.

        You want to compare it to surface stations? A network of stations never designed to be random nor to measure temperatures in the natural environment. With a system of very bad control over data. Particularly over the vast majority of the database?

        UAH has done better against better managed alternative datasets. Balloon and radiosonde. Perhaps even USCRN

      • barry says:

        Well you missed the point completely, Bill. It was about outliers, and you can’t get outliers from a sample of two. So, no, stephen comment wasn’t referring to the difference between UAH and RSS. It was referring to a collection of global temperature data sets. UAH is the outlier. That’s the point he was fuzzy about, and I set him straight. With pictures, no less. Looks like we’re going to need more illustrations if people can’t understand the points under discussion.

      • barry says:

        Now to YOUR points.

        “UAH has done better against better managed alternative datasets.”

        What sophistry in the word ‘managed.’ They are all estimates with strengths and weaknesses. All of them. They are all ‘managed’ – in that their measuring sticks weren’t designed to measure long-term climate, so they all make do.

        “Balloon and radiosonde.”

        Global coverage for balloon mounted radiosondes used in global temperature analysis is….

        RATPAC = 87 stations

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005JD006169

        Why on Earth do ‘skeptics’ think radiosonde global temp is reliable, when it has a thousand times less coverage than the surface data has?

        And the data sets are also heavily adjusted. Isn’t that a big no-no for ‘skeptics’?

        How on Earth can ‘skeptics’ give any credence to radiosonde global temperature estimates? Perhaps there is some convenience for them in doing so….

        … f they can overlook the fact that radiosondes also support RSS global temp data – depending on which radiosonde data set you compare with.

        “Perhaps even USCRN”

        USCRN is also a close match to USHCN. How about that?

  2. Don Healy says:

    Agreed: I’ve compared the trend lines of the UAH data for USA49 to the USCRN data for the period from 2005 to the present. The trend lines are so close that I had to expand the graph to separate the two trend lines. This would appear to be an appropriate comparison, but it would be desirable to compare other geographic areas. Have any other nations created networks that match the USCRN for station quality? It would be beneficial to expand the comparison, but even this does provide confidence that the Dr. Spencer program is very accurate

  3. Entropic man says:

    There’s a section discussing uncertainty in satellite data here.

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/01/2022-updates-to-the-temperature-records/

    • Don Healy says:

      The problem we face is that if the UHI effect is not properly accounted for (and this is what is being examined in Dr. Spencer’s two part series here) then all of temperature series based on surface station data are problematic with the exception of USCRN program, which unfortunately, is quite short.

      Our basic problem is that had Hansen and others started properly, they would have first done a thorough examination of the quality of the surface stations that comprised both the USHCN and the GHCN and quickly determined that they were not adequate for the task. Hansen and others started with inadequate sources for the accurate data necessary to construct an viable program and the climate community has been wrestling with this problem ever since.
      My wife and I personally have inspected 30 of the USHCN stations and found only 2 that were in compliance. To conduct good science it is absolutely necessary to start from a sound database. Hopefully Dr. Spencer’s new program can rectify the UHI issue, but we will probably still be guessing until the USCRN program has matured and precise networks like it can be established worldwide. Until we accomplish that, the UAH record appears to be the best available.

      • Mark Wapples says:

        Don can I clarify. Did you physically check the stations for Compliance or just look at the data sets.

      • barry says:

        “Our basic problem is that had Hansen and others started properly, they would have first done a thorough examination of the quality of the surface stations that comprised both the USHCN and the GHCN and quickly determined that they were not adequate for the task.”

        As the current GHCN monthly comprises tens of thousands of stations, who was going to foot the bill for the international travel to scores of countries including accommodation, for the decades it would take to check every location?

        C’mon. That’s just preposterous. Even Anthony Watts with a horde of followers still hasn’t checked every station in the US network since they started in 2007.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Barry
          Cmon. Thats just preposterous. Even Anthony Watts with a horde of followers still hasnt checked every station in the US network since they started in 2007.
          —————-
          Exactly!

        • barry says:

          Exactly what? Every global temperature monitoring group, including the satellite records, has to make do with systems that weren’t designed for climate monitoring.

          It seems like you’ve just discovered issues with the data that have been known and investigated for decades. This has all been taken into account. Multiple tests of different type has confirmed the robustness of the global temperature records, particularly the surface records.

          You and Don are essentially arguing that unless every single weather station n the world is hand-checked by the global temp compilers, then the temp records are spurious.

          Spencer and Christy haven’t personally examined the instruments launched on consecutive satellites to create the lower troposphere temp records, and these instruments have known issues, and the satellites carrying them drift in their altitude and orbit.

          Like the surface data sets, the MSU/AMSU records are assembled by adjusting for known and theorised biases.

          The fact that the measuring systems are imperfect is old news.

          What you need to catch up on is the research done to account and correct for this.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry is really up to snuff in the latest propaganda of his daddy:

            ”Spencer and Christy havent personally examined the instruments launched on consecutive satellites to create the lower troposphere temp records, and these instruments have known issues, and the satellites carrying them drift in their altitude and orbit.”

            Roy Spencer’s job descriptions:
            is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

            Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader. Gee only 30 years of experience as the team leader for the instruments themselves. Since this is actually information accessible on the website Barry posts from it has to be at least a tie for the world record in cluelessness. Can anybody find any one else more clueless? this is a classic!

            UAH is less than 10 miles from Marshall Space Flight Center

          • barry says:

            Well Bill, let me show you something that you and your skeptic buddies don’t know how to do.

            I was wrong. Spencer and Christy have examined (some/most/all?) of the instruments flying on satellites.

            Now, how did they manage to document satellite drift, and how did they correct for it?

            You can bet it wasn’t from taking photographs of decaying orbits or visiting the satellites in person.

            The point remains. All the measuring systems have flaws, and the corrections are imperfect, too. As Spencer and Christy will tell you.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry if you want to know how they did it you should read their paper.

            We can track satellite altitude to one centimeter of resolution. so drift which is orbit decay is well understood. No visit required.

            The effect of it on temperature readings is complex but they worked it out with the help of Carl Mears of RSS and other scientists.

            Basically what it entails sorting out the signal from other changes like diurnal variation.

            Roy’s observation that they are very close to CRN is helpful. And as I noted it doesn’t matter if they are close to USCHN. I would expect raw quality controlled and otherwise unprocessed data from a network run and/or documented by the civil service and dedicated volunteers is going to be pretty reliable. But we have seen repeatedly over time with raw quality controlled and unprocessed data from the US network a lower rate of warming than elsewhere. And of course processed data seems to always result in more warming. I wonder why the thermometers themselves are not more reliable truth tellers.

          • barry says:

            Bill, if it was a perfect measuring system then we wouldn’t have 3 different satellite temperature datasets with different results.

            And in the case of global temps from satellites, the satellite records have had the larger adjustments over time, and the different institutes have datasets that are more different from each other than the surface datasets.

            Thus, RSS has a trend difference to UAH that is larger than the trend difference of the surface datasets for the same period.

            Of al the adjustments to datasets, UAH has had the largest changes of all – when they corrected their data in 2005.

            They’ve reworked the data dozens of times.

            Why do you think we have different versions?

            Here is the difference between UAHv6 and the previous version.

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah5/trend/plot/uah6/to:2017.51/mean:12/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/to:2017.51/trend/offset:0.1

            And how does that compare with RSS?

            https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah5/trend/plot/uah6/to:2017.51/mean:12/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/to:2017.51/trend/offset:0.1/plot/rss/to:2017.51/mean:12/offset:-0.05/plot/rss/to:2017.51/trend/offset:-0.05

            The issue here is pretty simple. Skeptics are ideologically aligned with Spencer and Christy, and their dataset produces the lowest trend of all the datasets.

            Therefore skeptics automatically ascribe superior qualities to them and to their work.

            It’s not based on a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various datasets and methods. It’s simple bias.

            I favour none of the datasets, as they are all estimates with strengths and weaknesses.

            But let Roy tell it himself:

            “All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data…”

            “We can track satellite altitude to one centimeter of resolution. so drift which is orbit decay is well understood. No visit required.

            That is NOT how UAH apply correction for orbital decay and diurnal drift. This is done by proxy, not direct measurement. Diurnal drift is calculated by comparing changes in brightness temperature between different satellites, and then worked backward from there.

            “As the 1:30 satellites drift to later local observation times (an indirect result of orbit decay), the MSU2 (AMSU5) Tb tend to cool, especially over land in certain seasons, due to the day-night cycle in temperature. As the 7:30 satellites drift to earlier observation times, the Tb tend to warm for the same reason…

            These diurnal drift effects are empirically quantified at the gridpoint level by comparing NOAA-15 (a drifting 7:30 satellite) to Aqua (a non-drifting satellite), and by comparing NOAA-19 against NOAA-18 during 2009-2014, when NOAA-18 was drifting rapidly and NOAA-19 had no net drift. The resulting estimates of change in Tb as a function of local observation time are quite noisy at the gridpoint level, and so require some form of spatial smoothing. Since they also depend upon terrain altitude and the dryness of the region (deserts have stronger diurnal cycles in temperature than do rain forests), a regression is performed within each 2.5 deg. latitude band between the gridpoint diurnal drift coefficients and terrain altitude as well as average rainfall (1981-2010) for that calendar month, then that relationship is applied back onto the gridpoint average rainfall and terrain elevation within the latitude band. Over ocean, where diurnal drift effects are small, the gridpoint drift coefficients are replaced with the corresponding ocean zonal band averages of those gridpoint drift coefficients.”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

            But do I really need to tell you that UAH and the other datasets are estimates?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            All that may be true Barry but this discussion is about the UHI element in surface datasets. There is no controversy it is there. Once you have teased out all the biases using Oke 1973 then you will have a correction for those databases. Then you can talk about what matches up and does not match up.

            there is no controversy about what Roy is doing except perhaps why nobody else may have done it.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Yeah, they released RSS ver. 4 in 2017, jumping on the bandwagon.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      So, there are two satellite data sets. One since 2017 agrees with the surface. So, UAH is the outlier. Got it!

      • RLH says:

        RSS includes known warming satellites. UAH does not.

      • barry says:

        There are at least 3 satellite datasets. NOAA STAR is less well-known.

        “RSS includes known warming satellites. UAH does not.”

        Why do you promulgate this lie after admitting it’s not true?

        RSS and UAH use exactly the same satellites, including NOAA14 and NOAA15.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          UAH is objective. RSS is a subjective bandwagoner.

        • barry says:

          UAH is objective?

          Oh please. Spencer and Christy have taken activist positions against global warming, in congressional hearings and in signing political declarations. They are as biased as anyone else.

          Could ‘skeptics’ actually be skeptical once in a while?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Thats not true! Excellent scientists like Roy, John, and others have been called to testify. They stood up and gave their learned opinion. They didn’t say there was no warming from CO2 emissions. In fact, if I am correct they said there almost certainly was.

            Taking an activist position is what most of the scientists favored for quotes by mainstream yellow journalism take.

            As Dr Judith Curry said sometime ago. That went something akin to that eventually science will need to start paying more attention to observations than models.

            Even Nate supported that notion lately saying if you aren’t publishing observations you are a fraudster. I agree. But I think Nate may have slipped off his scripts there.

          • barry says:

            Excellent scientists like Gavin Schmidt and Jim Hansen also “have been called to testify. They stood up and gave their learned opinion.” It seems you think that this means they must be objective. Interesting!

            But you missed the bit where I said that Roy has signed politically active declarations on climate. Roy was on the board of the Cornwall Alliance, which declares that the Earth is created by God to be admirably suited to the needs of humanity, and that traditional energy systems are indispensable. Roy also signed the declaration saying this.

            Declaration:
            https://web.archive.org/web/20150529004812/http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/the-cornwall-declaration-on-environmental-stewardship.pdf

            Roy’s signature:
            https://web.archive.org/web/20130708011458/https://cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

            Now, I’m not saying that Roy is any more biased than anyone else. I’m saying be a proper skeptic and acknowledge that everyone is to some degree, and that Roy’s view on AGW is clearly guided by religious principles, rather than purely objective science.

            ‘Skeptics’ because least skeptical when they fanboy their favoured people. Your defence of UAH is empty assertion. All the skeptics like UAH because it gives them what they want, not because of any understanding of its scientific validity.

            Because once you investigate this stuff properly you realize that there is much less controversy than the blogs and the media would like to whip you into, and everyone is doing the best they can with what they’ve got to work with. Even the evangelicals.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            barry says:

            ”Excellent scientists like Gavin Schmidt and Jim Hansen also have been called to testify. They stood up and gave their learned opinion. It seems you think that this means they must be objective. Interesting!
            ————————–
            Perhaps.

            I listened to at least some of John and Roy’s testimony, perhaps not everytime they have stood up before Congress.

            I have not ever heard what Gavin and Jim might have said in front of Congress. So I have no opinion on that front.

            As one might expect giving such testimony you can state facts in the area of experience like the results of signals coming back from a satellite. Thats science. Thats objective.

            Scientists in testimony can say they are concerned or not concerned. Those are subjective statements and as are all opinions and should be labeled clearly as such.

            One should conclude that if scientists are standing up and saying different things and giving different opinions the science isn’t settled.

            But a smart policy maker realizes the subjective opinion is from a person who is not representative of the population who will certainly have other priorities.

            Thats why I make such a big deal about inculcation which by definition is a learned opinion. Its entirely subjective.

            Why am I having to tell you this?

          • barry says:

            I don’t know why you need to say anything, but when you speak bunkum I sometimes point it out.

            Spencer and Christy were chosen by the Republican party to speak at congress because their views were aligned with those of the Republican party – which was that there’s no need to reduce fossil fuels.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            And the democrats call in scientists aligned with the democrat party as well. Why do you have your panties in a bunch about that?

          • barry says:

            Panties, Bill?

            You’ve lost the thread of the conversation.

            But as you now seem to be agreeing that Spencer and Christy are as biased as anyone else, it doesn’t matter.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry the point is who gets called in by which party doesn’t show which scientist has the bias.

            I assume you aren’t that naive. All scientists in the weather and climate field are effectively in the climate ‘business’. Politics might matter the most to some but that is not my experience. Independence and all that implies is important. But more important is to listen carefully as to what they are promoting. Are there incentives they could be seeking? Are they rent seeking.

            Thats why the websites with the least amount of integrity claim incentives that they have no idea if they materially exist or not. They do that when they are concerned about empirical measures of bias. They struggle to thrown something on the other side of the scale. The money has be coming clandestinely from some corporation because they sure aren’t motivated to say what they are saying as a civil servant.

            A dollar/promotional/empire building opportunity is a quality that can be roughly measured empirically.

  4. Bindidon says:

    Don Healy

    Your comments (January 14, 2023 at 9:19 AM; 1:11 PM)

    You claim

    – to have compared the trend lines of the UAH data for USA49 to the USCRN data for the period from 2005 to the present

    and

    – to have inspected 30 of the USHCN stations and found only 2 that were in compliance.

    *
    1. First of all: how many USCRN stations did you use for your comparison to UAH49, and how did you generate the USCRN data?

    Last year I downloaded all USCRN hourly data from the very begin till June 2021, and generated absolute and anomaly data:

    – ungridded, direct averaging of station anomalies into months;
    – gridded, i.e. with first averaging anomalies into 2.5 degree grid cells (a grid like UAH’s).

    Here is the CRN/UAH anomaly comparison I obtain for Jan 2005-Jun 2021, with 133 of 137 stations processed wrt the mean of 2016-2020:

    – ungridded

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ClQPD8L83XT_WiKwnvuP9Fsn4PVs2wS-/view

    – gridded

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WSU4vRg-QyOeBGSWCfDYSCUN77AIh3K3/view

    Even the ungridded data doesn’t clearly match UAH49.

    *
    2. Which USHCN stations did you compare to which USCRN stations?

    *
    3. Here is a comparison of the original USCRN data of 133 stations to their respective data in GHCN daily, in order to ensure that the latter sufficiently match the former:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZE-y65iuHTD051x0WCGomObDS4KE8mL_/view

    *
    4. Now we compare the 133 GHCN daily data of the USCRN stations to all available 920 GHCN daily stations located in the 1 degree vicinity of the 133, by the ways ensuring that we won’t compare station subsets having nothing in common:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZvuVnJeKQ5R41AXDZKNzg4d50BCnkYu/view

    Of these 920 stations however, 92 are located within airports.

    A last comparison shows how these remaining 828 GHCN daily stations behave compared to the 133 GHCN daily CRN stations:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAU5AKRJZgTuk5ODMMlOwsmkQREbvPo2/view

    *
    Maybe you show us your data?

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, hasn’t it?

      Presumably, you have a graph which reflects this inconvenient fact.

      Would you mind providing it?

      You could just have two points, if you want to simplify things. An estimate global surface temperature high enough to reflect the molten surface, and an estimated present global temperature, lower than your first point.

      If you want more points, it will create great difficulties. You do not possess the ability to calculate the shape of the cooling curve, as it involves things like the exponential decay of radiogenic heat, plus the different effect of the radiative intensity associated with the fourth power of the absolute surface temperature, the core, the mantle, and the relevant heat transfer properties, to say nothing of the chaotic and not yet understood mechanisms of tectonic motion and so forth.

      I don’t believe you have the ability to calculate these things, which means you cannot give any reasons at all why current surface temperatures are not precisely what they should be.

      Delusional SkyDragon cultists just deny reality, and attempt to abuse anyone who doesn’t fall for their evangelism. Feel free to present some facts, if you disagree with my opinions.

      Only joking – I know you can’t.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, hasnt it? ”

        Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.

        Lacking as usual anything relevant to say, he urges is saying something irrelevant.

        Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Don’t like fact?

          I don’t blame you. You would have to face the fact that the Earth cooled – in spite of GHGs, GHE, SkyDragon chanting – or anything else!

          By the way, although your English is quite good for a sauerkraut, saying “he urges is saying something irrelevant.” makes you look either sloppy or illiterate.

          Maybe you could give your view on the role of the GHE in the observed cooling of the Earth since its creation? Feel free to deny the surface was ever molten, if that would suit you.

          You might expose yourself to a little bit of disagreement, but I would hope that you would be willing to defend your position.

    • Don Healy says:

      The comparison of the USCRN record to the recent UAH data involved going to the site:

      https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/

      and selecting Average temperature anomaly, 1-Month,and all months in the fields and hitting plot, then copying the data in the USCRN column after converting to Centigrade and entering the data into an excel spread sheet.
      The data from Dr. Spencer’s UAH site in the column “USA49″ for the same period was selected and entered into the the next line on the Excel Spread Sheet. The graphing functions were used to compare the two and a linear trend line was chosen for both data sets. The data for both was monthly average temperatures. It is recognized that the two programs take measurements from different areas, but the fact that the two trend lines matched so closely appeared to indicate that the satellite record was validated by the USCRN’s surface record over the period covered.

      You appear to question our experience in checking the 30 sites on the USHCN under Anthony Watts” Surface Station Project for which he gave us honorable mention in his initial publication.
      Let me give you one example, that might explain our deep reservations: We checked the station at Port Angeles, Washington. The GPS coordinates showed the MMTS unit on the Court House lawn. We found the unit and quickly checked its siting relative to NOAA standards. It was a bit too close to the building and adjacent to a concrete walkway. A bit out of compliance but not too bad. After concluding our survey I went inside and asked if it was possible to talk with the individual responsible for the unit and I was referred to Jimmy in the Engineering Department. Jimmy took me upstairs to his office and explained that they had had problems with people vandalizing the unit. He pointed out his office window to a light pole across the street to show me a unit that he had purchased from Oregon Scientific to replace the damaged MMTS unit and had mounted 30 feet or so up the utility pole, not far from a street light. This was the type of unit that one might buy for home use; not one compliant with NOAA standards. Additionally, per NOAA standards the units are supposed to 100 feet from the nearest paved surface, 5 to 6 feet above ground level, 4 times the height of any obstructions away for the obstruction and on terrain typical of the general area. The utility pole was set over pavement from an intersection with streets on two sides, with the other sides composed of a paved motel parking lot.

      I have no idea as to what the correct adjustments should be to this station, and I doubt NOAA does either. In fact, from other misplaced sites we found I doubt that NOAA was even aware that the instrumentation and placement had been changed.

      This was one of the worst sites we surveyed, but there were quite a few runner-ups and one even more poorly sited.

      The really bad news to me is that while only 11% of the sites in Watt’s earlier survey meet standards, Watt’s most recent re-survey of the old USHCN sites which have now been incorporated into the ClimDiv Network (I believe this is correct) have deteriorated even further.

      I find it incomprehensible that with flaws of this nature that we can trust the information from this older network or any databases using this information. The satellite record and the USCRN data appear to be the only valid data bases available.

      • Bindidon says:

        Don Healy

        Thanks for the convenient reply.

        1. I’m happy to discover that NOAA’s USCRN shows a trend even lower than what I evaluated out of their own sources:

        https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/

        because some people on this blog endlessly discredit NOAA.

        And that NOAA’s USCRN is even perfectly on par with UAH’s usa49 time series is amazing because I myself am so often discredited when posting charts comparing NOAA and UAH in a similar way!

        { The differences between NOAA’s and my evaluation

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ClQPD8L83XT_WiKwnvuP9Fsn4PVs2wS-/view

        are mainly due to a completely different generation of anomalies: while NOAA use their well-known Pairwise Homogenisation Algorithm, which is based on step-wise alignment of station anomalies, I generate them completely stand-alone and reject all stations lacking sufficient data in the selected reference period. }

        *
        2. However, your lecture on this endlessly chewed discussion of poorly placed weather stations was of little help, as it is limited to extremely few places.

        This reminds me of those WUWT lectures by a certain Dave Burton, who endlessly conjured up the slogan ‘No sea level rise’, but only on the basis of very few tide gauges (about 15 out of 1500) but was never able to back up his claims with an overall analysis.

        So it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t say a word about my results, as if you had no interest in producing anything other than your own view.

        Did you even understand that the graphic

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAU5AKRJZgTuk5ODMMlOwsmkQREbvPo2/view

        is in fact pointing out how little your purely local UHI investigations have to do with reality?

        Because if
        – the trend from data out of 828 weather stations randomly selected in the immediate vicinity of the 133 very best weather stations in the US, corresponds exactly to
        – the trend from the latters’ probably most reliable data:
        where exactly is your UHI problem, please?

        *
        3. Let me please finally come back to Watts’ claims about badly sited temperature measurement stations.

        In 2012, NOAA posted somewhere the following list of 71 USHCN stations

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view

        considered ‘well-sited’ by Watts’ collaborators at his ‘surfacestations.org’.

        Here is the result of a comparison, made some years ago, of the data from these 71 ‘well-sited’ stations to ALL available GHCN daily stations having sufficient data for building anomalies wrt the 1981-2010 period:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view

        The running means show that the average of over 8,000 randomly selected stations of mostly poor quality has even a lower trend than thw ‘well-sited’ set!

        Sorry, Sir: this is simply laughable.

        • Clint R says:

          Bindidon, did you inform Don that you always attack and abuse people that bring science and reality here?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Bindidon I don’t understand what you are getting at.

          Paragraph 2: Why is this graph comparing non-airport stations to ghcn stations?

          Paragraph 3: What does Watts Surface Station project poorly sited stations have to do with UHI? Watts was only looking to see if the screens were currently placed in accordance with established standards. You can’t measure UHI like that. thinking you can; well I agree that would be laughable but what does that have to do with Roy?

          • barry says:

            “What does Watts Surface Station project poorly sited stations have to do with UHI?”

            A lot. They were trying to show that micro site influences bias the record, and UHI has always been Anthony Watt’s top-ranked bias.

            But Bindidon was graphing Watts’ best sited stations, not the poorly sited ones.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry, stations that don’t meet NOAA standards are just plain not reliable when one is concerning oneself with less than a degree warming.

            Why would a station with poor controls be a bellweather for anything?

          • barry says:

            It’s like you’re having a conversation with someone else. Nothing you said just then bore on what I said.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry I am not in here defending anything.

            IMO, Anthony Watts an experienced meteorologist understands the sensitivities of measuring climate. His opinion was carried out in his results that bad stations have different temperature readings than good stations.

            His efforts sparked interest in the topic. While Anthony’s amateur volunteer effort identified a huge number of violations of NOAA standards completely justifying his concern; follow up research is showing that NOAA standards themselves are inadequate.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/6/jamc-d-19-0002.1.xml

          • barry says:

            “follow up research is showing that NOAA standards themselves are inadequate.”

            Is the following link meant to demonstrate this assertion? Because it doesn’t.

            Surfacestations.org produced nothing new. Microsite biases were already known about and discussed from decades before.

            https://sci-hub.se/10.1175/1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007:anporg%3E2.0.co;2

            This paper (1993), like others following, notes that UHI is amplified at night – minima are more impacted than maxima.

            UHI with respect to climate records has been discussed even earlier.

            https://tinyurl.com/25ykphwn (1988) for example

            Fall et al 2011 is Anthony Watts only peer-reviewed, published work on microsite bias in US weather stations.

            They found what others had found before them. Minima are biased warm by UHI, and maxima are biased cold, at sites with urban encroachment. They also found that this didn’t affect the averages, as the effects tended to cancel out.

            A thesis and conclusion already reached by the people whose job it is to put the temperature records together.

            http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eoswald/Menne2009_USHCN_V2.pdf

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094

            Fall et al added a little detail, but the work didn’t give any new information that would influence how the US temp record is assessed.

            Sure, Watts should be commended for doing some work. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept that Time of Observation bias is a necessary adjustment, and one that they needed to do in Fall et al to get non-spurious results. When faced with serious science instead of blogging, Watt’s cries of foul were suddenly muted, and while they amplified the results that were already known – maxima and minima were biased at poorly sited stations – they buried near the bottom of the paper the finding that the best sited stations matched the official record when it came to average temperatures.

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146#jgrd16904-bib-0031

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry says:

            ”He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept that Time of Observation bias is a necessary adjustment, and one that they needed to do in Fall et al to get non-spurious results.”

            Not sure why that is. Doesn’t CO2 warm every hour of the day?

          • barry says:

            Why can’t skeptics tell expensive jokes?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I am understanding a need for a station observer to select the same time every day and if you change your time of observation its apt to have an effect, especially during the day. Nighttime though is pretty much quick surface cooling followed by warming and cooling throughout the night with indeed the coldest occurring before first light. So per documentation they adjust everything to midnight. Heck there is zero sun from early night to like 4am at least if not later. Add to that an anomaly is going to x degrees at virtually any time of the day with just the uncertainty of clouds, humidity, or winds changing the temperature.

            So an auditor then is called to audit the adjustments and when adjustments are being carried out really for no reason thats a red flag. Perhaps you have some documentation supporting the reasoning?

        • barry says:

          Bindidon,

          GHCN daily for the US is ‘raw’ data, right? That’s problematic.

          Adjusting for ToB raises the US trend quite a bit.

          So the raw data can’t safely be used to compare against Watts’ 71.

          The relatively cooler trend could potentially a result of ToB, rather than any soundness about the raw data.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Looks like you goofed in the gridded to ungridded comparisons under #1 Your crn anomaly increased significantly.

      Ungridded difference to UAH appears ~.045/decade
      gridded difference to UAH appears ~.136/decade

      Something appears wrong there. Needs explanations.

      As I see it with a less than climate length sampling range and the biggest deviations between the records coming from ENSO events.
      And since La Nina comes early and El Nino coming late in the record that deviation is going to be exaggerated by both phases of ENSO when measuring a trend.

      Thus ENSO needs to be detrended to remove that weather influence. Or alternatively you need a longer sampling period to detrend it naturally into a climate record.

      Thus I am sure UAH49 is going to close the gap with USCRN as time goes on. You should be able to easily see that problem by trending shorter periods say 2015 to 2021. Do that one and CRN is going to be cooling a good deal faster than UAH.

  5. Swenson says:

    Dr Spencer wrote –

    “In the latest GHCN dataset version Tmax and Tmin are no longer provided separately, only their average (Tavg) is available.”

    This seems bizarre. The only time for providing only averages is when you want to hide data, or if you dont know what you are doing. For example, the average of 50 C and 0 C is 25 C. So is 30 C and 20 C.

    Dressing for the second average, but being exposed to the first, can and has killed, under wartime conditions.

    One possible reason might be to obscure the effect that Dr Spencer surmises might be occurring, which would be more noticeable as an increase in the minimum temperature. Averaging would have the effect of raising the average temperature, but hiding the fact that maxima have not increased (the human heat contribution being minor in comparison with daytime sunlight).

    A nifty parlour trick, if the intention is to mislead people into believing the claims of the SkyDragon cultists.

    It doesn’t matter. As Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.” Fools keep trying, though.

  6. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It remains extremely cold in Siberia. There was just recorded -62.4 C in Tongulakh, new all-time low at this station. Moreover, it is the coldest temperature in Siberia since 2002.
    https://i.ibb.co/bBrmDRJ/325838369-857299378716565-6928693938482106968-n.jpg

  7. winston says:

    It might interesting to look at January data as well as those from July. Simple observation gives me to believe that even slightly urbanized or industrialized areas are much warmer in winter than surrounding countryside, especially overnight in high latitudes. Possibly it is enough to affect monthly average temperatures.

      • winston says:

        Are you sure, Bindidon? I went back and re-read the article that you linked, and as I remembered, it seemed to concentrate on August data for the Northern Hemisphere. A gppd piece. But while I grant that Winter and August in the Southern Hemisphere is probably of interest, I’m after looking at winter in the U.S. Perhaps you were thinking of another post? I do forget things, and I certainly miss some, so I’d be interested in seeing/re-reading anything of that nature from any authorative source.
        I don’t do this sort of analysis myself, anymore (if ever), but it seems that the hype and focus is popularly on the high temperature end, when according to the theory night time lows should also be shifting upwards. Might not urban heat island effects also give a strong signal in the winter?

  8. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Dr Roy Spencer.

    “The issue is important (obviously) because if observed warming trends have been overstated, then any deductions about the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are also overstated.”

    It’s also important to keep the issue in perspective. Focusing on land surface temperatures misses over 90% of the warming of the planet from anthropogenic sources.

    As you well know, about 93% of the heat imbalance is going into the oceans. Another 3% is going into melting ice, and only 2-3% into raising surface temperatures.

    So, yes it is important that we have the best possible surface temperature dataset. But in context it is a small component of the climate system sensitivity calculation.

    • Swenson says:

      TM,

      You wrote –

      “As you well know, about 93% of the heat imbalance is going into the oceans.”

      Nonsense, unless you choose to believe in Trenberth’s “missing heat”, – which can’t be found. The oceans don’t freeze because the rock below them is hot. At 10 km depth, the crust is around 200 C, and this is what 10 km deep ocean is sitting in.

      Sunlight warms the top water only, which stubbornly floats on the colder water beneath.

      Saying “as you well know” is just a silly SkyDragon cultist attempt to present fiction as fact.

      There is no “climate sensitivity”. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.

      • Entropic man says:

        “The oceans dont freeze because the rock below them is hot. At 10 km depth, the crust is around 200 C, and this is what 10 km deep ocean is sitting in. ”

        Thank you. Best laugh I’ve had all weekend.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          Laugh at facts all you like. Reality doesn’t care if you laugh at it. Nor do I.

          There is nothing wrong with you laughing for no particular reason, if it makes you happy.

          You might have an additional laugh at the fact that Antarctic ice caps are warmer under several kilometers of ice.

          According to the European Space Agency –

          “However, although the surface of the ice sheet is cold, the temperature increases with depth primarily because of the basal geothermal heating from beneath Earths crust. In places, it is warm enough to melt the ice, which accounts for the presence of lakes and a vast hydrological network at the bedrock.”

          I assume you think that the ice stores heat from sunlight, just as I assume you think that oceans “store” heat from the sun!

          Other SkyDragons seem to believe similar nonsense, but they seem to be a sour lot. At least you can laugh at yourself.

          Keep it up.

          • Entropic man says:

            Swenson

            The oceans dont freeze because the rock below them is hot. At 10 km depth, the crust is around 200 C, and this is what 10 km deep ocean is sitting in.

            You have just declared that a submarine at the bottom of the Marianas Trench would measure an external water temperature of 200C instead of the actual 4C.

            Of course it’s funny. It’s the daftest thing you’e said in a long time.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Don’t look more stupid than you really are.

            You wrote –

            “You have just declared that a submarine at the bottom of the Marianas Trench would measure an external water temperature of 200C instead of the actual 4C.” Of course I didn’t, you ninny.

            That’s why you can’t quote me, but try to convince others that the contents of your bizarre fantasy are to be preferred to fact. Others might call it lying, but it is more gently referred to as SkyDragon cultist delusion.

            A thermometer at the bottom of the Marianas Trench immersed in water will read whatever it reads – maybe a little less than 4 C, actually. I’m not sure why you think that the thermal profile of the crust is similar to that of the ocean, but if you do, you are quite mad.

            Unlike the ocean, the temperature of the crust rises with depth – Wikipedia states around 25 – 30 C per Km, but I try to be conservative.

            Keep laughing at the facts – it still won’t make them go away. “Nature can’t be fooled” – Feynman.

    • Clint R says:

      TM, your cult was content with land measurements until they started being debunked. Now you want to move into the ocean.

      Where will you go next?

  9. Martijn van Gelderen says:

    for other countries?! Please could you include The Netherlands? For example, at one of the big five stations, Eelde (an airport), without discussing this with the kNMI, there have been paced lots of solar panels up to tens of meters

  10. Bindidon says:

    Roy Spencer

    ” In the latest GHCN dataset version Tmax and Tmin are no longer provided separately, only their average (Tavg) is available. ”

    Indeed, V4 lacks this separation, unlike V3.

    The only way to keep it is to use GHCN daily:

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

    and to average the daily data into months.

    It’s a lot of additional work but has the advantage to offer raw data.

  11. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The temperature near the surface largely depends on the degree of sunlight and the type of surface, since the Earth’s troposphere is very thin.
    https://i.ibb.co/gb0jSr5/zt-nh.gif

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A simple question: why is all the warming near the surface concentrated only in the Northern Hemisphere? Czy może dlatego, że najwięcej CO2 jest teraz na płkuli płnocnej?
    https://i.ibb.co/4TQrTvK/gfs-world-wt2-t2anom-d1.png
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/01/15/0300Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/patterson

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Sorry.
      Or is it because the most CO2 is now in the northern hemisphere?

    • Entropic man says:

      If you check UAH you will note that the ocean warming rate is 0.13C/decade and the land rate is 0.18C/decade.

      Since the majority of land is in the Northern Hemisphere this would naturally lead to a higher warming rate in the Northern Hemisphere.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        As Dr Spencer is investigating, hotter thermometers are due to increased heat.

        Delusional SkyDragon cultists claim that a magical new source of heat due to CO2 being present in the atmosphere suddenly appeared, no doubt due to sinful humans.

        Apparently, the GHE did not exist for four and a half billion years or so, and so the Earth cooled.

        But now, the cult of the SkyDragon and its “coal trains of death”, promotes the coming incineration of mankind – unless sufficient donations and obedience to the SkyDragon cult leaders are forthcoming.

        Pardon me while I snigger.

      • barry says:

        Entropic was talking about UAH temperatures. No thermometers.

  13. Adam Gallon says:

    The map showing the locations of the GHCN stations, really shows that it’s not at all “Global”, simply Northern hemisphere with a smattering of stations further south.

    • barry says:

      It’s not even Northern Hemispheric, but only some parts of the land parts. You can’t even talk about ‘national average temperature’ if you don’t have a thermometer every 10 meters to account for microsite influences.

      :eyeroll:

      They test for how much coverage they need. The result is that a subset of a hundred stations provides similar results to a subset of a different hundred stations, which are both similar to the whole data set.

  14. Milton Hathaway says:

    The focus on surface air temperatures still seems odd to me, at least from a physics viewpoint. Air is such wispy stuff, with a (volumetric) heat capacity a few orders of magnitude lower than solids or liquids, such as land or water. Using a small number of temperatures to characterize an entire day seems even more problematic; a minimum or maximum temperature might have only existed for a minute or two (e.g., clouds rolling by). And how is average temperature related to thermal energy storage? Is it a linear relationship? (I think it is when delta-T is the driver of thermal energy storage, but I don’t know if the relationship is linear when delta-T is the consequence of thermal energy storage.)

    It seems like the quantity of interest is total thermal energy storage, and the rate of change of total thermal energy storage over time. If I were challenged to measure this, I think I would look for natural reservoirs of thermal energy, like deeper bodies of water (larger lakes and oceans). Water temperatures at various depths would be measured to estimate the total heat storage per unit volume. The UHI error would disappear completely, since the planet-wide total thermal energy storage estimate would be summing energy directly. (I.e., a body of water in an urban area may be heating faster, but that’s real actual thermal energy and should be added in to the total, although it’s contribution will generally be negligible.)

    Yes, there are possible sources of ‘error’ to worry about, such as evaporation, but perhaps evaporation would be more easily characterized and corrected (using temperature, humidity, wind speed). I suppose dealing with surface ice might be a bigger challenge.

    I’ve read that measuring ocean water temperature, where most of the thermal energy storage resides, is challenging because very small fractions of a degree must be measured accurately and repeatably over long periods of time. This brings to mind an analogy of measuring the position and speed of a slow-moving dog, and deciding to instrument the dog’s tail with an accelerometer because the signals are much larger and thus can be measured more accurately. Does your intuition tell you that is going to give you a more accurate estimate of the parameter of interest? (I was tempted to use the “Streetlight Effect” as an analogy, but it’s not quite that bad.)

    Say – what did happen to all the “missing heat” getting so much attention in the past? It looks like they still haven’t for sure found it, it’s still all theorizing:

    https://www.antarcticajournal.com/the-missing-heat-global-warming-hits-plateau/

    The warmists, of course, still claim the missing heat is still there, and will come roaring back to life eventually – another one of their beloved “tipping points” that are supposed to prod us into action despite the lack of evidence of a problem.

    • Entropic man says:

      I’m with Tyson McGuffin. 93% of the extra energy retained in the climate system as we warm goes into the ocean.

      Was it Richard Lindzen or Roger Pielke who suggested that the most reliable measure of global warming is ocean heat content?into

      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/

      • Entropic man says:

        Or you could use sea level.

        https://sealevel.colorado.edu/

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          If you want to believe delusional SkyDragons who claim that they can measure “global sea levels” to within about the thickness of a human hair, go right ahead.

          You might choose to believe “The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter).”, if you wish.

          You might even believe that somebody knows how the ocean bottoms are falling, and how they know it. Maybe they use very long pieces of string, with a weight attached? Graduated to 0.1 mm, of course.

          Only joking, of course. Nobody has the faintest idea of what the 70% of the surface covered by ocean is doing. Estimates of the volume of magma involved in sea floor spreading vary – nobody really knows.

          The SkyDragon cultists at Colorado apparently don’t want to acknowledge that in some places, land surfaces are falling, but hey, why use facts, if fiction will suffice?

          Carry on believing.

      • Clint R says:

        Your problem Ent is that the only way to heat the oceans is with solar. Infrared from CO2 won’t do it.

        It’s the Sun, stupid.

        • Entropic man says:

          Infrared from CO2 creates a warm surface film which makes it harder for heat to flow from the ocean to the atmosphere. Less heat flow, warmer ocean.

          Exaggerating for clarity, if the ocean below the surface is at 9C and the atmosphere is 10C, a surface film at 11C reverses the temperature gradient the surface film and the water below.

          Perhaps you should learn more before making false statements about what is impossible.

          • Entropic man says:

            Even a small effect can be significant

            Again, the near surface ocean temperature is 10C and the atmosphere is at 9C. The temperature gradient is 1C.

            Now warm the surface film with IR to 9.1C The temperature gradient between the surface film and the water below has dropped from 1C to 0.9C and heat flow has dropped by 10%.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Ent, you’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You are an idiot. The Sun heats water in the phototropic zone, obviously. The hotter water rises to the surface. At night, the hotter surface radiates its heat (mainly directly to outer space) and cools, in line with the laws of thermodynamics. It is displaced by now less dense water below it.

            Net result, all deep water eventually consists of the densest water in the column. Depending on geothermal heating from below, and salinity, bottom Temperatures average close to 4 C.

            Even NOAA reluctantly agrees – “Therefore, the deep ocean (below about 200 meters depth) is cold, with an average temperature of only 4C (39F). Cold water is also more dense, and as a result heavier, than warm water. Colder water sinks below the warm water at the surface, which contributes to the coldness of the deep ocean.”

            They haven’t managed to accept the fact that the crust is quite warm, in absolute terms, yet.

            Keep pushing your delusional fantasy. There is no GHE, and the Earth has cooled from the molten state over the past four and a half billion years or so.

            Make up some fresh nonsense – maybe the ocean “stores” heat? You dimwit, without an external heat source, the oceans would cool – all the way to absolute zero! The Earth is a big ball of mostly glowing rock. Get used to it.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Listen peabrain, you wrote –

            “The temperature gradient between the surface film and the water below has dropped from 1C to 0.9C and heat flow has dropped by 10%.”

            And the temperature still drops, doesn’t it?

            No increase in temperature. Energy is still being lost. It’s called cooling, and in spite of delusional SkyDragon cultists claiming that slow cooling results in raised temperatures, the four and a half billion years or so of the planet’s history demonstrate otherwise.

            You really have no clue about this, do you?

            There is no heat “trapping”, “multiplication”, or “accumulation”. That is why nobody has ever managed to provide experimental support for such fantasies! You can’t even describe this “GHE”, can you?

            Dimwit.

        • Entropic man says:

          I need my coffee. In my 6.03 post the ocean should have been at 10C and the atmosphere at 9C.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Nobody is paying attention to you anyway.

          • Entropic man says:

            Yes, ignoring science while espousing denialist pseudoscience is the norm here. Your continuing support for Ed Berry’s nonsense puts you clearly into the same class as ClintR, Gordon Robertson and Swenson.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, “denying science” is you claiming that passenger jets fly backwards.

          • Entropic man says:

            ClintR

            Thank you for another example of denialist incomprehension. You are unable to understand that in some reference frames airliners can fly backwards.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, in the “reference frame” known as “reality”, passenger jets do NOT fly backwards.

            You’re such a braindead cult idiot you actually believe you can pervert reality.

            Fortunately, reality always prevails.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “You are unable to understand that in some reference frames airliners can fly backwards.”

            This is your description of the GHE, is it?

            Only joking, you can’t even describe the non-existent GHE, can you?

            No wonder you want to talk about anything but something non-existent like the GHE!

            Go on, tell me how thermometers are made hotter by greenhouse gases! How hard can it be?

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Funny how you keep bringing up Dr. Berry. It was fun watching you try to debate him. You were so outmatched, and you still don’t understand.

      • barry says:

        It was Roger Pielke Snr that insisted ocean heat content was the best way to measure global warming, which the ‘skeptics’ lapped up then, but for some reason have become disinterested today.

  15. Although Anthony Watts pointed out lower quality stations having greater warming trend than higher quality stations, there is the matter that USCRN is warming as much as USHCN is.

    • Swenson says:

      DLK,

      Generally, hotter thermometers are a result of higher temperatures in the vicinity.

      Hopefully, readings of the same thermometers should agree with each other.

      Are you saying anything different?

      • Bindidon says:

        Flynnson

        Do you have the least idea of how dumb your reply to Mr Klipstein is?

        As usual, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.

        Lacking as usual anything relevant to say, he urges is saying something irrelevant.

        Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          You wrote –

          “Do you have the least idea of how dumb your reply to Mr Klipstein is?”

          No, and I’m certain you can’t even explain why you made such a witless statement, can you?

          I suppose you are stupid enough to claim that thermometer respond to greenhouse gases by becoming hotter!

          If so, you are nothing but an idiotic SkyDragon cultist.

      • barry says:

        “Hopefully, readings of the same thermometers should agree with each other.”

        It seems the point of Roy’s article went right over your head. Donald is right. The full USHCN gives the same result as the pristine USCRN, suggesting that the issue of UHI is not an issue – at least since 2005.

  16. Willard says:

    Lots of urbanization has been done in Europe lately:

    Europe is experiencing its worst heatwave ever recorded.

    The combined intensity and scale of this winter heatwave is unlike anything in European history.

    https://twitter.com/US_Stormwatch/status/1609829457292066818

    Vlad’s fanboys might not like this.

  17. David Ramsay says:

    This is very interesting analysis with a methodology and approach that is objective. As a young physicist I worked at the NPL the UK metrology centre of excellence. No scientist there would ever allow detrimental influence on what they measure to exist if they could remove it – not so the UK Metoffice.

    I have reviewed a number of UK terrestrial weather stations that were flagged by the British Metoffice as recording a new record high temperature in July last year of 40.3 C at Coningsby ( they omitted to mention it is RAF Coningsby ) 53deg 05’38″N 0deg 10’22″W. while this site would arguably be in the less urbanised and certainly lower growth of urbanisation in Dr Spencer’s analysis any credible scientific person reviewing the site would see it is deeply flawed to bias in recording a false HIGH temperature. The weather station is surrounded by asphalt and concrete and also appears to have concrete walkways to the instruments. With asphalt reaching 20 to 25 deg C above ambient (as confirmed by reports of asphalt going soft on nearby roads) the station was clearly unfit to record a UK record high.

    The British Metoffice fails in its responsibility for honest metrology. I believe the Metoffice is now a campaigning organisation which misleads policy in the UK given it is a government body. I am a petroleum engineer but even I know we have to transition our energy supply but we need to manage this propoerly. The Metoffice is not fit for purpose nor are its weather stations, a majority read false highs from my desk top review and in my opinion.

    Good efforts Dr Spencer a voice of scientific reason in a sea of arguably fraudulent data.

    • Entropic man says:

      Are we talking about the same RAF Coningsby?

      Last time I checked, the weather station was at the southeastern edge of the airfield, 1000m South of the 07/25 main runway with all the built-up areas North of the runway. The airfield between North and West near the station is grass and WW2 vintage dispersals. The other three quadrants are open fields.

      The previous record was at Cambridge Botanic Gardens which is quite urban ( I grew up there). I was not surprised to see a record from a town in the warmest area of the UK. I was surprised to see an effectively rural station like RAF Coningsby produce such a big jump.

      I don’t know where you get the delusion that RAF airfields are warm. I’ve been on many of them down the years. Apart from the odd runway they are enormous open expanses of grass with no shelter and a chill wind blasting across them.

      • David Ramsay says:

        It would seem you are unable to locate the automatic weather station at Coningsby….. go to the Metoffice website and you will find a list of all the locations of weather stations they list Coningsby as (53.094, -0.171 Automatic
        Copley England ). I posted the coordinates as well. If you put that in to google earth you will find it comes close to the weather station and what I have stated is accurate and factual. The Coningsby weather station is surrounded in very close proximity to asphalt and concrete pads. It is substandard due to its proximity to surfaces that will take a +23 deg C temp over ambient on a sunny day. The very point and topic if this article by Dr Spencer.

        Sorry to hear you grew up in a garden I am sure your rhodent friends miss your sharp wit and analytical mind.

    • Bindidon says:

      David Ramsay

      ” … any credible scientific person reviewing the site would see it is deeply flawed to bias in recording a false HIGH temperature. ”

      ” … in a sea of arguably fraudulent data. ”

      *
      As usual, cheap polemic instead of a scientific proof for this allegedly ‘fraudulent data’ !

      You are yourself not even able to show us any valuable critique of Metoffice’s station siting.

      Here is one example:

      https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10546-017-0263-0.pdf

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        ” . . . instead of a scientific proof . . . “.

        Proof is for mathematics, sauerkraut.

        You are so delusional that you cannot even describe this alleged GHE, which after cooling the planet for four and a half billion years or so, miraculously decided to heat it up!

        Maybe you could launch into some “cheap polemic”, or some incomprehensible pseudo-English nonsense like “he urges is saying something irrelevant.”

        Off you go now, try and describe the “GHE”.

        Don’t blame me if all you get is sniggers or laughter, rather than applause.

        • Bindidon says:

          Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.

          Since, as usual, he has nothing relevant to say, he pushes to say something irrelevant.

          Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.

          • Swenson says:

            Bindidon,

            Please stop trying to troll.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            Unlike me, you could never stop ‘trying to’ troll.

            The only thing you can do, Flynnson, is stop trolling.

            How about jumping in at the deep end and just doing it?

          • Swenson says:

            Bindidon,

            Please stop trying to troll.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            Unlike me, you could never stop ‘trying to’ troll.

            The only thing you can do, Flynnson, is stop trolling.

            How about jumping in at the deep end and just stop your endless trolling replies?

          • Swenson says:

            Bindidon, please stop trying to troll.

      • David Ramsay says:

        Au contraire

        I posted the coordinates and it is clear to anyone prepared to open their eyes that the weather station in question is surrounded by asphalt and concrete. Indeed the proximity of these surfaces is too close for the accepted standards in weather stations. My posting the coordinates that clearly demonstrate a substandard weather station is quite correct. A site visit is nit. Required to see this. Try opening your eyes the coordinates from the met office are 53.094, -0.171 Automatic
        Copley England. When you have gone to google earth and viewed the station and measured distances then respond as to why my statement is wrong. I am an educated and practiced scientist I provided a valid opinion validated with coordinates to demonstrate and prove what I say. It is pertinent to the topic Dr Spencer is posting. When you have made the effort to look at the weatherstation on google earth do come back with comments.

        • Swenson says:

          David Ramsay,

          If the instrument enclosure is where I think it is, the instruments may be subject to jet exhaust wash – more noticeable if the military aircraft happen to fairly close when taxiing, depending on wind conditions at the time.

          Even more concerning, from the name “Automatic Copley”, the MetOffice may be using fast response digital thermometers, and not averaging the readings as per WMO standards.

          In any case, it’s all fairly irrelevant, just a matter of curiosity with no particular use. A hangover from 18th and 19th century passion with recording, temperature, humidity, wind speed etc. – because they could!

          The aircraft have no use for the MetOffice temperatures, and instead depend on a multitude of temperature measuring devices fitted to the aircraft for various purposes.

          Oh well, SkyDragon cultists seem infatuated with “surface” temperatures for some reason, completely ignoring the fact that actual surface (soil) temperatures are quite different to screened “air” temperatures, and that 70% of the planet is covered by water, and of the remaining 30%, much is mountainous, or having completely different characteristics to even 50 years ago.

          All completely pointless – an exercise in futility, trying to support a mythical greenhouse effect, which even its most ardent supporters cannot describe.

          Oh well, to each his own, I suppose.

          • David Ramsay says:

            It is possible jet wash picked up the heat of the asphalt and concrete lifting thermometer temp readings.

            The weather station is on the North Wrst of the field beside the tower.

            Several people have suggested the station is elsewhere however the Metoffice has the coordinates which shows it up as I describe.

            I align with Dr Spencer and Prof Christie of UAH regarding the temperature readings by satellite. The methodology captures a massive volume on a frequent basis and I have greater belief in its representation over flawed terrestrial data points that go through a model to extend a grid to areas without instruments. If we can’t have accurate and believable data then the resultant analysis and conclusions are flawed.

          • Entropic man says:

            Or here.

            https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1VlK41LLxJ1duQAYRseTzRfWvhL0&ll=53.085922492314175%2C-0.1639619413078175&z=14

            The weather station is the small blue dot to the West of location 5 on the southern boundary of the airfield.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Here’s a quote from a UK source. I don’t know how accurate it is –

            ” . ..sudden spike when the temperature jumped by 1.3C between 3.06pm and 3.12pm, to its highest ever of 40.3C. A table published by the national weather service showed that the recorded temperatures rose at a rate of between 0.1 and 0.6C a minute.”

            This tends to support digital instrumentation, and no compliance with WMO averaging requirements (to reject anomalous readings – say from jet aircraft exhaust).

            By the way, the location you gave seems to be in a farmer’s field. Satellite pic shows nothing there (apart from field).

            Maybe you could find a photo of the enclosure where the instruments are located. I’m not saying that you are wrong. The Coningsby satellite images show a fairly large airfield, home to 3 or 4 fighter squadrons, and there are weather forecasters stationed there, usually indicating a suite of meteorological recording instruments.

            It doesn’t matter, I suppose.

          • David Ramsay says:

            EM

            I have provided the coordinates that clearly show a weather station at RAF Coningsby and my source is the Metoffice website as their official location of an automatic station.

            Your links do not appear to show anything. If you believe the weather station is located in the south of the airfield please do provide the coordinates that I can put into google earth to locate the station.

            My coordinates tally with the Metoffice. The weatherstation is clearly visible on google earth and shows it surrounded by asphalt and concrete pads that would cause a false high to be read by thermometers.

            Perhaps you just post spurious posts to blur and hide the truth and facts, one would have to question why? To what end?

            I often find the climate alarmists use such tactics and the last thing they need is the truth. If you are not an alarmist intent on swamping threads with false statement then provide coordinates that would reveal an alternate weather station and explain why the Metoffice has the location identified as I have done.

      • David Ramsay says:

        I have briefly read your referenced paper. Perhaps you should have.

        The paper refers to Coningsby and accepts that Urban heat Island effect cause false readings. The general approach of the analysis is an integrated or averaged reading response and correlated to wind direction and urbanisation proximity and growth.

        The “proof” you refer to seems to be lost on you. I have clearly shown via the coordinates and the image IF you were to look that the site is deficient. My argument is not around general urbanisation but the specific conditions adjacent to the site. Indeed the asphalt and concrete are within 3 to 4 meters or the thermometer. These pads would be c. 20C above ambient in a hot sunny day when the sun is around its apex with maximum solar irradiance upon the absorbing surfaces. This is akin to hanging a theremometer on your oven to read the temperature of the kitchen.

        As a young Physicist I was employed at the National Physical Laboratory. I am very familiar with accurate measurement and repeatability of measurement. I suspect you may not have such education or experience. I do nit need to put a mathematical analysis forward to identify a measuring system as flawed it is thee to see fir those that will open their eyes and maybe minds though I doubt this will be you.

      • Bindidon says:

        Sorry, Mr Ramsay… your reply above is by no means an answer to what I wrote.

        • David Ramsay says:

          Yes it is an answer. Just one you do not care for.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Please spare us the faux sorrow.

          You wrote –

          “Sorry, Mr Ramsay your reply above is by no means an answer to what I wrote.”

          And your unsubstantiated assertion should be taken as fact because . . . ?

          Sorry, Bindidon, your claim not to be a delusional SkyDragon cultist is by no means supported by fact.

          You cannot even prove you are not suffering from delusional psychosis, can you?

          See how easy it is to throw assertions around?

  18. Tim S says:

    Climate should be a science debate instead of a political debate. I see in the news that Greta has been arrested again along with some of her followers. What is her science knowledge?

    • January 15, 2023
      Swedish activist Greta Thunberg was removed Sunday by police along with other protesters as they demonstrated against the razing of the German village of Ltzerath for the expansion of a coal mine.

      Thunberg did not comply with a police request to leave the area, prompting officers to physically escort her away, German media outlet Bild reported. Thunberg was among a group of activists still at the site on Sunday, the newspaper said.

      Climate activists have been squatting in the village in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia for more than two years to protest its demolition to accommodate an extension of the Garzweiler coal mine.

      Thunberg joined them on Saturday, telling a large rally in the fields outside Ltzerath that the German government’s compromise deal with the owner of the coal mine was “shameful.”

      According to the police, nine activists were taken to the hospital, Bild reported. More than 70 police officers have been injured in the operation to clear demonstrators from the site, the newspaper said.

      • Clint R says:

        Child abuse?

        Imagine if the fossil fuel industry touted some uneducated teen as their mascot. The Left would be having cows!

        • Don’t be daft.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Seibt

          Naomi Seibt (born 18 August 2000) is a German political activist, known as a climate change denier and for her opposition to climate activist Greta Thunberg. Until April 2020, she was employed by the Heartland Institute, an American conservative and right-wing public policy think tank that marketed her as the “anti-Greta”. She has spoken at multiple events organized by conservative think tanks and has self-identified as a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. Seibt also describes herself as a “climate realist” and has denied allegations that she is a “puppet of the right wing or the climate deniers or the Heartland Institute.”

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks Andrea.

            That kinda proves my point, in more ways than one….

          • Tim S says:

            I had never heard of this person before this link was posted. It does not surprise me that Wikipedia and the rest of the liberal media do not like her and would prefer to demonize and distort her views. Nonetheless we have this from Wikipedia:

            “She achieved a first place in physics in local regional competition of the Jugend forscht junior division, called “Students Experiment”, and second place in mathematics.”

            It took a considerable search to find this quote:

            Seibt, who will appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, this week, said she does not dispute that the Earth is being warmed by greenhouse gas emissions but that their impact has been overstated by many scientists and activists.

            I dont want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all, she told the paper. Are man-made CO2 emissions having that much impact on the climate? I think thats ridiculous to believe.

    • gbaikie says:

      She was indoctrinated by her parents, so, less than zero.

    • barry says:

      If you want a science debate, Tim, why are you bringing up Greta?

      Are you a politician?

  19. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 454.5 km/sec
    density: 8.46 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 177
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 234 sfu
    Updated 16 Jan 2023
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 16.60×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +0.5% Elevated
    [Some small Coronal Holes
    Solar Max conditions could be beginning- jump in
    with monthly Dec should go higher with Jan]

    “FALCON HEAVY LAUNCH: The second most powerful rocket in the world lifted off from Cape Canaveral last night, delivering national security payloads to orbit for the US military.”

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 438.3 km/sec
      density: 23.32 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 186
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 228 sfu
      Updated 17 Jan 2023
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 17.17×10^10 W Neutral
      [that might first time of going over 17 x 10^10 W in
      awhile]
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +0.4% Elevated
      48-hr change: +0.1%
      Don’t any new spot coming from farside, but these
      are going to be around for awhile and they might grow bigger.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 425.7 km/sec
        density: 3.95 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 185
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 222 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 17.65×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -0.9% Below Average
        48-hr change: -1.3%
        No new spot coming from farside but will be high
        for Jan even fades before Feb.

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 435.9 km/sec
          density: 5.06 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 166
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 220 sfu
          Updated 19 Jan 2023
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 17.96×10^10 W Neutral
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: -1.3% Below Average

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 478.4 km/sec
            density: 11.94 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 197
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 219 sfu
            Updated 20 Jan 2023
            https://www.spaceweather.com/
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 18.12×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -1.5% Below Average
            48-hr change: -0.5%

            Some small spot from farside, Jan going be
            jumping, high, but I think Feb will be weaker- but
            crash thru floor, but next 3 or 4 month I guessing
            will strong- strongest of cycle 25.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 448.4 km/sec
            density: 6.34 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 194
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 209 sfu
            Updated 22 Jan 2023
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -2.2% Below Average
            48-hr change: -0.0%

            Continue it’s strength, 1 or 1 small spot are
            coming from farside, while spots are disappearing from
            near side. Continuing to support large upward jump in
            Jan sunspot number.
            But seems to me Feb will fall back a little before this solar
            Max continues to heat up.
            We have couple moderate size Coronal holes which I believe are not
            as common in Solar Max.
            [And btw, it seems likely we heading towards a brief though strong Grand Solar Min- 24, 25, and 26 will be weaker.
            Since I believe this cause more extreme cold weather effects, in say 4 years, we see this.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 523.8 km/sec
            density: 10.51 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 166
            Updated 22 Jan 2023
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 209 sfu

            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 18.55×10^10 W Warm

            [Thermosphere is warm- and solar winds is
            howling]
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -1.9% Below Average

  20. gbaikie says:

    New imaging finds trigger for massive global warming 56 million years ago
    56 million years ago, hot magma scorched the sediments under the Atlantic seafloor.
    Howard Lee – 1/13/2023, 4:15 AM
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/scientists-image-remains-of-volcanic-burst-that-triggered-massive-warming/
    from: https://instapundit.com/

    “Seismic cross section through the upper part of the North Atlantic crust at Eriador Ridge a bulge of thickened crust. Gondor is an isolated ancient seabed volcano. Numbers along the bottom are the rough age of the crust in millions of years.”
    {Hobbits}

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Heavy rain continues across northern Queensland this week.
    A Severe Weather Warning for Heavy Rainfall is current in Queensland for the Central Coast, Whitsundays and parts of Herbert, Lower Burdekin, Central Highlands and Coalfields Forecast District.
    Widespread daily rainfall totals are likely to exceed 200 mm, while isolated areas could see up to 400 mm. Heavy to locally intense rainfall will particularly affect coastal areas between Ayr and St Lawrence and adjacent inland regions.
    Several Minor to Moderate flood warnings have already been issued across Queensland, while Major Flood Warnings are current for the Don river and the Pioneer river.
    There are several road closures across the state, including the Bruce Highway which is cut off in multiple sections.
    This rain is expected to ease by mid-week as this trough weakens and moves offshore on Wednesday.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      A cool front from the south is approaching Melbourne, which will bring rain and a respite from the heat for tennis players.

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The Alps will now experience record snowfall.

  23. Bindidon says:

    Hunter

    You wrote upthread:

    ” Paragraph 2: Why is this graph comparing non-airport stations to ghcn stations? ”

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DAU5AKRJZgTuk5ODMMlOwsmkQREbvPo2/view

    *
    This graph does NOT compare ‘non-airport stations to ghcn stations’.

    It compares, within the GHCN daily data set (over 40,000 stations worldwide, half in the US)

    – those storing the TMIN and TMAX data of 133 of the 137 pristine USCRN stations

    to

    – all 920 US stations located in the 1 degree grid cell of the USCRN stations – minus 92 of them located within airports = 828.

    The airport stations have been dropped as they are known to be the most UHI suspect.

    *
    The graph was updated today to show the previously missing filter output for the 828 station data (red). I also dropped the green UAH stuff, so it’s now easier to concentrate on USCRN (blue) versus USCRN vicinity (red).

    *
    Maybe you begin to understand what I’m showing for the USCRN period (2005-2022: 18 years).

    1. If the average of the most pristine, in the entire US least UHI suspected stations, shows a mean temperature trend (0.48 C / decade) slightly above that of the average of over 800 randomly selected weather stations located in their immediate near (0.46 C / decade): what then exactly means UHI?

    *
    2. It is 100% evident that when considering, like does Roy Spencer, exclusively the TMIN i.e. nighttime minima, the 133 least UHI affected USCRN stations show a lower trend then the 828 stations around them (0.47 versus 0.55 C / decade).

    *
    But… are we suddenly only measuring the TMIN temperatures worldwide just because the UHI factor is much more visible there, or what?

    What about TMAX?

    When looking at TMAX, you suddenly see that while the same 133 USCRN stations show on average a trend of 0.49 C / decade, the average of their 828 neighbour stations is only 0.36 C / decade.

    Did that suddenly become irrelevant for some ideological reasons??
    **

    ” Paragraph 3: What does Watts Surface Station project poorly sited stations have to do with UHI? ”

    Which ‘poorly sited stations’ of Watts’ Surface Station project can you have in mind, Hunter? The 71 I showed

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view

    on the contrary, are the ones that Watts and his collaborators selected as the least UHI-suspicious sites in 2011: you’d better read the big WUWT threads published on the subject at the time.

    **
    ” You cant measure UHI like that. thinking you can; well I agree that would be laughable but what does that have to do with Roy? ”

    Well I hope you got it now…

    But when I recall your incredibly condescending attitude against historical astronomy results like those presented here

    https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf

    – results which you discredited as ‘academic exercise’ despite your absolute lack of knowledge in the domain – I have kinda little doubt, Sir.

    • Bindidon says:

      Addendum

      With ‘all 920 US stations located in the 1 degree grid cell of the USCRN stations’ I understand the subset which had sufficient data for anomaly construction during the USCRN period.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      You are rambling Bindidon. You are making it more garbled. Go back and read my comments above about your comparisons of CRN to UAH. Consider them and then rewrite the above. I have no idea what you are trying to get at with the Tmin vs Tmax discussion. Makes no sense to me. Perhaps a more carefully authored and documented presentation and I can figure out what you are talking about.

    • Bindidon says:

      Hunter

      Me, rambling? Ha ha. Nice try.

      *
      ” Looks like you goofed in the gridded to ungridded comparisons under #1 Your crn anomaly increased significantly.

      Ungridded difference to UAH appears ~.045/decade
      gridded difference to UAH appears ~.136/decade
      Something appears wrong there. Needs explanations. ”

      *
      People like you, Hunter, should do own work, i.e. download data, process it and present own results, instead of boasting alleged knowledge based on nothing more than guessing.

      You seem to deliberately ignore the good old rule: ‘Put up or shut up’.

      *
      The difference between my ungridded and (2.5 degree) gridded USCRN anomaly data trends for 2005-2021 (0.37 resp. 0.47 C / decade) is due to the fact that for all years, there have been more stations than grid cells encompassing them. For example:
      Year Stations Cells

      2005 79 65

      2010 121 101

      2015 131 111

      2020 133 113

      As anybody writing comments in this context of course should know:

      – when generating ungridded data out of station records, all station data are directly averaged into months;
      – whereas when generating gridded data, these station data are first averaged into grid cells, and the grid cell averages then are finally averaged into months.
      *
      It is quite normal that the number of low trend records can dominate in the ungridded data but becomes dampened due to grid averaging, or vice-versa.

      In GHCN daily, there are a few grid cells in North East CONUS which encompass around 300 stations, but in central CONUS, some cells have less than 20 stations.

      Gridding means that grid cells with few stations have the same ‘voice’ as those with a huge number of stations.

      This is much more perceptible for the Globe:
      – ungridded GHCN daily data processing means that 20,000 stations in the US compete worldwide with 20,000 stations outside of it;
      – whereas gridded data means that 220 grid cells compete worldwide with 2,200 grid cells outside of it.

      *
      No problem for me to show the difference tomorrow.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        I know what gridding is but you are talking about gridding 135 stations of the USCRN network for the entire US and you come up with a huge difference. And your explanation is you have more stations than grid cells.

        Obviously your gridding effort is inadequate and all you are doing is tilting at windmills.

        And if you are going to make the claim that all Roy uses is Tmin when above he says he is trying to use hourly data, you need to put it in context by telling us what your source of that is.

        Since GHCN data processed by Berkeley Earth showed trends of Tmin and Tmax it was noted that the Tmin warming trend was about double that of Tmax. It is also interesting that the latest version of GHCN according to Roy above no longer gives that data but only give Tavg. Tmin being the dominant warming doesn’t fit the political narrative so I understand why our government who loves us is no longer providing that information. Like masks don’t work and the vaccine prevents infection narratives. Its all out of love, right?

        • Swenson says:

          Bill Hunter,

          Increased T min would would be expected if “warming” is due to man-made heat production. I”m not surprised that the SkyDragons have resorted to the refuge of reality deniers – the “average”!

          What a pack of delusional cultists!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The Sky Dragon Cult in here are just a bunch of anal sucking worshippers of the establishment.

          • Swenson says:

            Bill Hunter,

            I can’t find any facts to support me disagreeing with you, which is a roundabout way of saying I agree.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The picture becomes clearer as they move from topic to topic.

    • Bindidon says:

      More rambling, garbling and goofing for Hunter

      Two years ago, UAH presented on the blog statistics of highest daily maxima resp. lowest daily minima for a subset of USHCN stations:

      https://tinyurl.com/3uparkhw

      indicating how many stations reported their highest maximum resp. lowest minimum in each year.

      The intention behind the statistic was to show a decrease in time of weather events – both heat waves and cold drops.

      *
      I did a similar job, however
      – adding highest daily minima
      – using line charts instead of bar charts
      – extending the scope up to the Globe
      – showing the difference between ungridded and gridded data processing.

      1. Globe, ungridded data

      https://tinyurl.com/5n8t56jk

      2. Globe, gridded data

      https://tinyurl.com/yckmmhjz

      Who never saw these two graphs will ask: how is that difference possible?

      The answer is:

      3. CONUS, ungridded data

      https://tinyurl.com/hurm76p6

      And anyone can then understand that the ungridded data for the Globe lets look the Globe like CONUS’ backyard… because the CONUS stations utterly dominate the rest.

      Now comparing the linear estimates for the Globe in Obs/100K/decade from 1895 till 2021 (max / low min / high min):

      – ungridded: -23 ± 7 / -86 ± 6 / +8 ± 5
      – gridded: +16 ± 6 / -103 ± 5 / +53 ± 7

      Finally, let us look at

      4. CONUS, gridded data

      https://tinyurl.com/59fwmb6m

      and we see that, though being of course way smaller than for the Globe, the estimate differences still are visible:

      – ungridded: -47 ± 7 / -84 ± 6 / -16 ± 5
      – gridded: -40 ± 5 / -93 ± 3 / -11 ± 5

      But… for the period 2005-2021:

      – ungridded: +125 ± 15 / +77 ± 22 / +132 ± 15
      – gridded: +168 ± 29 / +65 ± 31 / +172 ± 44

      *
      Yeah.

      You doubt about all that? Fine!
      Do the same job, and come back with your results.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Bindidon says:
        1. Globe, ungridded data

        https://tinyurl.com/5n8t56jk

        2. Globe, gridded data

        https://tinyurl.com/yckmmhjz
        ———————————–
        Thats very interesting indeed. How come there are no high/low maxima lines like for the minima?

        • Bindidon says:

          Hunter

          I’m being 100% honest here: you’re the very first person to ask about this fourth alternative since the beginning of 2021.

          So I’ll get to work – on you alone, when I really have enough time.

        • Bindidon says:

          Hunter

          Work done.

          Only the graphic file contents were updated; thus, the four Google Drive links were kept unchanged.

          E.g. Globe gridded:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1veLI9gYJCDEWvyhux5zF0BfBaBHhoa6-/view

          That in the gridded global data, the correlation between low max and low min would be similar to that between high max and high min should not surprise anybody.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            That is interesting Bindidon.

            Years ago I saw a graph of temperature station record temperatures and high daily record temperatures were far below that of the 1930’s. I recall though it was done on the equivalent of USCHN in place at the time (though it may have had a different name then). But these were straight up thermometer variation not a far milder ‘mean’ variation of a huge area.

            I am really only interested in non-gridded temps.

            Thats for a couple of reasons.

            1) A large area in a 2.5degree grid at the equator would be about an area about 60 times the area of Los Angeles. Los Angeles has a huge temperature variation across the city so the daily records you would be recording would be extremely mild in comparison to what people are actually feeling.

            2) 2.5degree x 2.5 degree gridding strongly favors polar warming, which we know to be much greater than equator warming.

            A grid cell at the equator would be more than 50 times the area of a grid cell adjacent to the pole. Thus for an apples and oranges comparison the grid cells would need to be weighted by their corresponding area to be equivalents.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hunter

            You are as much aware of temperature record processing as you are of the way how the lunar spin and its polar axis are computed: namely, not at all.

            You simply ignore all that, but are brazen enough to discredit those who are really knowledgeable.

            *
            1. ” A large area in a 2.5 degree grid at the equator would be about an area about 60 times the area of Los Angeles. ”

            2. ” 2.5 degree x 2.5 degree gridding strongly favors polar warming, which we know to be much greater than equator warming.

            A grid cell at the equator would be more than 50 times the area of a grid cell adjacent to the pole. ”

            *
            Here we see once again how ignorant people like you really are, Hunter.

            Instead of trying to obtain information from really experienced people, you prefer to argue according to your own guessings, like do… Robertson and a few other ‘specialists’.

            *
            Why don’t you think by your own that the problem you correctly assume – the relevance of temperatures decreasing with increasing latitudes when building a global average over a sphere – has nothing to do with gridding aka area weighting?

            It has to do with latitude weighting related to the cosine of the latitude angles.

            Even when you don’t use area weighting, you still have to perform latitude weighting, using the formula

            Vglobal = sum [i=1:n] (Vlat(i) * cos(i)) / sum [i=1:n] (cos(i))

            where ‘V’ is the value you want to obtain (temperature, precipitation, sea ice extent or whatsoever), and the index ‘i’ identifies either a single measurement point or, in case of area weighting, a grid cell encompassing an arbitrary number of such points.

            *
            If things were like you so superficially guess: wouldn’t then UAH’s zonal and regional time series all be wrong as well, Hunter?

            *
            Let me finally tell you that years ago, I made a comparison of different strategies; the result was that omitting area weighting led to a higher bias than omitting latitude weighting.

            Recently, I compared UAH LT and LS time series for the Globe with resp. without latitude weighting; here is the difference:

            LT

            https://tinyurl.com/bddmvvzf

            LS

            https://tinyurl.com/454bxhjh

            *
            Maybe you feel I’m arrogant and teachy. But this is only a reaction to your own mix of arrogance and ignorance, like in

            ” The only way that he could possibly think we are refuting Mayer’s work is if he was still unable to grasp the the simple fact that the non-spinner position is: ‘yes the moon rotates. It rotates on the COM of the earth.’ ”

            You not only show your ignorance of the fact that you discredit not only Mayer’s work (a work that you by the way 100 % ignore because you can’t understand even a bit of it).

            You discredit also the work of hundreds of scientists who did the same job as Mayer – or fully understood that job, beginning with Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler… till Habibullin, Rizvanov, Eckardt, Calam, Migus, Wisdom etc etc.

            And you finally ridicule yourself by discrediting papers like

            https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/space/2021/9897105.pdf

            or

            https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf

            based on real experience.

            *
            No wonder for me, when I look at the level of incompetence you show with regard to simplest things like area and latitude weighting.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Now I am confused Bindidon. You said you were using 2.5 degree gridding, now you are saying I think you use so many sq km or miles.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Bindidon says:

      ”Which poorly sited stations of Watts Surface Station project can you have in mind, Hunter? The 71 I showed”

      ———————————
      Wow thats insane Bindidon. You mean warming didn’t start in CONUS till 2015!!!

      • Bindidon says:

        Hunter

        Sorry, I don’t understand your uncontrolled polemic.

        Try to explain what you mean in a more peaceful, less aggressive way and I’m sure I’ll start to understand.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          i was just expressing surprise that us thermometers weren’t rising above natural fluctuations until the super el nino of this last decade. what is intimidating about that?

        • barry says:

          I have no clue what Bill is trying to say, either. I think he’s running some additional dialog in his head that he’s not sharing.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry you need to look here:

            Bindidon’s post where he posts the temperature record of Anthony Watts Surface Station Project where he found 71 stations that passed NOAAs station standards.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/#comment-1431888

            Since it is a long post here is the link he posted for that record.
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view

            You should notice the record shows no warming before 2015 of a magnitude greater than the 1930’s.

            Since this represents as far as I know the only record of stations tested to meet consistent NOAA standards and represents the only such stations that NOAA has any control over one would expect it to be a bellweather for global climate change from any world wide phenomena.

            From an audit standpoint it represents good controls and a decent extended climate record of 119 years.

          • barry says:

            I read the post and saw the link.

            Graph shows that the 71 best-sited US stations have a warmer long-term trend than the record from all USHCN weather stations.

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view

            So where is the UHI in the official record? Shouldn’t we have seen the opposite result?

            That was Bindidon’s point.

            And you think the 71 stations “represents the only such stations that NOAA has any control over.”

            Wrong. They are just 71 stations that surfacestations gave top rating to. NOAA has no more control over these than the other weather stations in USHCN. You might be mistaking those 71 stations for the USCRN, which only begins in 2005 anyway.

            one would expect it to be a bellweather for global climate change

            The temperature record of America, less than 3% of the global surface, is supposed to be a good proxy for the whole globe?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            What does UHI have to do with it?

            Anthony’s station project didn’t address UHI. There is no reason to think that the stations he selected to test are any less or more vulnerable to UHI.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry says:

            ”And you think the 71 stations ‘represents the only such stations that NOAA has any control over.’ ”

            No I never said that. What I am saying is there is a lot of evidence of a huge amount of UHI in the surface temperature record.

            Anthony had the same thought. I don’t think he found it because his standards weren’t high enough. That is clear by this study:

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/6/jamc-d-19-0002.1.xml

            By this study it could be that 90% of USCHN stations are out of compliance. Watts published some estimates of the effect. NOAA for obvious reasons isn’t going to embrace that. And one can argue against the idea that anybody has done a complete study on the matter. but isn’t that what you would expect? How much evidence is necessary? Photo documentation of weather station site compliance with the best possible standards for preventing urban encroachment error over the entire surface station record?

            Heck NOAA just recently ordered that when possible photo documentation should be made during routine site investigations.

            Anthony’s effort brought that problem to light. If you read the study above you will see urban encroachment and affect a change of .1c from affects 124 meters away. And these are small encroachments. What is the result of a large tract development upwind a half mile away?

            There might only be a handful of surface stations without significant encroachment over the surface temperature record or even the satellite era record of 43 years so right off the bat one could question a tenth of a degree difference resulting from UHI with some differences for individual stations in the record per the study mounting up to .3C. Indeed NOAA has done adjustments but they are highly motivated to be as conservative as possibly reasonable. Independent auditors thrive in this territory with healthy skepticism reinforced over numerous experiences.

          • barry says:

            Bill:

            “What does UHI have to do with it?

            Anthony’s station project didn’t address UHI.”

            Also Bill:

            “What I am saying is there is a lot of evidence of a huge amount of UHI in the surface temperature record.

            Anthony had the same thought.”

            Yes, former Bill got it wrong. surfacestations was predicated on the notion that microsite influence on weather stations – UHI – made the US temp record warmer.

            Latter Bill didn’t quite get it right either. Watts and co did indeed find warm-bias influence at microsites, and this affected daily minima – which is why his peer-reviewed study, Fall et al 2011, spends so much of the time talking about diurnal temp trends.

            However, Fall et al also discovered that the average temp trends were the same across all classes of weather stations. The issue was only with minima and maxima. Something already well-known.

            But you’ve missed the point hugely. You were replying to Bindidon, and HE was talking about UHI. THAT’s what “its got to do with it.”

            Not to mention that this is the theme of Roy’s article at the top.

            So when you said,

            “Barry you need to look here:

            Bindidons post where he posts the temperature record of Anthony Watts Surface Station Project where he found 71 stations that passed NOAAs station standards.”

            Yeah, I had read it. It was about UHI. DO try to keep it all together in your head.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            barry says:

            ”It is clear you don’t understand the issue Barry or what Anthony’s contribution was.”

            You are swooning over temperature trend records that don’t show Anthony’s good stations showing a lower temperature trend. And when I first got involved with it the thought was that these bad stations would be warmer than average stations. I suppose maybe Anthony thought that too. The problem is comparing good urban stations to the overall record that includes a lot of rural stations. . . .wouldn’t it occur to you that the trend is less not because the good stations are urban effect free but because the entire database has a lot of stations meeting current standards combined with a good number of really rural stations like CRN that was put in place while Anthony’s work was underway.

            You might say Anthony and myself may have been lulled into thinking that NOAAs microclimate urban standards were good standards and that the only problem was enforcement of the standards.

            It appears even Berkeley Earth bought into that notion and concluded that actual non-compliance with NOAA standards simply wasn’t all that important.

            After all we all have tremendous respect for NOAA. Maybe me most of all. I have touted the NOAA civil servants at every opportunity, their independence, their dedication to their craft, their training, and how hard they work to do a good job.

            But recent work is showing we didn’t know what good standards are to prevent the encroachment effect of urbanization into a system that is being asked to do something it was never designed to do in the first place.

            I provided you papers talking about an up to .3c degree of error being introduced into our highest quality weather stations by microclimate urbanization not recognized as a threat.

            Anthony didn’t know that. I didn’t know that. Berkeley Earth didn’t know that.

            We are just starting to crack the nut on UHI. Anthony contributed greatly to that in that NOAA recognized that to recognize UHI in the future the microclimates surrounding weather stations need to be documented by pictures. They recognized that because Anthony’s documentation/photos showed obvious urban encroachment problems.

            The fact that Anthony’s good stations might have UHI encroachment not prevented by current NOAA standards is only beginning to come to people’s attention. I gave you a link of the study that is finding such effects in some of the highest standard surface stations NOAA has.

            NOAA isn’t talking much about it which is normal for an institution that wants to not have controversy. But it is inspiring more people to start looking for ways to estimate what the effect is.

          • barry says:

            “You are swooning over temperature trend records that don’t show Anthony’s good stations showing a lower temperature trend.”

            So hard to unlace all this misinformation there.

            1. I’m not swooning over anything. I’ve read the work, followed it all over time, I present you the facts.

            2. It is the official US temp record, either from NOAA or GISS, that matches the record from Anthony’s 71 stations. Anthony Watts says so himself in Fall et al 2011, as I’ve quoted for you elsewhere.

            “You might say Anthony and myself may have been lulled into thinking that NOAAs microclimate urban standards were good standards and that the only problem was enforcement of the standards.”

            So much wrong with this.

            1. NOAA doesn’t maintain the CONUS network of stations, so it doesn’t have a say in how microclimate issues are handled on site. They have zero power to enforce, and it’s not their job.

            Their job is to understand what the issue is and find ways to account and correct for it.

            There is 4 decades worth of peer-reviewed literature on exactly this, researched and written about by these compilers of the temp records, which you seem to be completely unaware of.

            “It appears even Berkeley Earth bought into that notion and concluded that actual non-compliance with NOAA standards simply wasn’t all that important.”

            Berkeley did their own analysis, using their own methods to account for UHI and other problems, and corroborated the other global temp records. The methods they used were built out of the concerns of AGW ‘skeptics’, which comprised most of the Berkeley team.

            “But recent work is showing we didn’t know what good standards are to prevent the encroachment effect of urbanization into a system that is being asked to do something it was never designed to do in the first place.”

            Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer are claiming that the microsite issues have a major impact on temperature trends, compared to the adjusted data. Meanwhile other work has supported the official records.

            If you weren’t cherry-picking your papers you would know this.

            “We are just starting to crack the nut on UHI.”

            The issue has been investigated for decades and many methods have been designed to account for it. Such as:

            Pairwise adjustment urban/rural stations
            Comparing rural to urban data sets
            Comparing ‘pristine’ data sets (as in USCRN) with the full ensemble
            And more

            “Anthony contributed greatly to that in that NOAA recognized that to recognize UHI in the future the microclimates surrounding weather stations need to be documented by pictures.”

            Cite please. Or are you going to fail to give one like you did with Hansen’s quote on el Ninos being the new normal?

            “They recognized that because Anthony’s documentation/photos showed obvious urban encroachment problems.”

            They already knew about it decades before Watts started surfacestations, and had testing and correcting for it ever since.

            “The fact that Anthony’s good stations might have UHI encroachment not prevented by current NOAA standards is only beginning to come to people’s attention.”

            Again, NOAA is not the proprietor of most US weather stations. If surfacestations rating system is dubious then I am sorry that this is so. It was a good effort.

            But NOAA’s US record matched the USCRN record. So since at least 2005 there has been no issue.

            “I gave you a link of the study that is finding such effects in some of the highest standard surface stations NOAA has.”

            The paper said that NOAA realised their might be encroachment issues when they installed the Kingston station, but that this could be monitored with another USCRN station close by that was not encroached.

            So what they did was a case study on microsite influence, and YOU ‘interpret’ this as low standards.

            “NOAA isn’t talking much about it which is normal for an institution that wants to not have controversy. But it is inspiring more people to start looking for ways to estimate what the effect is.”

            NOAA has been talking about UHI for 4 decades at least, and have written reams of papers on it. Watts and co, and you, it seems, are blissfully unaware. Here is a small sample of papers written by the compilers of the temp records, on UHI and microsite biases.

            1988 – https://tinyurl.com/25ykphwn
            1993 – https://sci-hub.se/10.1175/1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007:anporg%3E2.0.co;2
            2009 – http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eoswald/Menne2009_USHCN_V2.pdf
            2010 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094

          • Bill Hunter says:

            barry says:

            ”Bill: ”Anthony contributed greatly to that in that NOAA recognized that to recognize UHI in the future the microclimates surrounding weather stations need to be documented by pictures.”

            Cite please. Or are you going to fail to give one like you did with Hansens quote on el Ninos being the new normal? ”

            Sure thing Barry since you have had your blinders on with this.

            Watts released his study in March 2009. That moved the needle and here is the Commerce Departments response.

            https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/STL-19846.pdf

            ———————–

            barry says:
            ” ”Bill: They recognized that because Anthonys documentation/photos showed obvious urban encroachment problems.”

            They already knew about it decades before Watts started surfacestations, and had testing and correcting for it ever since.”

            Well that didn’t prevent Anthony from obtaining a lot of findings that hadn’t been corrected. And it may not prevent Roy from him finding more.
            ———————-

            Barry says:

            ”The fact that Anthonys good stations might have UHI encroachment not prevented by current NOAA standards is only beginning to come to peoples attention.”

            NOAA apparently already knew about the 100meter standard when they created CRN. but they had done little or nothing with the network.
            ———————-

            Barry says:

            ”NOAA has been talking about UHI for 4 decades at least, and have written reams of papers on it. Watts and co, and you, it seems, are blissfully unaware. Here is a small sample of papers written by the compilers of the temp records, on UHI and microsite biases.”

            Do you have one that doesn’t just assume a linear relationship for the effect? One where UHI is empirically linked to its potency throughout the range of urban development?

          • barry says:

            “Watts released his study in March 2009. That moved the needle and here is the Commerce Departments response.”

            There is no mention of Watts, his study, or of surfacestations.org in that document.

            The expert opinion sought is detailed in the document, and Watts is not included.

            The experts in the document are generally positive about NOAA’s efforts in compiling the US temp record. The papers and experts cited on microsite influence are from NOAA, which is where the photographs came from.

            So what is the link? It is the reference to photographs taken by Watts that appear in Menne’s 2009 study.

            Did this move the needle? There’s no indication that it did in the document you provided, which credits NOAA with proper treatment of temperature data.

            So you haven’t corroborated that “Anthony contributed greatly to that in that NOAA recognized that to recognize UHI in the future the microclimates surrounding weather stations need to be documented by pictures.”

            Now I’ll need a cite that NOAA has recently ordered photos be taken at sites, and that this is tied to Watts’ effort. Because I think it is tied to the fact that everyone now has a smart phone.

            “Well that didn’t prevent Anthony from obtaining a lot of findings that hadn’t been corrected.”

            But they had been corrected – in the homogenised averaged data. As Anthony Watt’s peer-reviewed paper reveals. The min/max biases had also been noticed for decades. Photographs aren’t going to solve that problem.

            “Do you have one that doesnt just assume a linear relationship for the effect? One where UHI is empirically linked to its potency throughout the range of urban development?

            Any study involving pairwise analysis looks at discontinuities between stations as a sudden departure. So if someone builds a carpark right next to a weather station, that is going to show an immediate break with other stations that didn’t have urban development at the same time.

            Do you have a suggestion as to how such a non-linear analysis could be done? Because I don’t see Roy suggesting one.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry you will have to wait and see how Roy approaches it. Looks like to me he is going to use a starting rural standard that is far more conservative than BE.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Bindidon:
      ”on the contrary, are the ones that Watts and his collaborators selected as the least UHI-suspicious sites in 2011: youd better read the big WUWT threads published on the subject at the time.”

      That’s not quite correct. I went back and read one of his reports. He is talking about manmade influences on a weather station. Locating it to close to heat sources.

      This is indeed a UHI influence on absolute temperature.

      NOAA has long recognized that they could be off 2 degrees or so in absolute temperature due to non-representative sampling and the unnatural influences on weather stations.

      If temps go up one degree its going to pretty much go up one degree across the board both natural and uhi areas.

      The question is was this thermometer located next to the same heat sinks in the past, particular through the base period of 30 to 40 years.

      Was this longtime reporting weather station (which are the ones in the global temperature record) always affected by the same influence. If it was then it is not the UHI that is the problem.

      The problem for warming comes from increasing populations and resulting additional uhi encroachment on the station over the decades.

      So Anthony’s work was just the first step in this. Poorly sited weather stations are more likely to have been encroached by urbanization as they had that in place when Anthony inspected the station.

      The next step was to start figuring out what the encroachment amounts to over time. I put a couple of links to studies that do some estimates on that. Roy has some studies and has done some work that is narrowing the search and developing a proxy based upon population growth.

      There are a number of studies out there showing this is a big problem. And that is using US weather stations. The rest of the world is probably a whole lot worse.

      This study suggests that UHI might comprise 37% of the warming in the USHCN.
      https://everythingclimate.com/the-us-surface-temperature-record-is-unreliable/

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/6/jamc-d-19-0002.1.xml

      And that is using US weather stations. The rest of the world is probably a whole lot worse.

      • barry says:

        Watt’s peer-reviewed paper on microsite bias found that while maxima and minima were affected by microsite issues at poorly sited stations, these effects canceleled out for average temperatures, and there was little difference across classes on that metric.

        “The opposite-signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well-sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time-of-observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best-sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade.”

        And

        “Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.”

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146#jgrd16904-bib-0031

        • bill hunter says:

          barry says:

          ”Watts peer-reviewed paper on microsite bias found that while maxima and minima were affected by microsite issues at poorly sited stations, these effects canceleled out for average temperatures, and there was little difference across classes on that metric.”

          Yes Barry thats true. But one could look to Oke 1973 as Roy is doing and glean the reason why no result was found.

          Namely that when you look at badly designed stations they have such an urban influence in them that much of it is saturated and so no trend was detected..

          Then if you look to Oke again and note that most rapid onset of UHI is in the least dense urban areas you would realize that a good deal of UHI is built into the ‘good’ stations.

          Compare the two and you have done what everybody else seems to have done in the study of UHI.

          Roy is taking a non-linear look at the issue on the advice of Oke 1973. Smart move! There are too few scientists like Roy that actually ponder the issues. I know a few personally that regularly make a difference to outcomes. But like any segment of the population there are a lot more that just do enough of what it takes to get along.

          • bill hunter says:

            I agree. convection accounts for over 80% of the cooling of the surface. Block convection in a greenhouse and it will cool slower. But surfaces don’t get hotter in a greenhouse in fact they are ever so slightly cooler because of filtering out IR from incoming light.
            this whole issue all but disappeared over a 100 years ago with RW Woods experiment showing that fact.

            So what do the advocates do with that information. They claim CO2 doesn’t act like a greenhouse.

            Either it does or it doesn’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too folks.

        • barry says:

          “But one could look to Oke 1973 as Roy is doing and glean the reason why no result was found.”

          Sounds like you’re taking (Roy’s interpretation of) Oke’s paper as revelatory. Seems you know the result before the analysis.

          “if you look to Oke again and note that most rapid onset of UHI is in the least dense urban areas you would realize that a good deal of UHI is built into the ‘good’ stations.”

          What does it mean to you that the homogenised USHCN and USCRN are essentially identical? Whither UHI if these match?

          If you’re going to say that USHCN is likewise susceptible to UHI, you’re going to have to come up with some evidence – and that 2019 paper is definitely not it.

          “Roy is taking a non-linear look at the issue on the advice of Oke 1973.”

          What gives you the impression Roy is definitely taking a non-linear look, and how do you think Roy is proposing to do it?

          • bill hunter says:

            barry says:
            ” Bill says: ‘But one could look to Oke 1973 as Roy is doing and glean the reason why no result was found.’

            Sounds like youre taking (Roys interpretation of) Okes paper as revelatory. Seems you know the result before the analysis.”
            —————
            Where did I say that Barry? Its a question that obviously needs an answer. That is what science is all about.

            barry says:

            ”if you look to Oke again and note that most rapid onset of UHI is in the least dense urban areas you would realize that a good deal of UHI is built into the good stations.”

            What does it mean to you that the homogenised USHCN and USCRN are essentially identical? Whither UHI if these match?
            ———————–
            I haven’t seen the comparison Barry so I have no comment on that. and I am not sure why it matters. Roy has GCHN online for the work not USCHN.

            Barry says:

            ”If youre going to say that USHCN is likewise susceptible to UHI, youre going to have to come up with some evidence and that 2019 paper is definitely not it.”
            ——————–
            USCHN?

            Barry says:

            ”Bill said: ‘Roy is taking a non-linear look at the issue on the advice of Oke 1973.’

            What gives you the impression Roy is definitely taking a non-linear look, and how do you think Roy is proposing to do it?”
            ——————–
            Because Roy sometime ago published here a quick and dirty look based on that using a small dataset and found a signal. And Part I is all about binning data to fit that same model.

          • barry says:

            “I havent seen the comparison Barry so I have no comment on that. and I am not sure why it matters.”

            Here it is.

            https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/ann/12

            It matters because if UHI is contaminating the record, then we should see the official NOAA US record diverging from the reference network.

            But we don’t. They are virtually identical.

            This indicates that UHI may not be a problem with the homogenised USHCN.

            In fact, the homogenised data show a slightly cooler trend than USCRN.

            If you’re researching UHI, doesn’t this comparison merit inclusion into your study?

            I don’t know why you would say it doesn’t matter.

          • barry says:

            barry: “Sounds like youre taking (Roys interpretation of) Okes paper as revelatory. Seems you know the result before the analysis.”

            Bill: “Where did I say that Barry?”

            Here.

            “Then if you look to Oke again and note that most rapid onset of UHI is in the least dense urban areas you would realize that a good deal of UHI is built into the ‘good’ stations.”

            That’s premature, as you haven’t factored actual urban growth over time. Rapid onset of UHI in rural stations would occur in Oke’s model, if urban encroachment, or population growth, around rural weather stations proceeded at the same rate or faster than the cities.

            If population growth is slower in rural areas than cities, then it is not axiomatic that rural UHI has actually grown faster than city UHI over time.

            A significant piece of evidence is trend comparisons between rural and urban weather stations. Rural stations (prior to pairwise homogenisation) warm slower than city stations.

            So that’s why I think you’ve accepted the results before they’ve come in. You’ve assumed rural areas have developed a stronger UHI signal than urban areas over time.

            “Then if you look to Oke again and note that most rapid onset of UHI is in the least dense urban areas you would realize that a good deal of UHI is built into the ‘good’ stations.”

          • Bill Hunter says:

            barry says:

            ”barry: Sounds like youre taking (Roys interpretation of) Okes paper as revelatory. Seems you know the result before the analysis.”

            Roy says Oke 1973 found that the highest amount of UHI was found at the beginning of urban development.

            So Roy is looking at what Bindidon said needed to be looked at. . . .warming since 1980. Roy is starting with 1973.

            We will have to see what he comes up with. Hopefully he can find a few still very rural.

            86%+ at least in the current GHCN are urbanized. And the current GHCN only has 4232 stations (with ~560 not very urban) .

            However, BE was selecting from 36,869 sites (15,594 were found to be very rural) and was testing for UHI over a 160 year period (Figure 5B).

            Looks pretty encouraging for Roy that looking at a shorter period is apt to reveal UHI in that period not evident at looking at weather stations that have been around for 160 years.

            Roy has several advantages.

            1) A focused look at the only period of concern for AGW.
            2) In 2010 GIS mapping software hand only recently begun to take advantage of widely spread databases and input into these databases was only a small fraction of whats in them today. . . .and likely in another decade there will be a whole lot more.
            This corresponds similarly to the growth of the internet and simulataneous growth of those databases. And internet use is doubling about every 6 years.
            3) A huge chance of better understanding of variation in global temperature monitoring.

            IMO, somebody should be starting a project like this annually there is so much opportunity to take advantage at far more resolved data.

            BE complained of not being able to accurately locate their stations as locations were only reported to one tenth of a degree or 10km so they had to split their sample into very rural and not very rural thus may have included rural sites as urban sites with no urban development within 6 miles. I don’t know how much that has improved overall globally but I suspect its pretty significant.

  24. Tim S says:

    The climate change movement loses credibility in two very important ways. First, the policy statements of the IPCC and other organizations clearly state that redistribution of wealth is an important part of their agenda — they are political. Second, and most important is the failure to promote and endorse a complete and open examination of ALL of the science. Science that is limited in scope is not science at all. Dr. Spencer is openly criticized for doing genuine science, and that is shameful.

    • Swenson says:

      Tim S,

      You wrote –

      “Dr. Spencer is openly criticized for doing genuine science, and that is shameful.”

      I agree wholeheartedly.

    • barry says:

      “the policy statements of the IPCC and other organizations clearly state that redistribution of wealth is an important part of their agenda they are political.”

      Policy statements? Don’t you actually mean the quote of a single boffin in a talk?

      You’re giving a good demonstration of how disinformation is done, Tim.

      • Tim S says:

        The quotes are vague and cleverly worded, but it is there. Would prefer the word subsidy or maybe “assistance”?

      • Tim S says:

        Try chapter 15 on page 1602 section 15.6.7 Development of Local Capital Markets

      • barry says:

        Good to see you’ve backed of the socialist-laced rhetoric and are saying something a bit more reasonable. Subsidies, assistance.

        Yes, please compare and contrast historical and ongoing subsidies and assistance to the fossil fuel sector with that for renewables. It would be great if you could kick us off with this very useful context setter.

        • Tim S says:

          They use sleazy language and you like it. Most of understand that the UN is a political organization.

        • barry says:

          So no economics to help us out, then?

          Ok, so the UN is political. Brilliant observation. And the government subsidies and grants for the fossil fuel industries are also political.

          So you have a problem with the UN recommending redistributing subsidies and grants in favour of renewables because the UN is political, but not with governments distributing subsidies and grants to fossil fuel companies because they are not… political?

          I realize I set you too hard a task comparing and contrasting subsidies for the various energy sectors. Perhaps it would be easier for you to explain explaining why national governments are not political but the UN is?

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Sudden warming in the upper stratosphere (SSW) promises an interesting winter in the northern hemisphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/Yd003CN/02mb9065.png

    • Bindidon says:

      The first problem with ren is that he always predicts a lot of cold, but never tells us when his predictions didn’t come true.

      The second problem with ren is that he never talks about warmth, and certainly not the warmth that comes after a brief cold spell.

      Recently it was extremely cold in Denver, CO, which he was happy to share; immediately afterwards, however, it suddenly got warmer again than it had gotten cold before:

      https://i.postimg.cc/HW0bvKjq/TNLD-x0079-20221123-20230118.gif

      But that little detail he completely forgot to tell us.

      *
      Alarmism is not good! But that doesn’t just apply when we’re talking about Warmistas :–)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”The first problem with ren is that he always predicts a lot of cold, but never tells us when his predictions didnt come true.

        The second problem with ren is that he never talks about warmth, and certainly not the warmth that comes after a brief cold spell”.

        ***

        The first problem with Binny’s critique is it is coming from an idiot. The second problem is the cold predicted by Ren is happening in an era where it was predicted we’d be able to sail throuh an ice-free Arctic and that children would never see snow.

        • Bindidon says:

          As usual: a polemicist’s and denyer’s dumb reply having nothing to do with what I wrote.

          That’s Robertson, yeah.

  26. AlanJ says:

    For the United States, the USCRN is identical to the full ClimDiv network:

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0

    Where is the evidence of urbanization bias in ClimDiv?

  27. Entropic man says:

    Swenson

    Here’s a photo of the Coningsby site, courtesy of the Met Office. Taken, I think , from the taxiway North of the station, looking South.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=met+office+coningsby&oq=met+officec&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39i285i305j35i39i305j0i131i273i433i457j0i402l2j0i273l3.7742j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

    It’s fairly typical. A lightly fenced grassy enclosure about 20 yards by 10 yards with instruments and an anemometer pole scattered across it. At satellite photo resolution it does resemble a small field.

    David Ramsay

    Your time at Teddington may have distorted your thinking. I can picture you using a reference thermometer capa le of 10^-6C accuracy and resolution to calibrate other thermometers under carefully controlled lab conditions.

    However, even using the same equipment, you could not achieve anything like the same performance in a muddy field in the rain.

    I’ve noticed this before in laboratory physicists or engineers. They have impossible expectations regarding measurements taken in the field. Incidentally, RAF Coningsby was not the only 40C+ station on the day. Several other East of England stations recorded similar daily maximum temperatures.

    • Entropic man says:

      David Ramsey, Swenson

      Solved it.

      There are, or have been, two weather station sites at RAF Coningsby.

      The older site was at GPS coordinates 53.084, -0.166 on the Southern edge of the airfield. It shows on older aerial photographs and on the Met Office ground photo I linked for Swenson in my 8.21AM post. On the most recent satellite photos it’s gone.

      The replacement automatic station is at your coordinates 53.094, -0.171. It shows on recent satellite photos between the main runway and the North taxiway, much closer to the modern buildings.

      So you are right. The new station is more subject to UHI and jet exhaust than the old one.

      • Bindidon says:

        Entropic man

        A very honest reaction that I have never seen before on this blog from people discrediting you.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          When the facts don’t agree with me, I am wrong.

          In this case, so was EM.

          “Honest” reaction? Just accepting reality. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

          Believe it or not, I have been wrong in the past – my cunningly worked out explanation was just wrong, wrong, wrong, as it turned out. More than once, actually, but nobody was seriously injured, so no harm done.

          • Bindidon says:

            Who – except genius Flynnson – is interested in genius Flynnson’s blah blah?

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You are, obviously.

            You are just trying to troll, but you need to try harder – it doesn’t look you are disrupting anything, or annoying anyone.

            Carry on believing you can predict the future by “dissecting the past”.

  28. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Dr Roy Spencer:

    “The issue is important (obviously) because if observed warming trends have been overstated, then any deductions about the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are also overstated. (Here I am not going to go into the possibility that some portion of recent warming is due to natural effects, that’s a very different discussion for another day).”

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/december2022/202212_Bar.png

    The past thirty years of Monthly Global Lower Troposphere v6.0 Anomaly show a definite warming pattern in cool La Nina years. This doesn’t support “natural variability” as the culprit, but rather the heat imbalance in the system. Put another way, the global warming signal in the bulk atmosphere has risen above the noise of natural variability.

    I look forward to your insights concerning these observations.

    • Clint R says:

      TM, do you believe the Tonga-Hunga eruption was not part of “natural variability”?

      If so, you really are braindead.

    • Tim S says:

      From the perspective of Statistical Process Control the process is out of control and trending upward. There are two problems with attempting to label the cause as increasing CO2. It does not show a smooth upward trend. It seems to move in spurts. Even if the low point and high points are considered, it still does not move smoothly. There have to be other factors that move randomly or episodically. There is no scientific validity in attempting to ascribe just one factor. There potentially are many factors in much the same was as the different orbital variations affect the Milankovitch Cycles in the 100,000 year period.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        It helps if you know where to look for the signal.

        There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5[C] needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modeling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest.

        M. B. Glaser, “CO2 Greenhouse Effect A Technical Review.” (Coordination and Planning Division, Exxon Research and Engineering Company, 1982)
        https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/03_1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf

        • Clint R says:

          A warming trend can be quite natural. Just like a cooling trend can be quite natural.

          It’s called “natural variability”.

        • Swenson says:

          TM,

          Really?

          After about four and a half billion years of inactivity, a CO2 induced “greenhouse effect” might be detected in 2020?

          Due to magic spells cast by SkyDragon cultists, no doubt, in view of the laws of the universe giving no reason for a CO2 induced “greenhouse effect” to suddenly appear!

          Do you really believe the nonsense you write, or are you simply pretending?

          Questions, questions. Pity you have no answers, isn’t it?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          maguff…”This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5[C] needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations”.

          ***

          Three times since 1998 the global temperature has exceeded 0.5C above the baseline. The article does not indicate, nor does it prove, what is meant by a ‘normal temperature fluctuation’.

          More gibberish from Maguff.

        • Bindidon says:

          No wonder that Clint R, Flynnson and Robertson all three belong to this blog’s Lunar Spin Denial Squad.

          Regardless what they write about: it’s all trash, e.g. Robertson’s endlessly repeated lie about NOAA’s station removal:

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/#comment-1433490

          Blogger E.M. Smith aka ‘chiefio’ (wow) is a typical contrarian guy, and has about as much clue concerning station data as has Robertson himself, i.e. 0.000.

          Exactly at the time this dumb chiefio wrote his incredible head post in 2009, NOAA was shifting it entire GHCN station data from the V2 to the V3 directory!

          *
          And that is the kind of blogger Robertson gullibly appeals to the authority of…

          OMG.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindidon, do these attacks come on gradually, or all at once.

            Thats the kind of thing your therapist will need to know.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I understand that Binny’s therapist was Siggy Freud but he died in 1939 leaving him with no guidance.

      • barry says:

        “There are two problems with attempting to label the cause as increasing CO2. It does not show a smooth upward trend.”

        When the climate changes from Winter to Summer, do you see a smooth increase in daily temperatures?

        No you don’t. And do you know why?

        Weather variability has a much larger variance than climatic variability – more than 10 times as much.

        It is exactly the same issue in a warming world. Monthly temperature variation is more than 10 times the trend. Why would anyone expect a monotonic rise in temperature month after month?

        Why do ‘skeptics’ have trouble disentangling weather from climate? Even years after it’s been explained to them.

        “There have to be other factors that move randomly or episodically.”

        Yes, something interferes with a smooth increase in daily temperatures from Winter to Summer.

        I guess that means the seasons don’t exist! It’s been a hoax for centuries!

        • Clint R says:

          barry, you seem to be struggling to keep the cult nonsense going when it is obviously faltering. We’re going on 7 years now since the 2016 peak. And La Nina may be trying for a 4th year, even with all that “stored ocean heat”!

          You should be laughing at the cult nonsense instead of trying to defend it.

          It’s get even worse when you learn that there is no science supporting it.

          So don’t blame Skeptics for your frustration. Blame your cult for spreading nonsense, and blame yourself for swallowing it.

        • barry says:

          “We’re going on 7 years now since the 2016 peak.”

          So? It was 18 years before the prior annual temperature record was broken (1998). Why should we have expected to see the next record-breaking year in only 7?

          But you’ve missed the point, dummy. You’re one who constantly mistakes weather and climate.

          We really did have some colder days in Summer just recently than we had last Winter.

          ‘Skeptics’ would tell us that these cold days mean that Summer is a hoax. If it’s colder in Summer than Winter, then there has been no climate change through the year. Seasons are a hoax!

          Going by their daft reasoning, anyway. Any weather that bucks the trend means the trend doesn’t exist. Skeptic “logic” 101.

        • Tim S says:

          Barry, it is obvious that you do not understand SPC (or SQC) used for industrial analysis and its relation to scientific data analysis. I was making a valid comparison. It is also obvious that you are not very bright. More likely, making trolling arguments is more important to you than making an intelligent comment. I will end with that.

        • barry says:

          Appealing to your own ‘expertise’ is a fallacy that might work better if you address the point, Tim, and my point was dead serious. Expecting a smooth rise in temperature with AGW is ignorant and witless. You can read the post again for the reasons why.

          • Tim S says:

            Did I touch a nerve? The satellite data show clearly that there cannot be just one effect on any time scale — month to month, year to year, or decade to decade. There have to be many factors including “noise” from random drift (called a random walk) due to the chaotic nature of weather and climate. People claiming a CO2 “signature” using data smoothing are just trying to fool the general public who have no knowledge of the science involved. You spend a lot of time going from comment to comment making almost random trolling arguments. Maybe, if you want some respect, you might try thinking before you type.

          • barry says:

            “The satellite data show clearly that there cannot be just one effect on any time scale month to month, year to year, or decade to decade.”

            And you think this is a revelation? In fact, other influences on various time-scales are discussed at length in the IPCC reports (for example), and have been for decades.

            That’s why your insistence that “There are two problems with attempting to label the cause as increasing CO2. It does not show a smooth upward trend,” is a witless straw man, and disinformative to boot.

            Let’s be clear – it is only you and other witless ‘sekptics’ that propose CO2 warming should be indicated by a smooth temperature rise. That’s YOUR BS. YOUR straw man. The mainstream climate research community does not make such a daft claim.

  29. Swenson says:

    TM,

    You wrote –

    “Put another way, the global warming signal in the bulk atmosphere has risen above the noise of natural variability.”

    Well, that’s a pointless piece of nonsense masquerading as a fact, isnt it?

    You can’t measure either the “global warming signal”, or the “natural variability”, can you? The Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and you can’t provide a single reason why the planet should miraculously start heating due to the presence of an atmosphere which has existed for a very, very, long time!

    I suppose you think that it is due to some recently invented “greenhouse effect”, which is so new that nobody at all can describe what it is or how it works.

    Maybe you can resort to some bizarre SkyDragon cult tactics to avoid facing reality? Good luck!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “Well, thats a pointless piece of nonsense masquerading as a fact, isnt it?”

      ***

      Maguff specializes in mindless propaganda.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        “Maguff specializes in mindless propaganda.”

        Says the man who believes that the earth’s shadow causes the phases of the moon.”

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632695

        • Swenson says:

          TM,

          Newtons Laws of Motion, and the Law of Universal Gravitation came from a man who believed that base metals could be transmuted into precious metals by means of alchemy, and who calculated the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, based on his thinking about the Temple of Solomon.

          Oh well, not everyone is right all the time.

          Presumably you don’t care that Newton was a bit “out there” in some respects.

          Maybe you are perfect, and have never made a mistake, or got anything wrong. Want to tell me how superior you are, Captain Perfect?

          You don’t mind if I have a laugh, do you?

          Carry on with the ad homs.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “Maybe you are perfect, and have never made a mistake…”

            So you do agree that Gordon Robertson is mistaken in his belief that the earth’s shadow causes the phases of the moon.” Then why don’t you correct him then?

            I guess you’d rather have a laugh at his expense!

          • Swenson says:

            TM,

            “So . . . , then?”

            Oooooh! A gotcha!

            So, you are admitting that you are not perfect, then?

            You may guess what you like. I say what I wish, when I wish, how I wish, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

            If you want to keep posting nonsense about “global warming signal[s]”, you are free to do so. I am free to respond as I see fit, and snigger at you as much as I want. That’s fair, isn’t it?

            Not a single fact is changed or harmed in any way.

            The Earth cooled for about four and a half billion years. If you want to believe that a miracle has occurred to reverse the laws of physics recently, a bit of detail might help.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “So, you are admitting that you are not perfect, then?”

            No Swenson, I am not perfect.

            I hate to disappoint you, although I’m flattered that you thought I was perfect!

  30. Clint R says:

    Climate Activism Isn’t About the Planet. It’s About the Boredom of the Bourgeoisie

    The downfall of capitalism will not come from the uprising of an impoverished working class but from the sabotage of a bored upper class. This was the view of the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Schumpeter believed that at some point in the future, an educated elite would have nothing left to struggle for and will instead start to struggle against the very system that they themselves live in.

    Nothing makes me think Schumpeter was right like the contemporary climate movement and its acolytes. The Green movement is not a reflection of planetary crisis as so many in media and culture like to depict it, but rather, a crisis of meaning for the affluent.

    Take for example a recent interview with Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich on CBS’s 60 Minutes. Ehrlich is most famous for his career as a professional doom monger. His first major book, The Population Bomb, gave us timelessly wrong predictions, including that by the 1980s, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death and it went downhill from there. Ehrlich assured us that England would no longer exist in the year 2000, that even modern fertilizers would not enable us to feed the world, and that thermonuclear power was just around the corner.

    Ehrlich, who recently turned 90, is in the lucky position to have witnessed the complete failure of all his predictions — only to double down on them in his 60 Minutes interview Ehrlich has been wrong on every public policy issue he pontificated on for almost 60 years, yet the mainstream media still treat him like a modern oracle.

    Why?

    The best answer to this question comes courtesy of New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who in 2019 famously said that, “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right.” In other words, no matter what nonsense one spews, as long as it is “morally right”, it does not matter what the facts show.

    https://www.newsweek.com/climate-activism-isnt-about-planet-its-about-boredom-bourgeoisie-opinion-1773846

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The only thing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has going for her is a decent pair of boobs, which she likes to emphasize on occasion by wearing tight sweaters. Other than that, she is a major boob.

      We had a female Premier here in British Columbia who insisted on displaying her ample cleavage by wearing blouses open to reveal it, even in Parliament. That prompted Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines fame to make her an offer to go skydiving naked.

      I am not a misogynist, neither am I an MCP (male chauvinist). I support women in their cause for equality. However, women need to get it that they can use their assets blatantly to gain favour or they can be modest and try to be taken seriously.

      AOC is regarded as a Barbie Doll, and she is regarded as such because it seems all she can do is look pretty and play up her physical assets. During the covid crisis, while her fellow New Yorkers were locked down, she was partying at a club in Florida without a mask.

      This is typical of the idiots running climate change propaganda. As she states, it’s more important to be morally right, as she sticks out her boobs for everyone to ogle through a tight sweater sized for that purpose.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Clint,
      Brilliant essay. With AOC and her acolytes who post here, it is all about the agenda. The irony is AOC believes her evil is moral.

  31. Swenson says:

    Al Gore at Davos just now – “That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs, and sucking the moisture out of the land, and creating the droughts, and melting the ice and raising the sea level, and causing these waves of climate refugees.”

    Another sort of “truth” to join Megan, Harry, and Elon Musk “truth”, by the look of it.

    Why worry about facts, when fictional “truths” mean you can reject reality?

    The “truth” is out there. Very out there.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…”Thats whats boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs….”

      ***

      Metaphors like atmospheric rivers and bomb cyclones are the latest in climate alarmist terrorism. Here on the ‘Wet’ Coast of Canada, what they now call an atmospheric river had a much friendlier, even affectionate name, ‘the Pineapple Express’.

      We laughed about it, but now we are supposed to cower in our homes fearing the weather.

      The Pineapple Express had a more formal name, the Japanese Current, along the lines of the Gulf Stream that warms Europe. Now it’s called an atmospheric river.

      Have climate alarmists no shame?

    • barry says:

      Mentioning Al Gore is the climateball equivalent of Godwin’s Law.

  32. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nia will definitely make it to spring. The Nio Index 3.4 is holding steady at around -1 degree C.
    The increase in solar activity will cause La Nia to strengthen, as it will increase the energy of the jet wind.
    Jumps in solar activity in this solar cycle cause SOI spikes. Now the SOI will increase again.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A cold front in California and Nevada. Snowstorm in Nevada.
    https://i.ibb.co/vvxvWgg/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-19-111141.png

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The accumulation is just 14 inches away from the total seasonal average of 360 inches, and officials at the Snow Lab say that could be surpassed after a moderate storm moves through the Sierra Wednesday night into Thursday.

    Accumulated totals from the lab show that this years snowfall is well above the 30-year seasonal average for this time of year.

    Were seeing absolutely astronomical numbers for snowfall this year, said Andrew Schwartz, lead scientist at the lab.

    But its not hyper-locally concentrated like last year when the Central Sierra got an abundance of snow in December but the Southern Sierra didnt. This year, the wealth of snow has spread out around the state, including the mountains of Southern California.
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/Sierra-snowfall-totals-pile-up-after-weekend-17723545.php?fbclid=IwAR3sZgm_wa6Ini1xE15RLpaR8iu0o4IKAi7XsUlGv-eoS4kVqZItfiK6dvE

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    bill hunter…”There is also the matter of control of the data. As Roy mentions here GHCN is providing less information to the public. Why?”

    ***

    Over at the chiefio site, the owner indicates that 90% of GHCN ‘reporting’ stations have been slashed since 1990.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/ghcn-global-historical-climate-network/

    NOAA, the owner of GHCN, revealed, circa 2015, they have slashed the number of reporting stations globally from 6000 to less than 1500. Their reason for doing so was never made clear. The reasons they offer in the article make little sense.

    That site has since been removed and you have to dig for it.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

    It turns out, NOAA has been using climate models to replace the station data they have slashed. They take two stations, some 1200 miles apart, then they interpolate actual thermometer readings from those stations to arrive at an averaged value for the synthesized station. Then they homogenize the overall temperature map by adding in the synthesized stations.

    For anyone who doubts this kind of chicanery from NOAA, consider their claim that 2014 was the hottest year ever, at the time. It turned out that NOAA made that claim based on a 48% probability the claim was correct. They were outdone by NASA GISS, who made the same claim based on a 38% probability.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Yes it is chicanery.

      We don’t need all that adjusting, gridding, and kriging to know if the huge bulk of officially placed thermometers are getting warmer.

      Global climate change might affect some areas more than others but the only thing anybody really needs to know is how it has affected them. How can the US be affected by no unnatural change in temperatures when we are being regaled by how those temperature changes has already affected us?

      Anybody that buys into that BS has their BS detector turned off.

      If they want to tell us how much it has affected somebody else, well use their thermometers to tell us that.

      We have the same problem with the angular momentum of the moon. These guys don’t understand mathematics and only believe what their Daddies are telling them.

      • Bindidon says:

        Hunter

        ” We have the same problem with the angular momentum of the moon. These guys dont understand mathematics and only believe what their Daddies are telling them. ”

        You are such an arrogant and ignorant idiot.

        You recently discredited the fantastic work of the astronomer Tobias Mayer he made in 1750 – without ever understanding what he was doing, even though you have read a recent English translation of the most important part of his work.

        You dared to denigrate all this as “academic exercise”.

        *
        Never would people like Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson and you be able to scientifically contradict what hundreds of historical and recent works have shown since centuries.

        Some of you even try to cast doubt on Newton’s Principia Scientifica by claiming, despite contradiction, that it was allegedly mistranslated.

        Describing the motions of the Moon as like a ball on a string or similar nonsense: that’s all you can do.

        This is just plain shameful.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”You recently discredited the fantastic work of the astronomer Tobias Mayer he made in 1750 without ever understanding what he was doing…”

          ***

          I am still breathlessly awaiting a quote from Meyer in which he explains how the Moon rotates on a local axis while keeping the same face always pointed at Earth. He barely touches on an alleged lunar rotation never mind expands on it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Exactly Gordon. He is so full of shit. Mayer made precise measurements of the moon. The only way that he could possibly think we are refuting Mayer’s work is if he was still unable to grasp the the simple fact that the non-spinner position is: “yes the moon rotates. It rotates on the COM of the earth.”

            It is really hard to understand how anybody could fail to grasp this simple fact after having been so long as he has been in the discussion. Is it stupidity or is it just hard to see from that suck up posture he has adopted. It seems his argument has devolved down to trying to throw authority around any way he can dream up. Just more proof of what a suck up he is.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Pretty amazing how they changed the subject eh Gordon?

    • barry says:

      Once again Gordon lies about NOAA ‘slashing’ thousands of data station records. It’s been explained why there is a drop-off at the near-end of the record, but Gordon conveniently ‘forgets’ every few months.

      He also ‘forgets’ how the ranking system works for the warmest/coolest years. Yes, NOAA gave a 48% probability that 2014 was the then warmest year. But the next highest year had an even lower probability.

      But after dozens of times explaining, it’s more than enough now just to call out his BS.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There has been a sudden warming in the upper stratosphere and a weakening of the polar vortex. It promises to be an interesting continuation of winter in the northern hemisphere.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2023.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…the only way this winter will interest me is if it remains mild. Till recently, it has been ridiculously colder than normal.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”Infrared from CO2 creates a warm surface film which makes it harder for heat to flow from the ocean to the atmosphere. Less heat flow, warmer ocean”.

    ***

    Would you kindly explain how heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer ocean? If you insist on using the concept of a net balance of energy, would you kindly explain how that works?

    Please remember, the 2nd law of thermodyamics applies only to heat transfers. It cannot be applied to radiation fluxes. There is nothing in the 2nd law about net energy.

  38. Entropic man says:

    Yes. I made the ocean cooler than the atmosphere(caffeine deficiency). I put up a correction. Evidently you didn’t notice.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I saw your correction. I am still awaiting an explanation as to how radiation from a cooler atmosphere can warm a thin layer of the ocean.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      You wrote –

      “Infrared from CO2 creates a warm surface film which makes it harder for heat to flow from the ocean to the atmosphere. Less heat flow, warmer ocean.”

      That makes precisely no sense at all. If the surface is hotter than the water beneath it, the colder water has no “heat flow” at all. The cold water does not magically heat up – all by itself. It doesn’t even heat up because it is covered with hot water! The hot water merely radiates its heat away, and cools down in the absence of a heat source like the Sun.

      Anybody who has jumped into a cool lake when the sun is shining brightly, and the surface water is nice and warm, gets a shock as they descend into the cold water just below the hot surface. Icebergs have freshwater on their surface, when the sun is bright enough. The icebergs don’t “warm up” from the hot liquid water. As soon as the sunlight goes, the water freezes again.

      Your efforts to deny reality through inventing your own physical laws aren’t working.

      No GHE. You can’t even describe this mythical effect, can you? Nobody can.

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    From Bill Hunter’s reference to kriging, a term that describes the averaging of geographic elevations by sampling some and inferring the rest.

    Kriging is applied to temperatures as well, as follows…

    https://towardsdatascience.com/kriging-the-french-temperatures-f0389ca908dd?gi=0fcb5b071f15

    “So how to create a temperature map if the stations do not regularly cover the whole country? The technique to do so is named interpolation in a general way. The global idea is the following: one pixel indicates

    -either an exact measured value if a station exists at its corresponding geographic coordinate,
    -or an interpolated value otherwise, meaning that the value is guessed, based on what the nearby stations measure”.

    There it is folks, the method used by NOAA, GISS, Had-crut, etc., to ***GUESS*** global temperatures.

    NOAA has admitted to having used 6000 reporting stations to cover the entire global landmass but have reduced those stations to less than 1500 stations globally. For example, they use only 3 stations to cover the state of California and all three are near the warmer ocean. In the Canadian Arctic, they use only 1 station.

    Binny will rush in, without thinking, and claim GHCN has thousands of stations. The thing he fails to grasp is that most are not used. They have been replaced by climate models that synthesize temperatures in lieu of real thermometer readings.

    In the Vancouver, Canada area, temperatures during summer can vary from 20C on the coast to 30C inland some 50 miles away. Go 150 miles NE to a desert area and the temperatures can easily be in the 40C range. That’s a difference of 20C over 150 miles.

    Let’s look at that globally. The land surface area is 510 million km^2. With 1500 stations covering that area, we have 510 x 10^6 km^2/1.5 x 10^3 station = 340 x 103 km/station.

    One thermometer covers 340,000 km^2!!!!!!

    The area of British Columbia is about 945 x 10^3 km^2, which would mean, on average, there are three thermometers measuring the entire province. Yet, as I have just pointed out, temperatures can vary 20C during summer between areas that are 150 miles apart.

    Heck, temperatures can vary a few degrees in the Vancouver area alone. When I wrote to the federal agency in charge of temperature tracking in Canada, as to why there is one thermometer at Vancouver International area and none on the local mountains at 3500 feet, he seemed amused.

    These people don’t care, they are all climate alarmists and only too happy to spread climate alarm propaganda.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson the arrogant ignoramus spreads again his incompetent nonsense.

      Beginning with

      ” Lets look at that globally. The land surface area is 510 million km^2.

      That is a small mistake with regard to the real problem of the paucity of stations worldwide, but is typical for Robertson.

      *
      Then comes his further nonsense about Canada’s western province British Columbia, and its capital Vancouver.

      In the worldwide station set GHCN daily, Canada has in the sum for the entire measurement period 6354 stations, 1023 of which were active in 2022.

      Of the stations in Canada, 1253 are located in British Columbia (189 active in 2022), and therein, 21 (4 active in 2022) are in Vancouver.

      *
      People like Robertson discredit everything, though knowing nothing of all that.

      You don’t need stations everywhere!

      USCRN, the set of most pristine stations in the US, has only 133 stations for 9 Mkm^2; nevertheless, their average in the years 2005-2022 gives a pretty good picture of the country, quite similar to what thousands of GHCN daily stations in the US deliver.

      *
      The best example for the redundancy of worldwide data is a comparison of UAH’s full grid data (9504 2.5 degree grid cells worldwide) to a laughable subset of the grid (256 evenly distributed cells) I made in 2019:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij_jKmyrBJOMUdwtRP6NYqyGXibNPnRb/view

      *
      Don’t trust ignoramuses like Robertson, a guy who is not even able to accurately compare NOAA anomalies computed wrt the mean of 1901-2000 with UAH anomalies made wrt the mean of 1991-2020, and discredits the work of those who can do such work!

      Unimaginable.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        ” . . nevertheless, their average in the years 2005-2022 gives a pretty good picture of the country, quite similar to what thousands of GHCN daily stations in the US deliver.”

        Good enough for a SkyDragon cultist, anyway.

        One completely meaningless average close enough to another completely meaningless average.

        Still predicting the future by looking at the past, are you?

        Good luck with that!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Then comes his further nonsense about Canadas western province British Columbia, and its capital Vancouver”.

        ***

        Actually, the capital of BC is Victoria.

        Once again, you miss the point that over 90% of GHCN stations have not been used by NOAA since 1990.

        • barry says:

          “Once again, you miss the point that over 90% of GHCN stations have not been used by NOAA since 1990.”

          That’s because those stations either no longer exist or do not provide regular updates to NOAA, which actively sought the historical records in the mid-1990s.

          Currently, GHCN monthly gets updates from over 3000 weather stations in real time, but has a database of historical records covering more than 10,0000 weather stations.

          This is 2000 more stations updating in real-time than 20 years ago, and historical data from 3000 more stations added to the list since 20 years ago.

          As usual, Robertson gets it arse-about. NOAA has added stations, not deleted them.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            “As usual, Robertson gets it arse-about. NOAA has added stations, not deleted them”.

            ***

            Denial is a bitter pill to swallow. It states right on the NOAA page, circa 2015, that NOAA has slashed global stations from 6000 to less than 1500.

          • Entropic man says:

            Gordon is not good at maths or statistics. He does not know that the confidence in a global mean temperature is proportional to 1/√n.

            Plot confidence in the mean against sample size n and you get a rectangular hyperbola.

            Once your sample size is large enough to reach the inflection point of the hyperbole the graph flattens and any further increase in sample size has very little effect on the quality of the mean.

            For station temperature data the inflection point is 1500 stations. Hmmm.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” It states right on the NOAA page, circa 2015… ”

            One more stupid lie by manipulator Robertson.

            The ‘circa 2015’ is the date where Robertson looks at the page in the Wayback machine.

            The very first appearance date for the page however is… 2010!

            And that is the date of its first saving into the Wayback machine, what means that its original publication date is even earlier, probably 2009.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Denial is a bitter pill to swallow. ”

            Says this blog’s greatest, loudest denial specialist.

            He denies virus existence, Moon’s spin about its polar axis, Einstein’s time dilation and gravity addenda to Newton’s etc, results posted by commenters of course included.

            All that on the base of single voices like contrarian blogs he regularly appeals to the ‘authority’ of.

          • barry says:

            “It states right on the NOAA page, circa 2015, that NOAA has slashed global stations from 6000 to less than 1500.”

            No it doesn’t. You are delusional.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

            That’s the page. Let’s see where they said they actively slashed stations.

            “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.”

            Are you delusional?

            So did they add stations? On the same page:

            “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.”

            Exactly as you’ve been told countless times. They added historical data from old stations that are not in use or don’t provide data in real time.

            So what of the difference between 6000 stations and 1500 stations?

            “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.”

            At the time that web page was written NOAA only had 1500 weather stations worldwide that sent them data once a month.

            Before that there were fewer stations that sent data once a month to NOAA.

            So where did the other 4500 stations come from?

            From the effort to collect all the historical data from around the world that didn’t and never had updated to NOAA once a month.

            Yes, they ADDED historical data. They DIDN’T deliberately delete thousands of stations. They didn’t have them to delete in the first place. They added them. But these stations were not of the 1500 that were updating once a month.

            And this is explained in the methods paper from 1997, when all that vast amount of historical data was added.

            https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson

          ” Once again, you miss the point that over 90% of GHCN stations have not been used by NOAA since 1990. ”

          You are really thick, Robertson, and an absolute ignorant liar.

          You don’t know anything about NOAA’s weather stations.

          I have explained to you many times that you

          – rely on wrong information from contrarian blogs;
          – totally misrepresent what NOAA wrote about having given up many weather stations (about 4,500) in GHCN V2 due to the fact that it was impossible to keep using them because they lacked automated transmission.

          You intentionally ignore the rest of the text on the page, in which NOAA explained to have replaced them by even more other new stations.

          GHCN V3 has over 7,000 stations which were all in use.

          GHCN daily has worldwide over 100,000 weather stations, 40,000 of which dedicated to temperature measurements.

          GHCN V4 has over 25,000 stations (a subset of GHCN daily).

          *
          You are such a dumb liar, Robertson.

          The very best of the story is that if NOAA had kept using the old 4,500 stations using fax or telex communication, you coward would be the very first one to publicly accuse them of inefficiency!

        • barry says:

          “totally misrepresent what NOAA wrote about having given up many weather stations (about 4,500) in GHCN V2 due to the fact that it was impossible to keep using them because they lacked automated transmission.”

          Yes. It’s a straightforward explanation, it comes from the 1997 method paper that describes the effort to collect all that historical data, and yet Roberson is completely blind to this. He’s been told. He’s been given the paper to read. He just has his fingers in his ears on this. He can’t let facts intrude on his dogma, so he simply ignores them.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bindidon says:

        ”Dont trust ignoramuses like Robertson, a guy who is not even able to accurately compare NOAA anomalies computed wrt the mean of 1901-2000 with UAH anomalies made wrt the mean of 1991-2020, and discredits the work of those who can do such work!”

        If thats the best argument you have you don’t have an argument.

        You act like a man with an agenda. Bottom line is nobody is dependable, institutions, corporations, individuals. The only thing that matters is the entire body of knowledge and evidence.

        Here is an excellent interview with a great American scholar.
        I am starting at a good juncture that talks about institutions.
        https://youtu.be/mS5WYp5xmvI?t=298

        The important thing to know is none of this is unusual or fraudulent. It just expresses what goes on in this forum of how people defend their positions even when it becomes untenable and the reasons why.

        The entire interview is incredibly good because it puts a finger on what we need to pay attention to. Sowell is not anti-institution nor is he all for institutions. You can say that about any special interest group in society and about individuals when it begins to approach what sustains them.

        IMO, you posts are illuminating on the issues of gridded vs ungridded datasets. There is no need to do gridding for the purpose of anomalies. Gridding gets to average absolute temperature but what it introduces to anomalies is more bias than more information. The reason for that is obvious to anybody with experience in measuring the accuracy of data. Gridding involves an unlimited number of choices. Do you use average numbers, do you use min-max, do you use hourly data. How big are your grids. What are your unlimited number of choices for kriging.

        Anybody that has done any of this work from an independent point of view knows how much bias leaks into the decisions because each choice affects the outcome. NOAA won’t even release unadjusted numbers. Why? Because they are protecting their territory as any normal sane person would do.

        Thomas Sowell isn’t scolding the Labor Department so much as pointing out they have a good reason to protect their territory.
        You want to change that? Isn’t going to happen. All you can do is shine some light on it so that people become aware of the risks in believing it. In fact, estimating what that risk is likely to be is the first thing an auditor sets out to document from the start of an audit. A fact and circumstances discussion about the motivations of the people preparing the data the auditor is going to inspect. I have seen a few instances of fraud but its a small number compared to everything I have looked at. Now bias? I can’t recall an audit where we didn’t root out some bias that led to some adjustments.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Gordon Robertson says:

      ”Kriging is applied to temperatures as well, as follows

      https://towardsdatascience.com/kriging-the-french-temperatures-f0389ca908dd?gi=0fcb5b071f15

      ”So how to create a temperature map if the stations do not regularly cover the whole country? The technique to do so is named interpolation in a general way. The global idea is the following: one pixel indicates

      -either an exact measured value if a station exists at its corresponding geographic coordinate,
      -or an interpolated value otherwise, meaning that the value is guessed, based on what the nearby stations measure”.”
      —————-

      It really is funny to see the spinners do their whirling dervish imitations any time anybody suggests that the science they are banking on is far from perfect.

      The above is actually a strong vote for the satellite approach to measuring the lower troposphere where the measurements are randome and of mixed area in the cone of the sensors. . . .as opposed the record sitting ontop of 1890 brick firestation in a small town urban area. (for the humorless thats obviously just a colorful characterization)

      Further, USCRN appears to be a well designed system and the pairwise groundtruthing installed within it is yielding results.
      https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/6/jamc-d-19-0002.1.xml

      Roy says his UAH is very close to it. And since Roy has ENSO smoothing techniques he would know.

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    worth repeating….

    Tim S…”The climate change movement loses credibility in two very important ways. First, the policy statements of the IPCC and other organizations clearly state that redistribution of wealth is an important part of their agenda they are political. Second, and most important is the failure to promote and endorse a complete and open examination of ALL of the science. Science that is limited in scope is not science at all. Dr. Spencer is openly criticized for doing genuine science, and that is shameful”.

    ***

    I might ad that the IPCC are corrupt. They use an ad hoc statistical system for rating probabilities, in which most of their opinions are rated Likely and Most Likely and any facts that disagree with them are rated Unlikely or Most Unlikely.

    They claim the anthropogenic theory is irrevocable when it has yet to be proved. There most egregious chicanery, however is reserved for the manner in which they openly falsify the review reports. Ironically, they don’t even try to hide their cheating.

    The IPCC reviews feature 2500 reviewers who are appointed by politically appointed Lead Authors. Before the main report is released from the 2500 reviewers, the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 Lead Authors, is released in advance. Then the main report written by 2500 reviewers is amended to agree with the Summary.

    Huh!!!

    Absolute corruption!!! The 2500 reviewers can protest but the protests generally fall on deaf ears.

    A perfect example of that corruptions occurred circa 2008 when the IPCC claimed it was 90% likely that humans are causing global warming. Richard Lindzen reported that was not the opinion of the 2500 reviewers, many of whom wanted to wait and see what developed. It was the opinion of the 50 Lead Authors who wrote the Summary.

    Later, with the greatest of cheek, without proof, they upped the percentage to 95%.

    The truth is, the IPCC has not the slightest proof that humans are warming the atmosphere. They lie through their teeth, but the proof remains elusive.

    • barry says:

      How much misinformation can you pack into one post, Robertson?

      For starters you have no idea how reviewers are selected.

      https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/

      Short story – anyone can review if they have a relevant qualification in the topic.

      If readers just assume that nearly everything you say is nonsense – and it really is – it would save them a lot of time.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “anyone can review if they have a relevant qualification in the topic.”

        ***

        Of course they can, they are just not included in the Summary, which is written by 50 lead authors. Politicians read the Summary. Get it…Summary for Policymakers?

        But wait…there’s more. Even if a reviewer gets his/her opinions admitted to the main report, the opinion will be changed to suit the Summary.

        The politicians know what they want to hear ahead of time and the IPCC tells them what they want to hear.

        The IPCC is corrupt.

        • Entropic man says:

          “The politicians know what they want to hear ahead of time and the IPCC tells them what they want to hear. ”

          Are there many such? Most politicians are very reluctant to subject their electorates to the costs of global warming mitigation. They find excuses not to follow the policy options that the IPCC suggest are necessary to mitigate climate change.

          Like Donald Trump, who tried to edit global warming out of government websites, fire the scientists and pack organisations like the EPA and his science advisors with denialists.

          One of my measures of a politician is his staff and his advisors. Are they people who will tell him what he needs to know, rather than what he wants to hear?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ent…”Most politicians are very reluctant to subject their electorates to the costs of global warming mitigation”.

            ***

            Au contraire. As witnessed by the recent economic trade conference in Davos, most politicians are only too willing to use the scare of climate change to further a move toward globalization.

            Essentially, these idiots are usurping democracy and running their own agendas. Trump was one of the only leaders to call a spade a spade and try to stop it.

      • barry says:

        “Of course they can”

        So you were wrong that reviewers were picked by political masters, but rather than saying so you switched subjects to lead authors.

        “they are just not included in the Summary, which is written by 50 lead authors. Politicians read the Summary. Get itSummary for Policymakers?”

        The lead authors are scientists from various countries, including countries with governments that (have) downplay(ed) or dismiss(ed) AGW.

        “Even if a reviewer gets his/her opinions admitted to the main report”

        Reviewers text never makes it into the report. You have no idea how it works. Reviewer suggestions are considered and if they have merit, may influence later drafts.

        “the opinion will be changed to suit the Summary.”

        You have no idea how this works.

        Perhaps read from source instead of your imagination or whatever blog has mistaught you.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/about/preparingreports/

        At least get the basics right. Then your criticisms might have a chance of being taken seriously.

  41. Entropic man says:

    The main factors which affect average global temperature are plate tectonics, orbital cycles, solar insolation, volcanic activity, albedo, GHGs and land use.

    The first five are natural. When you measure them, their effects are neutral or driving slow cooling.

    We are changing three of them, in ways which cause global warming.

    Albedo is sunlight reflected back into space. Lower the albedo, more sunlight reaches the surface and increases the temperature. We are decreasing albedo directly and indirectly. Reduced fossil burn is decreasing particle density In the atmosphere. Global warming is decreasing ice cover and ice albedo.

    Increasing GHGs are reducing heat loss to space and increasing back radiation, causing heat to accumulate.

    Land use changes, mostly agriculture and UHI decrease reflection from the surface and increase local temperatures.

    The denialist straw man that CO2 is the only warming agent is nonsense. It is the largest contributor and the factor most easily controlled, but it is not the only factor.

    Similarly Dr Spencer’s article does not ring true. It is useful to recognise the effect of UHI if you want to separate it from from the effects of changing GHGs and albedo. It is disingenuous to present a subtext that UHI is not a human contributor to global warming and should therefore be edited out.

    The reluctance of sceptics to accept the 40.3C RAF Coningsby UK record is also disingenuous. In the warmest UK year on record you would reasonably expect new records, especially where local effects like UHI amplify the warming.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent loves to make up crap:

      “The denialist straw man that CO2 is the only warming agent is nonsense.”

      WRONG again, Ent. What kind of kinky, twisted logic is that? Keyboarding ain’t science.

      (Ent is also the one that made up the crap that passenger jets fly backwards.)

    • gbaikie says:

      “The main factors which affect average global temperature are plate tectonics, orbital cycles, solar insolation, volcanic activity, albedo, GHGs and land use.”

      Plate tectonic activity is gradual process which changes geographical features of our world which over millions of year has resulted in our present ice house global climate world.
      The main aspect of global climate is the world’s ocean and the changes in geographical features over tens of millions of years has resulted in a cold ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C which has caused our average global temperature of about 15 C.
      The average global surface air temperature of 15 C has a average global ocean surface air temperature of about 17 C and average global land surface air temperature of about 10 C.

      The ice house global climate temperature is largely about the air temperature outside the tropical region.
      The tropical region is warmed the most by the energy of our sun.

      The tropical region is about 40% of the Earth’s entire surface, and remains warm despite Earth being in an Ice Age.
      The changes in the Ice Age, which called glaciation and interglacial period has large changes in 60% of Earth surface which outside of the tropics.
      The tropics remain fairly constant in terms air temperatures and 60% of world can get very cold. Presently it is quite cold: Canada and Russia average is around -3 C, China about 8 C, US is about 11 C, and Europe averages around 9 C. And mostly world’s land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, India which in Northern Hemisphere and near tropics, has average temperature of about 25 C. Land areas in tropics are more than 20 C and tropical surface ocean averages about 26 C and ocean surface temperature outside of tropics is about 11 C.
      Europe would much colder were the ocean not warming it, and ocean in general warms land areas.

      And if average temperature of ocean that is about 3.5 C was warmer, it causes the land area in 60% of the world to be warmer.
      The warmest times in interglacial periods has an Ocean 4 C or warmer,
      and slightly warmer ocean large effect in warming 60% of land area in the world. And this is effected by the orbital cycles.

      • RLH says:

        “The tropical region is about 40% of the Earths entire surface”

        If you define, as many do. the tropics as being between 30 North to 30 South then that is 50% of the Earth’s surface, or half.

        • gbaikie says:

          Well I say tropical ocean about 40% which is fudging it more the 23.5 degrees.
          But in terms of tropics absorbing more half of sunlight reaching Earth, it mean 40% of earth surface absorbs more 1/2 sunlight of 100% of the Earth surface.
          Or the 60% doesn’t get much sunlight reaching the surface. But at 34.6 degree where I am, it gets enough- at least, when near the summer. Now, it well freezing at night, which doesn’t happen in tropics, unless you at high elevation. I am at about 2000 feet, and LA [though I am part of LA county] which is near the coast, is not freezing.

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh, I guess sahara desert and other deserts in tropic does freeze.
            Anyhow, no snow, yet, despite the cold- when it’s been raining, it warms up and only snows on the hills around here- and not a lot.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”Plate tectonic activity is gradual process which changes geographical features of our world which over millions of year…”

        ***

        gb…the movement of continental plates is a theory. The theory has become a paradigm, it has not been proved.

        No one has ever witnessed a plate move. They are located too far under the surface to be observed. One of the bases of the theory is a trench down the middle of the Atlantic where volcanic activity is present. Iceland sits near the trench. Proof of such motion is based on Earth’s magnetic field aligning molecules in molten lava near the trench. However, when the magnetism is followed closer to shore it disappears.

        Not only that, the theory is based on convection of solid matter. In other words, molten stone from below is pushed up in the mid-ocean trench then flows toward shore, where it allegedly becomes subducted, that is dragged under the surface. It is alleged that such a motion of one plate under another cause earthquakes and the ring of fire volcanic activity around the Pacific Rim.

        The problem with that theory is how does solid stone, cooled by the ocean and under immense pressure, flow at all?

        Here’s a decent article on the subject that covers it objectively.

        https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0510/0510090.pdf

        • gbaikie says:

          — Gordon Robertson says:
          January 20, 2023 at 3:19 PM

          gbPlate tectonic activity is gradual process which changes geographical features of our world which over millions of year

          ***

          gbthe movement of continental plates is a theory. The theory has become a paradigm, it has not been proved.

          No one has ever witnessed a plate move.–

          Well you can’t prove any theory, you only disprove theories, and just take one guy to do.
          I know no guy who has.

        • Swenson says:

          Gordon,

          From your link –

          “In plate tectonics theory, basalt rock, observed erupting from the mid-oceanic ridges, is thought to creep slowly across the ocean basin and to subduct, to plunge into the Earth, typically into submarine trenches.”

          Not quite my understanding, but I may be wrong.

          GPS measurements show that the continent of Australia is proceeding majestically in a north-north-easterly direction at about 7 cm/year. The UK is slowly rolling over, more or less in place, and marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m.

          I accept that continents move, bob up and down, and generally do as they wish.

          As to theory, nothing completely explains why and how this happens. I have my own ideas.

        • gbaikie says:

          gbaikie says:
          January 20, 2023 at 6:12 PM

          Gordon Robertson says:
          January 20, 2023 at 3:19 PM

          gbPlate tectonic activity is gradual process which changes geographical features of our world which over millions of year

          ***

          gbthe movement of continental plates is a theory. The theory has become a paradigm, it has not been proved.

          No one has ever witnessed a plate move.

          Hmm, I was wondering. So I think the world has change via plate tectonic activity and related to this, I believe it’s fact that we in ice age,
          starting 33.9 million and last few million has the coldest time in this ice age.
          But if you don’t think the world has changed over tens of millions, it seems you don’t think we living in Ice Age.

          Or, do think Earth has always been this cold?

          Is that we are living in an ice age, a fact or not?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…”Increasing GHGs are reducing heat loss to space and increasing back radiation, causing heat to accumulate”.

      ***

      You don’t have a clue as to the marked difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.

      Heat is lost at the surface as it is converted to EM. 95% of the EM is lost to space and only about 5% is captured by GHGs. Even if EM from a cooler atmosphere could be absorbed by a warmer surface, you are returning 5% of what was emitted and claiming that can raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy.

      Nasty physics and math.

  42. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Swenson wrote: “If you want to keep posting nonsense about ‘global warming signal[s]’, you are free to do so.”

    Despite your best wishes, it is not nonsense.

    As Dr Roy Spencer stated it is the crux of the issue regarding science and scientists’ duty to warn.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/canada-is-warming-at-only-1-2-the-rate-of-climate-model-simulations/

    We would expect little anthropogenic global warming signal to emerge from the noise of natural climate variability until (approximately) the 1980s. This is for 2 reasons: There was little CO2 emitted up through the 1970s, and even as the emissions rose after the 1940s the cooling effect of anthropogenic SO2 emissions was canceling out much of that warming. This is widely agreed to by climate modelers as well.

    Thus, to really get a good signal of global warming – in both observations and models – we should be examining temperature trends since approximately the 1980s. That is, only in the decades since the 1980s should we be seeing a robust signal of anthropogenic warming against the background of natural variability, and without the confusion (and uncertainty) in large SO2 emissions in the mid-20th century.

    And as each year passes now, the warming signal should grow slightly stronger.

    I will keep posting about it because it is on topic and important.

    • Clint R says:

      As Swenson stated, you are free to continue.

      But the problem Alarmists have is in not wanting more coal burned. We know that emissions from coal can definitely cool the planet. So people that fear global warming should be advocating for more coal.

      And, if you don’t like coal, advocate for nuclear. Every comment Alarmists make here should include advocacy for nukes, unless they have a political agenda.

      • Refutation of False Science says:

        Nobody died and made you King of this sub-thread.

        Coal plants emit CO2 as well as two kinds of aerosols, black carbon (soot), and sulfates (sulfur particles).

        Sulfates have a cooling effect but they only stay in the troposphere a few days. CO2 stays in the atmosphere several hundred years. Also sulfates hydrate they form sulfuric acid.

        Why do you hate science, and clean air?

        • Clint R says:

          Correct, burning coal has a cooling effect.

          Plus, there’s the benefit of additional CO2 plant food.

          Are you saying you prefer coal over nuclear?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          some idiot…”CO2 stays in the atmosphere several hundred years”.

          ***

          Proof, Mr. Idiot? Do CO2 molecules come with date labels on them?

          • Refutation of False Science says:

            Is the insolent tone necessary?

            There are no good answers to bad questions.

            Care to rephrase in scientific terms?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            “Is the insolent tone necessary?”

            ***

            Yes…you alarmist idiots need to be addressed with the disdain your deserve. However, someone like you who asks why we skeptics hate science and clean air deserves special treatment.

            We skeptics offer science in our responses and we are met with pseudo-science in return. You nor any of your alarmist friends can offer any proof that any climate change is occurring never mind the catastrophic variety.

      • Entropic man says:

        Burning coal has been called the Faustian Bargain.

        The CO2 strengthens the greenhouse effect and causes long term warming.

        The smoke and sulphur increase albedo and causes short term cooling which cancels out some of the CO2 warming.

        As long as you keep burning coal, you can fool yourself that it’s not that bad.

        As soon as you stop the albedo decreases and you get hit by the full effect of the CO2 warming. The longer you burn, the worse the final warming.

        The Warmistas recognise this and want to stop burning coal as soon as possible to minimise the long term damage.

        The coolistas want to burn, baby, burn. Take the short term profit and let somebody else cope with the damage.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ent…”The CO2 strengthens the greenhouse effect and causes long term warming”.

          ***

          I am still awaiting your proof of a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. In a real greenhouse, it is the glass in the greenhouse that causes it. The glass passes SW solar then traps heated air molecules.

          Last time I looked there were not glass roofs in the atmosphere.

        • Clint R says:

          Ent, if you oppose coal, gas, oil, and nukes, you’ve just shut down modern civilization.

          That was your agenda all along, huh?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ent isn’t worried, they have it covered. They plan to burn down all the trees as biofuel.

            Funny how you can add ‘bio’ before a CO2 source and it no longer becomes a GHG.

          • Entropic man says:

            I’ve no objection to nuclear.

            Nor do I want to shut down civilization.I want it to move beyond fossil fuels into nuclear and renewables and survive.

            If civilization cannot function without coal, gas and oil it will collapse when they run out. What do you suggest we do about it?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ent…”Nor do I want to shut down civilization.I want it to move beyond fossil fuels into nuclear and renewables and survive”.

            ***

            You are being duped by idiots who are on an entirely different agenda. AOC, the Barbie Doll congresswoman, one of your leaders, thinks it is not important to be factually correct, but morally correct.

            As a Barbie Doll, AOC fails to grasp the implication. If it is OK to be morally right, how can it be moral to tell lies about science?

          • gbaikie says:

            “If civilization cannot function without coal, gas and oil it will collapse when they run out. What do you suggest we do about it?”

            China burning more coal than entire world, and paying $400 per ton,
            and I think they are at Peak Coal, but I could be wrong, maybe they will never run out coal.
            US it is reported, has far more coal than China.
            Does any know when Europe going to run out coal- cause it’s burning a lot also, I hear.

            We could live somewhere else where it’s warmer, we use a lot energy to keep warm enough.
            It seems Mars would be warmer than Earth.
            I also think ocean settlements on Earth could use less energy.

            I would say we live in the orbit of Venus, but we have failed to test artificial gravity. I would suggest spending more on NASA, but they seem incompetent- never tested artificial gravity and done lots stupid things. Likewise I suggest the Dept Energy which has bigger budget than NASA, though has done far less than the incompetent NASA.
            If DOE was competent more money should be spent on determining how to mine ocean methane deposits. That or allow people to own areas where they are methane ocean deposits, so that smarter people could mine it.
            One thing about Venus orbit, you would have any governmental monopolies controlling energy, as one really has free sunlight, very unlike living on Earth’s cold surface.

            But, don’t have live in space to have endless amounts energy, you just need to lower launch costs.
            NASA apparently wants of lower launch cost, but what do, indicates they really want to do it. China, and Russia can do it. Europe at one point in time did it. US military has done it, but NASA has never done it.
            NASA for decades said want to send crew to Mars- but had no way to do it. The more they couldn’t do, the more they said they wanted to do- endlessly, and being really stupid.
            Starship could a way to do, and now, NASA saying it will long time before crew can sent to Mars.
            Government lie.
            Considering that, maybe shortage of energy is to make current energy more expensive. Anyhow peak anything has gone out fashion lately.
            And it seems peak not enough people as next fashion- China has already started, as has other countries.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            So you’d force civilization to shut down now instead of a thousand years when it runs out of fossil fuels? That’s your agenda? Brilliant.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Antman and his ilk will have objections to nuclear once they have wiped out the fossil fuel industry. It is all about the agenda.

          • Willard says:

            Troglodyte wants nukes and wants deregulation.

            A 8 yo in a 80 yo suit.

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”You dont know anything about NOAAs weather stations.

    I have explained to you many times…”

    ***

    Receiving advice from you is like receiving advice from someone in a lunatic asylum. I offer you a link in which NOAA admits slashing their global surface station count from 6000 to less than 1500 and you still rave about 100s of thousands of stations.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

    “NOAA Weather Stations
    Determining Global Temperature

    Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?

    The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.

    *************

    Could they state it any more plainly? Do you want me to translate it to German. Then again, I’d have to translate it to Australian for Barry.

    NOAA states…”The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved…”

    Duh!!! Translated, it says, as it becomes easier to communicate between stations, we have reduced the number of stations. Only blatant cheaters would summon such logic.

    • barry says:

      NOAA does not say that they slashed stations in that brief. They say that they added them.

      Your ‘translation’ is simply fabrication.

      It’s really simple.

      NOAA had about 1500 weather stations reporting to them in real time, on the 8th of every month.

      The other 4500 stations came from historical records that took several years to collate in the mid-90s. This was all from stations that did not and never had reported to NOAA in real time.

      The 1500 stations continued to report in real time. This is why we see larger station counts earlier in the record.

      As they say in the webpage you cite, they ADDED stations from historical records.

      “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.”

  44. Gordon Robertson says:

    The great alarmist promoter, Entropic, offers this response to me re proof of the GHE.

    “Its a metaphor, you gobshite”.

    So, Entropic is admitting the greenhouse effect is a metaphor, meaning it is not literally true.

    Thanks…the first honest answer supplied by the alarmist contingent.

    BTW, Ent, is the alleged rotation of the Moon a metaphor as well? Is there anything your crowd says that is honest?

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”He denies virus existence, Moons spin about its polar axis, Einsteins time dilation and gravity addenda to Newtons etc, results posted by commenters of course included”.

    ***

    Thanks for inviting me to comment.

    I have never denied virus existence. I have merely pointed to articles by an expert in virology, Dr. Stefan Lanka, who also does not deny that a virus exists. In fact, he discovered the first virus in the ocean.

    Lanka has gone through papers for each popular virus, as an expert, and found none of the papers have isolated a virus. He proved that the measles virus claimed discovery is bogus, in a German court.

    I have proved independently of a different proof by Nicola Tesla that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. You have offered no rebuttal, only a list of authority figures who misunderstood the problem.

    Einstein’s time dilation theory is a no-brainer. Time was invented by humans based on the rotation of the Earth. Since that rotational period is a relative constant, it is not possible for time to dilate without the Earth changing its rotational speed.

    All I have done re Newton is corroborate his claim that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity. Since Newton also pointed out that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth, it is inconceivable that he would make the error of thinking it also rotated on a local axis. Since the translator of Principia seems to suggest he said that, I claim the translator erred.

    • RLH says:

      “He proved that the measles virus claimed discovery is bogus, in a German court.”

      Liar.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Put up, or shut up. Your one-word, one-line replies only serve to make you a fool.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          You are bringing up the foul dishonest Lanka again, why do you persist in making this vile human a good person.

          RLH is correct you are a liar intentionally and without shame.

          You still think Putin is a good guy, honest, truthful. He is a dark and evil man with a cold heart and full of lies.

          Maybe you need education and quit following liars. Watch this movie when it makes the rounds. Maybe you will see how wrong you are about everything. The Moon, radiation, Einstein etc, all of it.

          https://www.yahoo.com/news/journalists-reveal-horrors-murdered-lifeless-023000985.html

          You have built a world based on intentional lies. You think Gary Novak is a valid source.

          I think you are a complete liar about taking Physics classes at a University level. I think most of what you post are just fabrications and lies. You admire liar and vile people (like Putin the monster that he is).

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            You wrote –

            “I think most of what you post are just fabrications and lies.”, which of course begs the question – which of his posts do you think are factual and truthful

            Maybe you could name one person who cares what you think?

            No? That would make you look like a fool, wouldn’t it?

            Dimwit.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, where’s your valid technical reference that two fluxes arriving a surface can heat the surface so that it emits the simple sum of the two fluxes?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I have addressed this many times. Roy Spencer did an experiment verifying it, E. Swanson also did an experiment to validate this. You do not care about evidence at all so stop pretending you do.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Norman, you’ve AVOIDED addressing this many times. No one has done an experiment to verify/validate this issue. You have NO evidence, so stop pretending you do.

            Here’s what your cult claims– two fluxes, F1 and F2, arriving at a surface result in the surface emitting the simple sum of two fluxes, ie, F1 + F2. That doesn’t happen! It violates the laws of physics. You’ve accepted fraud as “science”, and still struggle to incompetently support it.

            I’ll keep reminding you of this because, as you know, I like exposing fraud and phonies.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Wrong. E. Swanson has done it and posted his results.

            You do not have a clue about science or physics. You are a Flat-Earther Cultist so nothing every stated to you will be accepted. You will reject everything and then pretend no one addressed your claims. It is the mentality of a Flat-Earth Cultist. You are wired in this way.

            You can do an experiment yourself if you want to be scientific. Take two heat lamps. Turn one on to an object you are measuring the temperature of. Get a steady state reading and then turn on the other lamp and see if the temperature goes up. If it does fluxes add and you are proven wrong.

            Do science and quit being such a stupid troll. I think most here are tired of your cult stupidity.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAEwMpS__Tk&t=1052s

            This video shows how discussing anything with you is pointless. You are the irrational cult minded Flat-Earther of this video. Most other posters are rational logical science based thinkers like the presenter of the video.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong troll Norman.

            Whenever you get slapped by reality, you resort to trolling — insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

            E. Swanson’s off-topic experiment did not identify any actual flux values. But, if you tried converting the temperatures to fluxes, it would be obvious fluxes do not simply add.

            Keep trying to pervert reality. I like exposing fraud, phonies, and trolls.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You are a brain dead Flat Earther. Again you are not logical or rational. Fluxes add you are wrong. You can have other heat transfer mechanisms so the fluxes may not equate to a temperature since a given temperature is the sum off all heat transfer going on. This does not logically does not infer fluxes do not add. They do you are wrong and can’t understand why. You are not smart enough to see your ignorance and you lack logic.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, you keep ignoring the difference between “add” and “simply add”. Vector quantities can be added, but they do not “simply add”. But, as you have no knowledge of physics, you can’t understand.

            Here’s what your cult claims — two fluxes, F1 and F2, arriving at a surface result in the surface emitting the simple sum of two fluxes, ie, F1 + F2. That doesn’t happen! It violates the laws of physics. You’ve accepted fraud as “science”, and still struggle to incompetently support it.

            I’ll keep reminding you of this because, as you know, I like exposing fraud, phonies…and trolls.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You should expose yourself, you are definitely a troll, you don’t know real physics, and you are a fraudulent phony peddling your brand of dishonest physics on gullible simple minded.

            On your point. Two fluxes say arriving at a blackbody (or near so) with no other energy inputs and in vacuum condition so the only heat transfer is radiant energy, will emit the sum of incoming energy if the geometry is not changed. The surface that absorbs is the same area as the surface emitting. Your endless nonsense will not change this and it DOES NOT violate ANY real laws of physics.

            You are wrong.

            It does not imply ice boils water. You don’t have enough knowledge of geometry to grasp why this is not a correct logical progression of fluxes adding at a surface. It has been explained to you several times and yet you can’t process it. That is why you should spend the time to watch the Flat-Earth video. You argue the same as the Flat-Earthers on their view. Neither of you have any logical thought but keep repeating worn out points.

            Case of point, the Flat-Earth point out you can see object that should be below the horizon. Scientists explain it to them that the atmosphere bends light. They don’t get this and continue with the same point over and over. You are just like that. Everything has been explained in incredible detail to you, all you points and challenges. Not a bit of difference in your Closed Cult mind that rejects science and logic.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, as usual you know NOTHING of the subject and just ramble endlessly. And the more I slap you with reality, the more you go into meltdown.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

            You’re a phony, with only a “wiki” level of knowledge of physics. Yet you pretend to be an expert. So, here’s a simple question for you:

            Fluxes are composed of photons. Since you are convinced that fluxes simply add, then photons must simply add. So, what is the “sum” of two 15μ photons?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            In similar Flat Earth style you reject what I said.

            For your question about sum of two 15 micron photons.

            Use this tool:

            https://www.calctool.org/quantum-mechanics/photon-energy

            The energy of one photon is 0.08265647 electron Volts so two would have the energy of 0.16531294 eV. More photons added the energy simply adds. Not sure what point you are making.

            All it seems is you are spinning in circles because you don’t know how to set up an experiment with two heat lamps (which would show you fluxes add, which is why you won’t do it). You are a fraud, a phony and a Cult minded Flat Earth mentality. No amount of logic, evidence, REAL science, or effort will change your endlessly stupid thought process. It is a closed loop of ignorance compiled by half-truth and made up BS.

            So challenge to you. Find a valid source of science information (not Claes Johnson) that prove energy from a cold source will not be absorbed by a hotter one. You make this claim and yet you do not support it. You never have. I have asked you numerous times for support but so far you provide none. You big phony.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, just to clarify your beliefs: You’re saying that two 15μ photons will simply add to form one photon that has the energy of the two?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            No that is not my belief. If you have two photons there is more energy. If this energy is absorbed the surface has the energy of both. I am not saying the photons combine nor do I know why you suggest that I am implying this.

            This is what Flat Earth arguments devolve to.

            Rather than show valid evidence to support your claim that a hot object will not absorb energy from a colder one you sideling the argument into the absurd. Why do you Flat-Earthers do this. It is a standard argument format for your mental type, but I wonder why you think this is a good thing, why do you keep doing it?

            Stop with the diversions and absurd point and provide evidence to support you claims. Why is it so hard for you to do this? What prevents you from finding support for you claims?

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, your belief is that two fluxes simply add. Specifically, fraudkerts claimed two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2. But a 2F flux has a completely different spectrum than a F flux. You need higher energy photons. A 2F flux has higher energy photons than an F flux. If fluxes simply add, then photons must simply add.

            Quit trying to divert. This all started with your swallowing of fraudkerts nonsense and then claiming that you always support what you claim.

            So either support your claim with some valid technical reference, or explain how two photons add to one photon with its energy being the sum of the two.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            No diversion at all. I note you still have not supported your claim that energy from a cold object can’t be absorbed by a hotter one. Why not answer this?

            YOU: “Specifically, fraudkerts claimed two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2.”

            Tim Folkerts is correct. Again please consider that he is referring to what is arriving at a surface. You have not yet took the time to understand the difference between absorbed flux and emitted flux.

            In your final point: “So either support your claim with some valid technical reference, or explain how two photons add to one photon with its energy being the sum of the two.”

            You again are not understanding that absorb and emit are different. When an object absorbs the two photons, they are gone, only their energy remains. The object has twice the energy it did vs only a single photon. Now it will energy.

            I think you are really messed up in your understanding of physics. Mostly because you got it from blog sources like the crackpot cult fanatic Joseph Postma and people like Claes Johnson. If you got your information from Wikipedia it would be far superior than blog science and deluded crackpots. I like to get mine from textbooks.

            here is a link for a free textbook on Heat Transfer. Much superior source, the text could have mistakes but the source material is much closer to reality than your blogs.

            https://ahtt.mit.edu/

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry troll Norman, but that’s all diversion. All that blah-blah and you STILL have no science. You are unable to support your nonsense so you just rely on your false beliefs.

            In your cult, you believe the world is an imaginary black body. That’s the nonsense that results in ice cubes boiling water. You can’t support such fraud, but you accept it. Reality is your enemy.

      • RLH says:

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31864218

        “Germany court orders measles sceptic to pay 100,000 euros”

        • RLH says:

          “A German biologist who offered 100,000 (71,350; $106,300) to anyone who could prove that measles is a virus has been ordered by a court to pay up.

          Stefan Lanka, who believes the illness is psychosomatic, made the pledge four years ago on his website.

          The reward was later claimed by German doctor David Barden, who gathered evidence from various medical studies.”

  46. Swenson says:

    Earlier, some SkyDragon cultist wrote –

    “Coal plants emit CO2 as well as two kinds of aerosols, black carbon (soot), and sulfates (sulfur particles).”

    – no doubt trying to sound sciency and authoritative.

    He either doesn’t know that burning hydrocarbons produces, at a minimum, CO2 and H2O, or doesn’t want to admit it, for some strange reason. He also reinvents chemistry, by claiming sulfates are “sulfur particles”. And so it goes.

    The man’s a fool. Producing and using energy creates heat – the living human body is a prime example. SkyDragon cultists want to exterminate life from the planet, by reducing CO2 and H2O levels to less than those required to sustain life.

    All because they are terrified of a GHE which they cannot describe, and which has never been observed, measured, or documented, in any scientific fashion.

    The march of the morons continues.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The morons like to portray smoke stacks belching water vapour as CO2.

    • barry says:

      “He either doesnt know that burning hydrocarbons produces, at a minimum, CO2 and H2O… SkyDragon cultists want to exterminate life from the planet, by reducing CO2 and H2O levels to less than those required to sustain life.”

      Ohhahahahahahahahaha!!

      If we reduce emissions from smmokestacks we will reduce the amount of H2O needed to sustain life??

      This is planetary level idiocy. Thanks for the laugh.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        SkyDragons believe, apparently, that “greenhouse gases” like H2O (and to a lesser degree CO2), make thermometers hotter. Complete nonsense, of course, but SkyDragon cultists are somewhat detached from reality.

        “Emissions from smmokestacks [sic]”?

        Typical SkyDragon attempts to avoid acknowledging that burning hydrocarbons is just putting back into the atmosphere what Nature had sequestered, reducing CO2 levels to a point barely above that necessary to maintain plant life on the planet. Of course, no plants, no people.

        Idiot “climate scientists” and their dimwitted acolytes claim there is a GHE, but they cannot describe it. It doesn’t seem to have had any effect for four and a half billion years or so, as the planet cooled, but this inconvenient truth doesn’t stop the nutters from uttering stupidities like “Stop Climate Change”, “climate catastrophe”, and so on.

        In the meantime, the replenishment of CO2 back into the atmosphere has resulted in increased plant life around the globe – a dreadful thing, according to nitwits like you.

        Dr Spencer is looking at alternative causes for the rises in temperatures noted roughly since the Industrial Revolutions in various countries, it appears. That’s what real scientists do – even getting it wrong on occasion – phlogiston, caloric theory, the indivisible atom – but that’s how it is.

        You may refuse to accept reality, but it will make precisely no difference.

        Not a single fact will be changed, will it?

      • barry says:

        “Typical SkyDragon attempts to avoid acknowledging that burning hydrocarbons is just putting back into the atmosphere what Nature had sequestered, reducing CO2 levels to a point barely above that necessary to maintain plant life on the planet. Of course, no plants, no people.”

        Please, hahahaha. “Putting back into the atmosphere what Nature had sequestered, reducing CO2 levels”

        Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, reduces the CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

        Too funny.

        “SkyDragons”

        Yeah, you’re definitely off with the pixies.

        • Swenson says:

          b,

          Nature reduced CO2 levels by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and turning it into plant material. I assumed you were reasonably bright – I could have been clearer, I suppose.

          Where do you think all the gas, oil, and coal comes from?

          You dimwit, from the atmosphere! That’s why they call it “fossil fuel”.

          Burning it just puts back a little of what was turned into “fossil fuels”. Why would you want less of essential plant food in the atmosphere?

          Idiot SkyDragon cultists apparently want to reduce the biomass of plants, cause planet-wide human starvation. That would be idiots like you, who can’t even describe the GHE which you worship.

          Go on, tell me why reducing the amount of plant food in the atmosphere is good for humanity – if you can.

          Off you go now – how hard can it be

        • barry says:

          “I could have been clearer, I suppose.”

          That was the only honest thing you said.

          There is abundant evidence demonstrating AGW, from empirical spectroscopy measurements of greenhouse gases, to physical experiments demonstrating the effect, more than a century of theory behind it and the clear evidence of global warming supporting. There are several fingerprints corroborating, such as the cooling of the lower stratosphere while the troposphere warms. That’s just one of many corroborating pieces of evidence that carry the GH signature.

          Your approach is to reject all of this and keep pushing the three talking points you spout over and over and over and over again.

          I gave up trying to talk sense to a brick wall with only 3 plays ages ago.

          The inadvertent comedy, though? Now that’s fun. Keep it up.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            One minor problem you have is that you can’t actually describe the “greenhouse effect”, can you? This would make all your other assertions a bit nonsensical.

            Another minor problem is that the Earth has cooled since its surface was molten. So much for your CO2 “warming”. Your “theory”? What “theory” would that be?

            Maybe you should pay some attention to Dr Spencer’s most recent post. Maybe thermometers respond to anthropogenic heat – what do you think of that? I assume that you can think for yourself, even though you are not showing much evidence at present.

            Maybe you believe the SkyDragon nonsense that CO2 makes thermometers hotter – but only when the Sun is shining, of course!

            Describe your GHE, and then defend your description. I will wager you can’t, but I might be wrong. Over to you.

          • barry says:

            “One minor problem you have is that you can’t actually describe the ‘greenhouse effect’, can you?”

            Yes, this is one of your 3 talking points. Another one is to refer to the temperature of the Earth’s surface 4.5 billion years ago.

            I’ve explained it to you many times. Greenhouse gases absorb upwelling radiation from the ground, slowing the rate at which IR escapes to space. As the GHG enhanced atmosphere further slows the rate of heat loss from the surface to space, the surface must warm.

            So of course it can be explained to you, and has been explained to you in various ways by various people.

            It’s not that no one can explain it. It’s that you are a brick wall who simply rejects it, just as you reject any established physics that supports the greenhouse effect. And you reject it with waffle, not with science.

            As I said, please stick to comedy. Your blank denial using the same hollow ornaments for arguments is boring.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “Greenhouse gases absorb upwelling radiation from the ground, slowing the rate at which IR escapes to space.”

            And the surface still cools, doesn’t it? Slow cooling is still not heating. Just like it has cooled for four and a half billion years.

            No, your description doesn’t result in raised temperatures.

            Try something that works – at night, for example. How hard can it be?

          • barry says:

            “And the surface still cools, doesn’t it?”

            That was almost funny. You’re losing you mojo.

            The surface has warmed over the period that anthro GHGs have been accumulating in the atmosphere.

            Which is in line with all the other evidence, empirical and a priori mentioned above.

            Please go back to saying sillier things. That’s entertaining at least. Your repetitious non sequiturs are repetitious. And non sequiturs.

  47. gbaikie says:

    Rapid technological innovation not harmful renewables policy key to lighting our energy future
    https://judithcurry.com/2023/01/20/rapid-technological-innovation-not-harmful-renewables-policy-key-to-lighting-our-energy-future/#more-29659

    “Paradoxically, restricting fossil fuel production in the near term will actually slow down the energy transition, which itself requires substantial amounts of energy to implement.”

    Well, it has done this. As said, government are only increasing CO2 emissions and wasting trillions of dollars.
    Dollars would better spent mining natural gas in ocean and arctic- the launch Starship, if FAA would allow it, would do more to reduce CO2 emissions anything governments thought of.
    All politicians have done, is enriching themselves and causing wars.

  48. Willard says:

    > Lanka has gone through papers for each popular virus, as an expert, and found none of the papers have isolated a virus. He proved that the measles virus claimed discovery is bogus, in a German court.

    Thank you for inviting me to correct your faulty memory, Bordon:

    Back in 2011, German biologist and vaccination sceptic Stefan Lanka posted a notice on the internet saying that if anyone could send him scientific evidence proving the measles virus, he would pay them 100,000.

    This is exactly what then medicine student David Bardens, who today works at a hospital in Hudiksvall on the east coast of Sweden, did. But Lanka rejected the six scientific studies he provided as proof.

    A regional court in Ravensburg in southern Germany has now ruled that the sceptic must cough up, because all the criteria of his advertisement have been fulfilled.

    https://www.thelocal.se/20150320/sweden-doctor-in-huge-measles-court-case-win/

    C’mon.

  49. gbaikie says:

    THE NEW SPACE RACE: With Starshield, SpaceX readies for battle.

    “Now that SpaceX has established itself as a leading provider of U.S. national security launches, it is seeking a bigger share of the defense market with a new product line called Starshield. SpaceX quietly unveiled Starshield last month offering defense and intelligence agencies custom-built spacecraft, sensors, and secure communications services leveraging SpaceXs investment in its Starlink network of broadband satellites.”

    So, Spacex launches a few Falcon Heavy and now, things have changed?
    Or are talking Starship.
    Starship is mostly about going to Mars. Though it say also about sub-orbital travel which obviously something US military wants. But Starship isn’t really designed for GEO or the Moon. But just talking about the first stage booster, it’s good for anything- very powerful and can be reused [in theory].
    I been interested in this for awhile, everyone knew a larger rocket was better, but the claim was their wasn’t enough market for it.
    But now, there seems to be endless market for it.
    All that needed was some mad man who wanted go to Mars.
    Starship is just Space Shuttle that goes to Mars- a space shuttle which unlike the Space Shuttle, Starship might work.
    The Space Shuttle was once upon time, was going to launch everything, they tried to outlaw other rockets [cause that’s govt do] but Space Shuttle was designed wrong. Russia of course made their own Space Shuttle- and it didn’t take them long to determine, it didn’t work.
    Anyhow, next:
    ” We have in the United States by far the most resilient commercial space enterprise anywhere in the world. The Chinese know that, and were going to lean into that, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks said Dec. 8 at an Aspen Security Forum in Washington. Were going to make sure were working closely with the commercial sector and leveraging all that commercial space capability. ”

    China is threat- they are pychopaths. But tend to think most likely they threat because they going to implode.
    I would be happy if China mined water on the Moon- but I don’t believe they serious about it, and if tried, they would fail- I would hope they would be wildly successful.
    I am certain, NASA can’t mine moon lunar {even if they legally permitted to do it] and I would like any government trying to do, because it would shocking and amazing if they could- the first time ever of having government actually do work, without actually just stealing stuff. As said, it would huge breakthrough, similar to a government not causing any more wars.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      That’s what happens to all Marxist regimes; they implode. However, Antman, Wiltard, and McGoofin believe Marxism is nirvana.

      • Willard says:

        Troglodytes will troglodyte:

        ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) A 39-year-old felon who overwhelmingly lost a bid for the New Mexico statehouse as a Republican paid for four men to shoot at Democratic lawmakers homes in recent months, including one house where a 10-year-old girl was asleep, police said.

        The case against Solomon Pea, who had posted photos of himself online with teh Donald campaign material, is one of dozens across the United States where people have threatened, and in some cases attempted to carry out, violence against members of Congress, school board members and other election officials. In Kansas, a trial began this week for a man who prosecutors say threatened to kill a congressman.

        https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-mexico-state-government-crime-albuquerque-1410b516f5b66c18d62342a0d7a9b60f

        Very Objective.

  50. barry says:

    I read the post and saw the link.

    It shows that the 71 best-sited US stations have a warmer long-term trend than the record from all USHCN weather stations.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbQCHFwTTy1HIns9pDNj6mDQ85Vau7NC/view

    So where is the UHI in the official record? Shouldn’t we have seen the opposite result?

    That was Bindidon’s point.

    And you think the 71 stations “represents the only such stations that NOAA has any control over.”

    Wrong. They are just 71 stations that surfacestations gave top rating to. NOAA has no more control over these than the other weather stations in USHCN. You might be mistaking those 71 stations for the USCRN, which only begins in 2005 anyway.

    “one would expect it to be a bellweather for global climate change”

    The temperature record of America, less than 3% of the global surface, is supposed to be a good proxy for the whole globe?

  51. Willard says:

    > We skeptics offer science in our responses

    Thank you for inviting me to correct two misconceptions.

    First, Bordon and his bunch are cranks. They side with contrarians when it suits them.

    Second, Bordon has no scientific bone in him.

    • barry says:

      These ‘skeptics’ offer blather and no substantiation for their crackpot views.

      Without substantiation, they are not doing anything like science.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        You wrote –

        “Without substantiation, they are not doing anything like science.”

        Without even a description, what hope for idiot SkyDragons, then?

        You have to describe an effect – where it may be observed, measured, and documented – before you can investigate whether it can be explained using known physical laws.

        At this point, you are stymied – how do you describe an effect which has been of no effect for four and a half billion years or so? Not easily, I’d imagine.

        Keep trying.

      • Clint R says:

        Blathering barry, where’s your substantiation from a valid technical reference that two fluxes arriving a surface can heat it so it will emit the simple sum of the two fluxes?

        Without substantiation, you are not doing anything like science. IOW, you’ve got NOTHING.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Barry,

        Ed Berry has offered all kinds of substantiation for his views. Also, Happer and Wijngaarden have offered all kinds of substantiation for their views.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        barry says:

        ”These skeptics offer blather and no substantiation for their crackpot views.

        Without substantiation, they are not doing anything like science.”

        Sounds like a Freudian projection Barry. What are doing in here?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It’s this kind of response from we willy wanker that assure me we skeptics are on the right track. Not once have I seen a reply from an alarmist that came anywhere near to a scientific explanation of the GHE or AGW.

      The other day I pressed Entropic for an explanation of the GHE, and he blurted out, complete with insult, that the GHE is a metaphor.

      There you have it, the GHE is a figure of speech aimed at equating global warming with an unrealistic symbol, a real greenhouse.

      Even that is above wee willy’s head. He is still trying to understand the difference between rotation and linear motion. You could ask a kid in kindergarten what the difference might be and he/she could explain it. Not wee willy, who likely has trouble chewing gum and tying his shoelaces at the same time.

  52. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Gordon Robertson wrote:

    “We skeptics offer science in our responses and we are met with pseudo-science in return.”

    Where have you offered “science” proving that “the Earth’s shadow causes the phases of the Moon?”

    Nowhere.

    Why?

    Because you made it up!

    You give skepticism a bad name.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632695

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I don’t feed the trolls.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson is an absolute ignoramus who isn’t even able to discuss about temperature anomalies.

      And whoever, like Robertson, tries miserably to distort Newton’s original formulations, or their independent translations by various people, so that these formulations correspond to his personal opinion, is an absolute specialist in pseudoscience.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I understand anomalies well, the problem is discussing them with people like you who lack an understanding.

        Even when I posted a link to a NOAA article explaining clearly that an anomaly is a deviation from a long term average, you still failed to grasp the meaning.

        You still have trouble grasping that a -ve anomaly is a cooling below that average. Since the first 18 years of the UAH record was below the average, it meant the temperatures were cooler. The temps are still barely above the average, meaning we have not experienced much warming the past 40+ years.

        By not much warming I mean the following. If you raised the thermostat in a room by the same amount you could not detect it.

    • Swenson says:

      TM,

      What have phases of the Moon to do with the fact that you can’t describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”?

      You are just indulging in a spot of ad-hommery, aren’t you, because you have been exposed as a delusional SkyDragon cultist.

      Carry on rejecting reality – the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Where was your “greenhouse effect” hiding during that time? Alongside Trenberth’s “missing heat”, perhaps?

      Got any fresh nonsense to bang on about?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Swenson, you get dumber by the day. ad-hommery?

        “the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so.”

        That’s -0.000008 C/decade. The UAH Global Temperature Update posted January 3rd shows warming of +0.13 C/decade. So the greenhouse warming trend is 16,807 times greater than your cooling trend.

        Time for you to shut up about “the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years” if you want to be taken seriously.

        • Swenson says:

          TM,

          As I said, the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, whether you like it or not.

          There is no “greenhouse warming trend”, and there hasn’t been for four and a half billion years, obviously.

          If a scientist notices that a thermometer is getting hotter, he might be well advised to cast about for a higher temperature heat source in the vicinity. A “climate scientist” might be delusional enough to believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!

          By the way, only a really silly SkyDragon would think that an “average” rate of cooling has any relevance to real rates of cooling. Even sillier, such a person would apparently know nothing about half lives, radiogenic heating, and so on. Current rates of cooling of the Earth (according to real scientists, based on theory and measurements) are estimated at between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum.

          As a matter of interest, I say what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish. The opinions of SkyDragons like you do not affect me unduly. All the SkyDragon opinions in the world (plus $5) will buy a $5 cup of coffee. You can work out what anybody’s opinion is worth, all by yourself.

          Accept reality if you like.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “Current rates of cooling of the Earth (according to real scientists, based on theory and measurements) are estimated at between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum.”

            So between -0.000001 and -0.000004 K/annum. Got it.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            McGoofin,
            You’re a good little Democrat worker bee. A true died-in-the-wool Marxist. What about Marxism captivates you? Do you just hate the Musks of the world? What about Gates or Zuckerberg?

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            you alright bud? Sounds like you fell and hit your head.

  53. Dan Pangburn says:

    Water vapor molecules at ground level outnumber CO2 molecules 23 to 1 and have been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules

  54. Dan Pangburn says:

    The average amount of time that passes between when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and when it emits one (called the decay time) is 1.1 seconds. It only takes a few microseconds for absorbed energy to be shared with surrounding molecules (relaxation time) by gaseous conduction.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…it has been estimated that atmospheric CO2 absorbs only 5% of surface radiation. Since CO2 emits isotropically, as you have claimed, that means it is also radiating 50% back toward warmer molecules of air, which can’t absorb it due to the 2nd law.

      The numbers simply don’t add up to CO2 being a factor in atmospheric warming. I would say the same applies to WV at 0.31% of the entire atmosphere.

      I think R.W.Wood had it right back in 1909. He was a world renowned expert on gases like CO2 and he stated that he could not see how CO2 could be a warming factor in the atmosphere. Rather, he thought a better explanation was the warming of nitrogen and oxygen by the surface through direct conduction, that air rising, and being unable to release it’s heat because neither radiates at terrestrial temperatures.

      Even at that, it’s obvious that surface temperatures vary markedly from the Equator to the Poles and that WV has a far greater effect in the Tropics, although no better than 4% or so. As Lindzen has pointed out, heated air in the Tropics rises to higher altitudes where it is transported poleward. Also, heated water in the Tropics travels poleward. If that is the case, only nitrogen and oxygen are capable of retaining that heat.

      I have the sneaking suspicion that we are missing something very important in the analysis of heat budgets.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        If WV and CO2 molecules absorb equally, only 1/23 or 4.3 % of absorbed radiation would be absorbed by CO2. Close enough.
        Some of the radiation from the surface is exactly cancelled by radiation from above. The net flow of energy complies with the second law. Yes, at the surface it works the same way with WV as it does with CO2. (I specialized in heat transfer analysis in grad school, have done heat transfer analysis and have written a general purpose heat transfer analysis program).
        I did an energy balance which is summarized in Fig 1 at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com It shows the convection/conduction value as less than half that for radiation. The biggy is latent heat.
        In the tropics up to about 4% of the atmospheric molecules are WV but the global average is about 1%.

  55. Dan Pangburn says:

    Although radiation is omnidirectional from a molecule, because of the population gradient in water vapor (WV) molecules the distance that an emitted photon travels before it encounters another IR active molecule is more when the photon is directed towards space. At 2 km and higher, outward directed photons from WV molecules can make it all the way to space. The result is net energy flux towards space. Gaseous conduction causes energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to be conducted to replenish the energy radiated to space by WV molecules.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…”At 2 km and higher, outward directed photons from WV molecules can make it all the way to space. The result is net energy flux towards space”.

      ***

      I am uncomfortable with the notion that gases making up 0.31% of the atmosphere are responsible for all heat dissipation. The focus of the anthropogenic theory is CO2, which makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can a pithy amount of CO2 possibly be responsible for dissipating the humungous amount of heat input daily by the Sun?

      Earlier in your post, you note that a molecule emits isotropically, that is, in all directions of a sphere. That alone casts a serious doubt on the definition of a photon’s existence, wherein the photon is regarded as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass.

      Clearly, the quantum of energy referred to as a photon is a wave-like entity from the moment it is emitted. After all, it has a frequency and is made up of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Fields are generally wave-like in nature, not mass-less particles.

      We need to stand back and re-assess the entire theory of energy in/energy out. Clearly, much of the heat dissipated is through a natural process where heated air rises and dissipates it’s heat naturally, with no radiation being required.

      Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules and varies with the density of atoms/molecules. Gravity orders atmospheric molecules by a negative density gradient from the surface upward. Therefore, as air density decreases from the surface upward, a rising parcel of heated air will expand and lose its density, thereby cooling naturally and almost completely by the time it reaches the stratosphere.

      Since the Sun has been heating the Earth for billions of years, the Earth has reached a temperature that must be sustained, therefore there is not much in the way of a requirement to dissipate the energy to space. We simply don’t know how much of the internal heat is recycled and lost internally.

      It’s possible that the shot of solar energy we receive each day is just enough to maintain the Earth’s average temperature leaving not much to be dissipated to space.

      I’d like to see evidence that the energy in/energy out meme is a scientific truth. I don’t think we have researched it nearly enough.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        That’s tough for me too, Dan.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        You seem to not accept the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. It means that, on average (no temperature change), the energy received from the sun by earth must leave the earth which is in the vacuum of space. The only way that energy can leave the earth is by radiation. The only gas molecules that can significantly radiate are those that are IR active at wavelengths associated with earth temperatures. The energy in N2 and O2 molecules must be conducted to IR active molecules to be radiated to space. Realize that space means the cosmic background temperature at about 2.725 Kelvin. The area of the earth radiating is 4 times the effective area receiving.
        Einstein worked out the equivalence of mass and energy. The momentum of a photon is the mass equivalent of its energy times the speed of light. This stuff has all been pretty well worked out and verified by experiment.
        Perhaps omnidirectional was a poor choice of words. Radiation does not go in all directions all at once. When a molecule emits a photon the photon has the same probability of going in any direction.

  56. gbaikie says:

    Wiki, Faint young Sun paradox
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
    “The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.”
    I tend to be interested various apparent paradoxes, and the attempts of giving answers to them.
    Wiki says:
    “More recent modeling studies have shown that the Sun is currently 1.4 times brighter today than it was 4.6 billion years ago (Ga), and that the brightening has accelerated considerably.”
    And says commonly accepted has to with greenhouse gases.
    And gives other attempts at answers to the apparent paradox:
    “Other proposed explanations:

    Tidal heating

    Cosmic rays

    Mass loss from Sun

    Changes in clouds

    Local Hubble expansion”

    And over here:
    https://phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html
    “The sun has been increasing its brightness by about 10% every billion years it spends burning hydrogen.”

    And if pick a number of 1350 watts per square meter at 1 AU distance:
    a 1% present increase of 1350 is x 1.01 = 1363.5
    Which roughly where we are at, though I typically round to 1360 watts per square meter, but if round number 100 million years ago it was about 1350 watts per square meter.

    Now, wiki also says, Earth has had 5 known Ice Ages and latest one
    is called Late Cenozoic Ice Age:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth

    And not only are we still in this Late Cenozoic Ice Age, but last few million year has been the coldest.
    An Ice Age is defined by having Ice Sheet at polar regions, which are stable or called “permanent” for time periods of say…longer than 100,000 years and ice sheets which can develop during what are called glacial periods and during interglacial period these ice sheet melt and in next glacial period they can form again.

    So to be in an Ice Age you need one permanent ice sheet in polar regions. And in last few million year we had Greenland develop a second ice sheet which is “permanent” or has survived during warmer periods. And Antarctica has had permanent Ice Sheet for 33.9 million years.
    Or it’s formation of permanent ice sheet, began our Late Cenozoic Ice Age. 33.9 million years ago.

    But returning the Faint young Sun paradox, thing, we came into this Ice Age during a time when sunlight was increasing by about 10 watts per square meter, and since the Ice Age started in the sunlight increased by about 3 watts per square meter.
    And our Ice Age might end after sunlight has added 10 watts since it started. Though Ice Age can last hundreds of millions of years.

    And one might say, that is more interesting Paradox than the bigger
    “Faint young Sun paradox”. Or more interesting because it’s happening, now.

    The answers given so far, that I am aware of has do with plate tectonic activity.

    • gbaikie says:

      Now, after reading what wrote, I will add another various of having to do with plate tectonic activity.
      I just thought of it after reading my post- or can’t say really look at it, much.
      Though I have long thought that impactors alter plate tectonic activity [why wouldn’t they??]
      So dino impactor increased movement of plate tectonic activity and this increased motion, generated heat and the motion has been slowing down over last 60 million years.

      • gbaikie says:

        Arr, “I will add another various of having to do with plate tectonic activity.”
        Meant:
        I will add another variation of having to do with plate tectonic activity.

        Now, how can this be disproven. If total motion of plate tectonic activity has increased, rather than decreased.
        Though it seems it would be hard to measure, as not a lot difference and I can expect variation within a 1 million year period.

        One might start [or already been started] a list of all factors which
        do cause increase or decrease to plate tectonic motion.

        And if knew anything about it, I would start with increased motion due to impactors- what size, and whether hit ocean or land.
        Also angle of impactor could be factor [I was not thinking about that, but now, it seems obvious]. Anyhow small impactor on continental land mass, shouldn’t much effect. Though smaller one hitting deeper ocean in it thin crust, could larger effect than one might imagine.

        • Swenson says:

          gb,

          The “dim young sun” paradox seems to be due to the fact that Carl Sagan was unaware that the Earth had a molten surface when it was created, and his bizarre conviction that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!

          No need for “dim young suns”. The Earth cooled – more quickly at first due to the fourth power law and all that.

          No miraculous planet-wide heating and cooling cycles, although it would be nice if you could blow some CO2 onto your cooling coffee, and make it hotter. Ho ho!

          Nobody knows why the crust does what it does. Every hypothesis of which I am aware fails to agree with observation to a greater or lesser degree. Chaos seems to rule, as it does down to the quantum level. Maybe the universe is truly chaotic and unpredictable.

        • gbaikie says:

          — Swenson says:
          January 21, 2023 at 7:11 PM

          gb,

          The dim young sun paradox seems to be due to the fact that Carl Sagan was unaware that the Earth had a molten surface when it was created, and his bizarre conviction that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!–

          Well, that Mars size hit a proto-Earth, is just a theory.

  57. gbaikie says:

    Claim: Heres How Your Cup of Coffee Contributes to ClimateChange

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/21/claim-heres-how-your-cup-of-coffee-contributes-to-climate-change/

    “Global coffee consumption has been increasing steadily for almost 30 years. With a daily average consumption of 2.7 cups of coffee per person, coffee is now Canadas most popular drink. It is estimated that around two billion cups of coffee are consumed daily worldwide.”

    Is there anything better than coffee?
    Apparently it warms this cold planet.
    {I was only on my first cup, but I got more now}

  58. Gordon Robertson says:

    maguff quoting Roy…”Thus, to really get a good signal of global warming in both observations and models we should be examining temperature trends since approximately the 1980s”.

    ***

    Roy is referencing global warming, not what caused it. In all the time I have been commenting here I have never heard Roy endorse the anthropogenic theory. He has claimed only that it is likely that some of the warming has anthropogenic sources.

    That’s a stark contrast to the attitude at realclimate, run by Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS and his buddy Michael Mann. The site is propaganda-central for climate alarmist lies and no one is allowed to comment to the contrary.

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    SSW in the upper stratosphere has weakened the polar vortex, so the weather will be quite unpredictable in the northern hemisphere. In about a week, there will be strong turbulence within the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. The polar vortex will bring Arctic air into the US.
    https://i.ibb.co/W0yrf2k/gfs-z70-nh-f240.png

  60. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Too funny.
    SkyDragons
    Yeah, youre definitely off with the pixies”.

    ***

    Even Barry fails to grasp that ‘Skydragon’ is a reference to climate alarmists, not skeptics. It comes from Slaying the Skydragon, a reference to killing the propaganda that CO2 causes warming.

    No surprise. On at least 3 occasions I have had to correct Barry by leading him to the proof of his errors, and even at that, he insisted on moving the goalposts, in a pathetic effort to recover.

    I have linked Barry and his buddy Bindidon several times to a NOAA article in which they admit slashing global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500, yet both still adamantly insist that NOAA has 100,000s of thousands of such stations.

    I have no idea what makes an alarmist an alarmist but I cringe at the thought of having my mind saddled with such an infirmity.

    • barry says:

      Yes, and I linked to the NOAA article, too, and quoted it to prove you wrong on NOAA ‘slashing’ stations.

      That article was written in 2010. Yes, NOAA has a database of 100,000+ weather stations – it’s called GHCN Daily. Bindidon constantly uses it to make his charts. This is raw data, unadjusted. ‘Skeptics’ should be happy about it.

      There are currently about 26,000 stations in the GHCN Monthly database, which is used for the NOAA global temp records.

      Why are there 26,000 instead of 6,000? Because 12 years have elapsed, we’re up to version 4 instead of version 2 of the data, and NOAA has kept adding stations to its list.

      https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly

    • barry says:

      “Even Barry fails to grasp that ‘Skydragon’ is a reference to climate alarmists, not skeptics.”

      CO2 is the ‘skydragon,’ and the ‘slayers’ are the wankers at Principia Scientifica.

      Yes, they came up with the infantile rhetoric, and infants regurgitate it elsewhere.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Is that an attempt to divert attention from the fact that no SkyDragon cultist can even describe the GHE which they claim is responsible for the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earth?

        No GHE – CO2 does not make thermometers hotter. You are imagining things.

        Carry on.

  61. Swenson says:

    Earlier, someone wrote –

    “You are a brain dead Flat Earther. Again you are not logical or rational. Fluxes add you are wrong. You can have other heat transfer mechanisms so the fluxes may not equate to a temperature since a given temperature is the sum off all heat transfer going on. This does not logically does not infer fluxes do not add.”

    The important slippery SkyDragon get-out here is “so the fluxes may not equate to a temperature since a given temperature . . .”. Exactly – fluxes, no matter how expressed, generally have no relationship to real temperature, as the deluded SkyDragon has reluctantly admitted.

    Hence, the mad attempts by “climate scientists” to try to convince others that their bizarre “energy budgets”, madly adding and subtracting “fluxes”, have some attachment to reality. They manage to convince those of diminished mental capacity – journalists, politicians, and SkyDragon cultists, in the main – that their fantasies are superior to fact.

    All good fun. This too will pass.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…”Earlier, someone wrote Fluxes add you are wrong”.

      ***

      Let’s look at fluxes from communications signals that are EM. If they added, communications would not be possible since the signals would be garbled by the time they reached a receiver. The air is full of EM communications energies of a broad range of frequencies and none of the signals add.

      The mistake being made here…again…is confusing EM with the final product, once it has been absorbed by a surface or an antenna. The instant an EM comm signal meets an antenna, it is converted into electrical energy. The same with any surface absorbing EM, with the exception that such EM is converted to heat.

      In the latter case, it’s the heat quantities that add, not the EM fluxes themselves.

  62. Gordon Robertson says:

    Some thoughts from Ed Berry…

    From Ed Berry, Climate Miracle: There is no climate crisis Nature controls climate

    IPCCs so-called science is based upon IPCCs environmental-cult view that nature is good, and human is bad. That is not physics.

    The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.

    1. Data show the CO2 level rose to 410 ppm by 2020, an increase of 130 ppm.
    2. The IPCC assumes its core theory is true, which forces the conclusion that human CO2 caused all the increase above 280 ppm.
    3. IPCC agrees that human CO2 emissions are less than 5 percent of natural CO2 emissions.
    4. How can less that 5 percent of all CO2 emissions cause 32 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Answer: It cant.

    8.2 Multiple lines of evidence prove IPCCs core theory is wrong.

    1. Ice core data prove natural CO2 caused the CO2 increase.
    2. Direct CO2 data prove CO2 was much higher than 280 ppm before 1750.
    3. Leaf stomata data prove CO2 was much higher than 280 ppm before 1750.
    4. Statistics prove human CO2 is not the primary cause of the increase in CO2.
    5. IPCCs human carbon cycle is not consistent with its own natural carbon cycle. This is a basic physics error.
    6. Inspection shows IPCCs human carbon cycle is based on IPCCs invalid assumption that its core theory is true.

    8.3 A simple physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCCs data for its natural carbon cycle.

    1. This model easily calculates the true human carbon cycle that is compatible with IPCCs natural carbon cycle.
    2. The true human carbon cycle shows human CO2 has

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Berry has falsified IPCC’s Carbon Cycle Model. So, if the increase in CO2 is causing all the warming, it is primarily due to nature.

      • Swenson says:

        spa,

        And the Earth managed to cool – in spite of CO2, H2O, and all the rest of the mythical “greenhouse gases”.

        I suppose some deranged SkyDragon cultist will try to say that GHG levels have always been lower than now (to explain the lack of “warming”, but then are faced with explaining where all the carbon in fossil fuels came from, if not from atmospheres containing vastly more CO2 (and H2O) than now.

        Oh dear. The SkyDragons seem to be in the same boat as astronomers of old, who had to propose ever more complicated systems of epicycles within epicycles to explain ever more precise observations of celestial bodies. SkyDragons can’t even describe their GHE, so they resort to measuring temperatures in W/m2, claim that the oceans are full of “hidden heat”, and that heat can be “accumulated” or “multiplied”.

        Ah well, at least journalists and politicians suck it all in. John Kerry proclaimed himself a “scientist” – he took a political “science” unit once. Only joking, he majored in Political Science – that would make him a major “scientist”, I guess.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Swen,
          GB seems to be the forum expert on Earth’s aging process. He sure believes the planet has cooled and that we’ve been in an Ice Age for some time. I sure hope we don’t keep cooling. We can feed people during warm. Cooling is a problem.

      • Entropic man says:

        We’ve been over this. Berry’s work is not coherent, consistent or consilient. It does not match observed reality, has no mechanism and is entropically suspect.

        It only gets as much attention as it does because it feeds the anti-AGW world view you are so reluctant to give up, despite the weight of evidence.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Just because you state that doesn’t make your statement true. It would help if you falsified Berry’s hypothesis. His hypothesis is outflow is proportional to level or concentration.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Also, and you going over this was comical, by the way.

          • Entropic man says:

            We’ve been over this.

            Barry’s hypothesis requires a massive deep ocean inorganic carbon sink for which we don’t have a shred of evidence.

            It requires CO2 to diffuse out of this sink into the atmosphere against the concentration gradient at no energy cost, which is physically and thermodynamically impossible.

            I mentioned below that the proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2 is decreasing as CO2 concentration increases. The deep ocean CO2 sink would have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere, so the proportion of 13C should stay the same as CO2 transfers from the deep ocean sink to the atmosphere.

            Marco also mentioned that oxygen concentration is decreasing as fast as CO2 concentration is increasing, which Berry’s hypothesis doesn’t consider at all.

            Now consider the CO2 AGW hypothesis.

            The carbon sinks are coal,oil and gas deposits which we are extracting and burning. The amount of CO2 matches the increase in atmospheric CO2 minus the amount absorbed by other sinks.

            No net energy is required. Indeed extraction and burning has a net energy release. No physical or thermodynamic problems.

            The Carbon in coal, oil and gas comes from past photosynthesis. Such organic carbon is low in 13C because photosynthesis absorbs 14C but not 13C. When released by burning, the 14C from fossil fuels dilutes the 13C at a rate expected from the rate of human CO2 release.

            When you burn fossil fuels one oxygen molecule is absorbed for each CO2 molecule released. Because half of the CO2 we release goes into sinks, we observe that the 2ppm/year of CO2 we are to the atmosphere is matched by a 4ppm/year decrease in oxygen content.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ent…”Weve been over this. Berrys work is not coherent, consistent or consilient. It does not match observed reality, has no mechanism and is entropically suspect”.

          ***

          A purely ad hominem attack. No scientific fact or attempt to address the claims made by Berry, just an indirect assault on his work.

          • Willard says:

            C’mon, Bordon.

            Here’s what EM said:

            Berry’s work is not coherent, consistent or consilient.

            That’s not ad hom.

            I already told you to leave fallacy fluff alone.

            It’ll rot your brain furthermore.

  63. barry says:

    Found an online trend calculator for global temps, sea surface temps, sun spots, CO2 and ENSO.

    https://jrmilks.shinyapps.io/global_temperature_trend/

    The ENSO feature is good to have. Starts in 1950. Sun spots is handy, too, though you could already do that at woodfortrees.

  64. Bill Hunter says:

    Bindidon says:

    ”You simply ignore all that, but are brazen enough to discredit those who are really knowledgeable.”

    You don’t know how to do it Bin. When you say its 2.5×2.5degree gridding pattern then come back and explain that not what it is. It really does have the appearance you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Then you get upset when somebody points it out to you. I learned a long time ago when somebody gets upset its because he himself lacks confidence. If you have confidence like a Tom Brady all you can do is get upset at yourself for doing a lousy job and resolve to work harder the next time.

    Bindidon lies:
    ”Instead of trying to obtain information from really experienced people, you prefer to argue according to your own guessings, like do Robertson and a few other specialists.”

    My guess is I have referred to at least a dozen qualified studies here in the past 3 or 4 days and you come in with a ridiculous claim because you handwaved them all away. You are a real joke.

    Bindidon says:
    ”Why dont you think by your own that the problem you correctly assume the relevance of temperatures decreasing with increasing latitudes when building a global average over a sphere has nothing to do with gridding aka area weighting?”

    I already said what I think about that. I think that when dealing with temperature anomalies of tenths of degree it is likely any kind of gridding or processing is going to introduce more bias and more error than working with the raw data. When processing data you need specific objectives to expose specific attributes in the data. Averaging it all together is the way a bad cook makes dinner.

    As you should know in one place the temperature can be 80F while five miles away it can be 105F.

    Yet you feel that say in one grid you average 6 dozen stations together to get the average for that grid. Then in another location you have 1 station for 6 dozen grids. (and don’t BS me its more complicated than that. I am talking about the dominate process) But all you are really doing is weighting the least reliable data far above that of the most reliable and relevant data (on the obvious fact that where thermometers are dense so are people)

    So all you are doing is making the data less reliable and less relevant. You aren’t improving the data. Period! You don’t even have a reasonable objective for why you are doing it.

    I have been working with information systems for 40 years.

    With climate change one cannot reasonably say if the temperature in a moist area is going to rise more than a dry area. Why? Because we don’t understand clouds and clouds tend to be more dense in the moist areas but moist areas have the most greenhouse gases and the largest greenhouse effect from clouds which probably makes up the bulk of the greenhouse effect in terms of watts but counterbalances a lot of it because of shading the sun.

    Until you actually learn something about climate change you aren’t going to be able to describe its effects or improve datasets to be informative. I have no idea how many people are out their messing up datasets for no other reason than to produce propaganda and exaggerate warming. Maybe you have a reason. I sort of doubt it.

    When you learn what the effects are in each environment then you can tailor a data processing system that is going to spit out relevant information. Not before. In the mean time the concentration needs to be on good data collection and a good understanding of the variables that affect the data. . . .like UHI, clouds, the greenhouse effect, etc. Pretty much everything Roy is dedicating his career to.

    Because ultimately you are going to need that data to pinpoint the issues. Instead we are regaled with blind data processing, data adjusting, moving standards, no consistency in data collection, abandonment of some of the longest running databases in a flurry of adding new territory in blind pursuit of what? An average mean global anomaly? What is that good for? How accurate is it? What are the variables? You don’t know the answer to any of those questions.

  65. gbaikie says:

    Burckle Crater
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

    Or something like, could have effected plate tectonics. Maybe that recent impactor changed things, maybe we will get some global warming, despite all known evidence that it’s not going to happen.

  66. Willard says:

    Some words from Marco:

    1. Since Richard Courtney [like Ed and Trogolodyte and Bordon] believes he is so smart, I’ll ask him the same question that I asked all those others who believe the increase is a result of ocean outgassing: where’s the sink, Richard? If the ocean is the prime net source, you would need to find a sink that has taken up around 1500 Gigatons of CO2 EXTRA, the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

    2. And another very relevant question you should then answer: why is the atmospheric oxygen concentration dropping faster than the CO2 increase? You will need to find a mechanism that not only explains the increased outgassing of CO2 *and thus also O2* from the oceans (after all, you claim this is due to warming – Henry’s Law applies as much to O2 as it does to CO2), and how this extra O2 is then taken up even more than the CO2 by some sink, somewhere, unidentified.

    3. In terms of “consilience of evidence”, I see a “divergence of evidence” underlying your hypothesis. Maybe not surprising you don’t see it, considering your own question on the annual variability in the carbon cycle. It’s not like there aren’t any papers who discuss this. And those papers aren’t exactly new either. Maybe you should read up on some papers by Charles Keeling and Roger Revelle, Richard. And then contemplate on the fact that a complete and total non-expert in climate science is lecturing you on your lack of knowledge on the relevant literature and the obvious problems you cannot solve with your hypothesis (but are solved with anthropogenic CO2 as the main driver of atmospheric CO2 increase).

    • Entropic man says:

      Nor does Barry’s work explain why the proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2 is decreasing. If the extra CO2 came from a natural source the proportion of 13C should stay constant.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        The Revelle Factor isn’t a factor. It is not a part of his calculations that are based upon the conservation of mass. In his third paper about the carbon cycle model, he uses IPCC numbers to calculate the exchanges between atmosphere and land, atmosphere and surface ocean, and surface ocean and deep ocean. All the natural emission numbers agree with Berry’s calculations. Also, he provides evidence in his most recent paper that C14 returned to its balance level after the bomb tests, and the C12 percentage increased as it should. He doesn’t mention your new C13 red herring, but I’m sure he’d address it if necessary.

        • Entropic man says:

          I put this upthread. I’ll repeat it here.

          ” Berrys hypothesis requires a massive deep ocean inorganic carbon sink for which we dont have a shred of evidence.

          It requires CO2 to diffuse out of this sink into the atmosphere against the concentration gradient at no energy cost, which is physically and thermodynamically impossible.

          I mentioned below that the proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2 is decreasing as CO2 concentration increases. The deep ocean CO2 sink would have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere, so the proportion of 13C should stay the same as CO2 transfers from the deep ocean sink to the atmosphere.

          Marco also mentioned that oxygen concentration is decreasing as fast as CO2 concentration is increasing, which Berrys hypothesis doesnt consider at all.

          Now consider the CO2 AGW hypothesis.

          The carbon sinks are coal,oil and gas deposits which we are extracting and burning. The amount of CO2 matches the increase in atmospheric CO2 minus the amount absorbed by other sinks.

          No net energy is required. Indeed extraction and burning has a net energy release. No physical or thermodynamic problems.

          The Carbon in coal, oil and gas comes from past photosynthesis. Such organic carbon is low in 13C because photosynthesis absorbs 14C but not 13C. When released by burning, the 12C from fossil fuels dilutes the 13C at the rate expected from the rate of human CO2 release.

          When you burn fossil fuels one oxygen molecule is absorbed for each CO2 molecule released. Because half of the CO2 we release goes into sinks, we observe that the 2ppm/year of CO2 we are to the atmosphere is matched by a 4ppm/year decrease in oxygen content. “

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            You’re such a dingbat. I thought you were a biologist, or are you drunk? You can’t even get the propaganda straight.

          • Entropic man says:

            All four of my points are well covered in the literature, from the size of the deep ocean carbon sink, through the carbon budget and the the oxygen decline to the dilution of 13C. They falsify Berry’s hypothesis.

            As Berry’ amenuensis here and a supporter of his minority views, I would expect you to answer my points.

            I notice that you insult me rather than debate the evidence.

            This does your credibity, and Berry’s, no good at all.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “This does your credibity, and Berrys, no good at all.”

            As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            What do experiments show? There aren’t any?

            That would mean people are just speculating – just like SkyDragons fantasize about the GHE.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Willard says:

      ”Ill ask him the same question that I asked all those others who believe the increase is a result of ocean outgassing: wheres the sink, Richard? If the ocean is the prime net source, you would need to find a sink that has taken up around 1500 Gigatons of CO2 EXTRA, the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.”

      Actually thats not the question that needs answering. You are just selectively listening to the propaganda of your daddy.

      As I recall a decade and a half ago your daddy was saying the sinks were filled to capacity and thats why needed to stop all emissions.

      Yet here a decade and a half later the total increase in CO2 from all sources natural outgassing and anthropogenic is only half of what was emitted in the last 27 years.

      So the formula is:
      A) Increase in CO2 in the atmosphere
      B) Minus what outgassing would have occurred from a warming ocean.
      C) Equals mankind’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Of course propagandists circle around that by attributing all ocean warming to the emission of CO2. And that is despite the fact we know for certain some of the warming of the deep ocean dates back to the Medieval Warming Period, much less the LIA recovery.

      And no doubt even that fact feeds the fears of the afraid. Despite the fact that mankinds contribution to CO2 in the combined ocean and atmosphere is so miniscule as to hardly be a drop in a very large bucket. When the ocean does its work we will have added about 3ppm from all our emissions to date and we have no handle on how much that would remain in the oceans and atmosphere.

      And of course we have practically no handle whatsoever on how much the ocean is warming. We have some clues that the surface ocean is warming. . . .or was.

      Yes indeed the surface ocean has warmed some over the decades. Its probably somewhere around half of what the surface of the land has warmed over the industrial age. Like maybe .25 to .5 degrees?

      But we have no idea how much the deep ocean has warmed which makes up 90% of the ocean. We don’t even know for sure if it has warmed or if it has cooled. If it has cooled it would be somewhat responsible for atmospheric warming as that is where 90% of ocean cooling has to go first.

      The Revelle Factor has everything to do with the rate of ocean uptake. Mostly between the layers of the ocean. Something we still know little about and will know little about it for another couple of decades as we are just now building a sampling program to find the correct answers. And if history repeats itself we will quickly find ourselves polluting those new records with older discredited technologies to keep myths alive. After all one cannot change the narrative as long as those with large grants based on the older technologies, like firemen on Diesel engine trains all die of old age.

      And with the IPCC not being reasonably confident that almost half the warming of the surface is due to anthropogenic emissions. And being minimally confident that half is.

      Those confidence levels are based upon the minimum statistical audit standard of 95 to 98% confidence levels of being materially right. (and yet audit failures still occur).

      And of course then we have people that look at the Revelle Factor and see it as being the smoking gun. . .when Revelle himself didn’t find it convincing but instead worthy of robust scientific pursuit for truth.

      Judith Curry gets lambasted for being a darned good auditor in terms of estimating risk; because they claim it plants seeds of scientific denial. Sounds way too much like the demands to ignore what differences men and women have between them. Sounds like hoards of so-called academic experts smoking way too much weird stuff.

  67. Swenson says:

    Willard,

    Who cares about additional CO2 being put back into the atmosphere by mankind?

    Nature removed it, we’re putting it back.

    CO2 has precisely no heating capability, in spite of the delusions of people like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, John Kerry, and all the rest.

    You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? That’s no doubt why you try your silly diversions, and your inept attempts to troll.

    Your silly reference to “climate science” shows the depth of your SkyDragon cult beliefs. Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations – 12 year old capabilities only required. Too hard for you, obviously.

    Carry on dreaming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…we have it from Entropic, a climate alarmist, that the GHE is a metaphor. 35 years of IPCC bs and Ent nails it. Why can the IPCC not admit the same and why are politicians and alarmists so stupid they cannot see that for themselves?

      Example of a metaphor…’Life is a highway’.

  68. Willard says:

    Mike Flynn,

    Who cares what you are braying about?

    In fact, what are you braying about?

    Carry on braying.

  69. Bill Hunter says:

    If you know of a good paper. I would read it.

    so far the two I read really don’t even understand the issue. They pick a proxy out of the sky and go with it. You see a lot of papers like that. Somebody is a favored institution they want a grant to do a paper and they get it. IMO, its primarily because of allowing non-independent outsiders into the decision processes. I have seen a lot of that first hand too. Next thing you know you have some polar bears are going extinct paper that is just nonsense. I have had a few of those come into some of my projects . Fortunately I don’t have to waste my time dealing with them usually as all the touchy feely megafauna stuff isn’t my bailiwick but it does distract resources from more important stuff and slows progress and makes it all around more difficult when the political backlash hits and its like a science stinks backlash.

    I can closely identify with that as a professional in a trade that goes as far as it can to inspire public confidence vengefully rooting out the nutcases and the unethical.

    So what ever paper you suggest should be at a minimum a 2020 paper or later. For all I know Roy might publish the first one. Maybe there are some out already. I don’t have a free account to see stuff not being offered up in my area of work.

    The American Meteorology Society Journal I sent you appears to be a game changer in terms of analyzing urban encroachment and building a solid CRN.

    If CRN is going to be your gauge I am good with that. Just that the database is still very short. But I have a lot of confidence that the Civil Service at NOAA is absolutely dedicated to making it the best database possible. That paper I sent you is going to help them do that. Their original site selection was designed to avoid allowing an urban encroachment trend to creep in. Yet they discovered it had from some of the ground truthing experiments they set up in it. The paper describes a farming operation with greenhouses nearby.

    If you understood where I was coming from you would better understand my position. I have been working around data very similar to this for a very long time. I have nearly 25 years experience as either a fulltime or part-time consultant to federal agencies on projects that extend out to 3 decades or more in the evaluation processes of available information. I am involved in regulatory processes to collect the data, symposiums to discuss what data is needed, etc.

    CRN should be a great gauge for the other temperature services. There is no way to evaluate a very large percentage of foreign data. Clean up our own act and it will be a fine tool to help build a network of systems under a single roof. Nowhere in the world is there an opportunity like here to do that.

    • Willard says:

      > I have nearly 25 years experience as either a fulltime or part-time consultant to federal agencies on projects that extend out to 3 decades or more in the evaluation processes of available information. I am involved in regulatory processes to collect the data, symposiums to discuss what data is needed, etc.

      Gill, Gill.

      You are Bordons sidekick.

      Besides, you realize that without any auditing accomplice Enron could never have happened, right?

      The firm was Andersen. They destroyed more than one ton of documents. Where we ou back then?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Enron? No need to go back that far.

        This was just filed:

        SAExploration Sues Auditor for Malpractice, Negligence, Seeks $45M January 17, 2023.

        Houston oilfield services corporation SAExploration is suing its long-time former auditor for allegedly failing to detect a $100 million fraud scheme operated by the company’s former top executives for several years. SAE accuses Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas of negligence, malpractice and “dereliction of duty” that resulted in SAE being forced into bankruptcy, subjected to multiple federal investigations, being delisted by Nasdaq and targeted for class action lawsuits.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        And you are a leftist propagandist whose sole function is to cause chaos, nothing more.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard if ENRON had an auditing accomplice it was never established. You have to understand how audit firms are constructed to understand that if they had an auditing accomplice it would be one guy that managed to the pull the hood over his partners.

        A firm like Anderson didn’t make enough money from ENRONs audit assignment to take such a risk. ENRON was failing and the audit firm failed to detect it early enough to save the Board of Directors and ENRONs investors from going bankrupt. That is known as an audit failure.

        The failure was caused by failing to detect that ENRON was keeping two sets of books and transferring investment failures into a hidden account. And yes a person committing such fraud will use all sorts of tactics to hold off the auditor.

        I don’t know the finer details of how Anderson got convicted for destroying documents. All I know is destruction of documents is a normal policy. Its a bit like what is going on with Biden and Trump classified documents. While auditing the auditing team will get reams of computer read outs, ledgers, journals, of transactions to do their work on. Individual auditors can also generate a lot of ‘notes’ to remind themselves. All this is supposed to be destroyed after an audit but like Trump and Biden some of it sits around auditor desks in filing boxes and some auditors I know store a lot of that stuff in their own garages at home.

        It is all confidential data in accordance with an audit firms responsibility to not publicly release any information they learn about the firm that is not in the auditors report. Thus that policy is in place. The audit itself has a report that is publicly released and it has the audit files, which are copies of all documents used to arrive at the conclusions of the audit. Those documents are not destroyed. I can’t remember how long they are supposed to be retained but its a long time.

        So its possible that when the auditors finally did detect problems they ordered the individual auditors to destroy any records not in the audit firm filing system and likely after a court order to not destroy any documents. They would not have ordered the destruction of the documents that supported the audit as that is their only defense, the body of their work, that could show they might have done the audit in accordance with audit standards.
        The destruction of documents in the possession of individual auditors neither support the process of internal review of audit findings as they are never part of that review so individual auditors are supposed to destroy any extraneous documents in their possession once the audit is over. but a lot of individual auditors dream of creating a business themselves and retain documents that they view informative on how to run a business, thus the practice of storing documents in their garage. Its there for potential personal use in a business scheme.

        Wiki says they lost their license to practice because of the document destruction. I can’t say if they otherwise might have been able to prove an adequate audit beyond the fact that it failed. At best thats a difficult job to do in face of the ENRON losses. But failures occur and auditors by the body of work and documentation in the ‘audit files’ they can demonstrate the audit procedures met auditing standards. It is sometimes the case an auditee through forgeries and other means can avoid detection. But it gets more difficult to do so as the fraud gets bigger.

        I can sympathize with Andersen in that ENRONs form of business was surrounded by a lot of government meddling and was a unique business that arose out of that meddling. The firm I did work for had several firms fail and our firm was the one who detected the impending failure. All the failures were the result of government programs where regulations were being promulgated so fast that the firms could not keep up. Those regulations were requiring the firms meet more and more financial standards required by the government. We worked our tails off to be sure we were auditing in accordance with those government standards and found our clients were not in compliance and were not meeting the ever changing benchmarks that the government was requiring.

        So each firm became faced with the prospects of seeking investment from the owners to keep the firms solvent. But it was clear that the government was intent on putting the firms out of business so investors declined to throw good money after bad money. These firms were our savings and loan customers. Today there is no savings and loan type financial institution so the investors made the right decision. Its actually a shame. The great Christmas movie ”Its a Wonderful Life” was a story of a small savings and loan that failed because of predatory practices by a big bank. So today the Big Banks have won and it is the government that is owning all the loans for them and guaranteeing the big banks. Of course that resulted in 2008 for practically the exact reasons why the earlier failures of the small institutions occurred. . . .government meddling. Stuff like lending standards. Lets make it so anybody can buy a house (affordable housing, low underwriting standards-legalization of phantom security sales to move the paper into investor markets). . .lets allow investors to shelter their income with paper losses (tax shelters for the rich – Whitewater-legalization of phantom security sales to move the paper into investor markets). . . .stuff like that.

        IMHO, most of all that if not all that was out of good intentions by people that just didn’t know what they were doing. You had smart people taking advantage of it and dumb people investing in it. And of course if the banks and S&Ls don’t go along with it they are out of the lending business as actually charging rates commensurate with risk was considered to be predatory lending practices.

        As to me I have said here before I left financial auditing 25 years ago. A few years before the ENRON scandal and developed my own consulting service and I never worked for Andersen but I got tired of financial auditing and wanted to use my skills for a better environment as I am an lifelong outdoorsman. . . .love working outdoors and now I can do it for fun and profit.

        • Willard says:

          Gill, Gill,

          You are an incompetent fraud:

          Many executives at Enron were indicted for a variety of charges and some were later sentenced to prison, including Lay and Skilling. Arthur Andersen was found guilty of illegally destroying documents relevant to the SEC investigation, which voided its license to audit public companies and effectively closed the firm. By the time the ruling was overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court, Arthur Andersen had lost the majority of its customers and had ceased operating. Enron employees and shareholders received limited returns in lawsuits, despite losing billions in pensions and stock prices.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal

          Bordon needs a better sidekick.

          Revise and resubmit your backstory.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            read it again Willard thats exactly what I said. Stupid is as stupid does dude.

            I didn’t even sugarcoat it because I didn’t see that the Supreme court overruled the pulling of Andersens license. I don’t know why the Supreme Court did that or what doctrine they relied upon to do it.

            What is important to note is the document destruction policies in place at audit firms isn’t for the purpose of avoiding liabilities. They are supposed to have avoided those liabilities via firm review of the audit files and determining that those audit files supported audit standards. They destroy papers to maintain confidentiality regarding client operations because a paper in somebody’s office/cubicle is part of the audit firms opinion.

            If that review by firm partners determines the retained audit files are lacking the audit isn’t closed and more work is done to bring the files up to snuff.

            Like I said I was out of the business when this happened and didn’t follow it closely like I would have if I was still doing that kind of work.

            Since my post I read an LA times article that says Andersen executives were getting concerned by the size of the audit and the fact revenues from it were rising to about 1.3% of Andersen’s revenues. Auditors take independence very seriously. What a huge audit might trigger for an audit firm is either to resign to maintain independence or a merger with another firm to increase the size of the audit firm to keep revenues from the audit immaterial.

            Myself knowing first hand how an audit firm operates the chances of a conspiracy are slim, not impossible. Independence is discussed all the time in audit firms out of abundance of caution. So discussion of the matter is routine also.

            Conspiracy is slim because a managing partner making say $400,000 a year isn’t likely to place a bet on a failing company to survive the rest of his career to make an extra 10 grand a year by auditing the firm. Generally audit firms only hire people a lot smarter than that.

            You though seem to have drawn some conclusions about that out of total ignorance of audit firm practices. But whats new?

            It was the Big 8 firms when I was auditing. Today its the Big 4. That is likely a result of these firms too big to fail needing audits. A trend I don’t like at all. I am a big advocate for small business.

          • Willard says:

            Gill, Gill,

            Gill.

            Not another Bordonian rant.

            Give me a break.

            Here’s you:

            if ENRON had an auditing accomplice it was never established.

            Here’s thy Wiki:

            Arthur Andersen was found guilty of illegally destroying documents relevant to the SEC investigation, which voided its license to audit public companies and effectively closed the firm.

            IF you are or were a real auditor, you’re just a fraud.

            Your best bet now is to accept that you’re Bordon’s sidekick.

            Leave rants to him.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            And the Supreme Court voided that voiding of Andersens license to practice?

            Why did they do that?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop trying to troll.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yep the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Andersen conviction. It would have been possible to retry the case without the improper jury instructions but that was never undertaken.

            The law itself is a bit blurry regarding at what point one should suspend document destruction under a firm’s document retention policies. Apparently there does not need to be a court order, or notice. It is supposed to be when the defendant believes an action is imminent whatever that means.

            Personally, I don’t believe there was any ”accountant” conspiracy. As I said above generally public accounting firms hire smarter people than that. If a key accountant was bribed and there is no evidence of that; it isn’t likely the bribed accountant would have had evidence of that laying around the accounting office.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bill h…”I have a lot of confidence that the Civil Service at NOAA is absolutely dedicated to making it the best database possible”.

      ***

      I am not questioning the NOAA database per se, I am questioning why they are ignoring it and going with climate models to interpolate and homogenize a small subset of the station data they have.

      NOAA also completely ignores the data from their own satellites. They were hiding it away till UAH approached them to get the data.

      • barry says:

        “NOAA also completely ignores the data from their own satellites. They were hiding it away till UAH approached them to get the data.”

        Until you provide some substantiation for this, I’m going to assume you made it up or got it from a blog that made it up.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Actually, if you look into the history of UAH, as related by Roy and John Christy, they make it clear that NOAA wasn’t using the data and they asked for it and got it.

        • barry says:

          Well I’m sure you are going to provide me a link any minute rather than tell me to go look for myself.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        ”I am not questioning the NOAA database per se, I am questioning why they are ignoring it and going with climate models to interpolate and homogenize a small subset of the station data they have.”

        There you go Gordon. The Civil Service doesn’t approve its own budget.

        Instead they seek advice on that from the academic community and it is the politicians that make the final decisions on budgets with the academic cover.

        When one works for or is consulting directly with the civil service one has a good view into how these processes work.

        I am nothing but a pro-science guy who gets it that if we follow good science it will work out the best for the general public. Its the good science part where it gets sticky. I am also conservative in nature and understand how politics can get out of hand no matter which party is in power. So the American experiment from the start has differentiated itself by broad restrictions on government power at the federal level. This provides some opportunity for the states to compete with the federal government having the job of trying to keep that competition fair.

        Government is a necessity over the commons but the standard needs to be like a 95% confidence level or better in science. So what is the estimate of IPCC confidence? Half of warming is manmade?
        Using UAH thats about .7 degrees per doubling of CO2. Are we going to get our panties in a twist over that. You betcha a lot of people have an interest in doing just that. Where is the line? Same for the science surrounding extinctions. Its really messy with huge extrapolations about what the natural rate of extinction is for bacteria from natural variation which appears to be at least a couple of degrees of fluctuation itself even it that isn’t occurring right now. Thats why the 2 degree standard was put in place and because it really doesn’t appear to be solid science we will reach that obviously a lot of people want to move it down as much as possible for whatever reason they have.

        Some are a bit more pragmatic about what constitutes ‘destroying the world’ or ‘negatively changing it’. Thats why I recommend reading Hard Green by Peter Huber so as to pay a bit more attention to a more intelligent point of view. I don’t agree with everything Huber writes but there is an important lesson in that book that everybody should give their own thought to. And a corollary to that about when one might be going over the line in thinking they have the answer for what is best for everyone else. . . .which is the definition of fascism and communism the point where a limited number of people make that decision on virtually everything. . . .right down to altering the definition of some of the most basic characteristics of the world. The point where anarchy meets authoritarianism in a very dark place.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          And oh back on topic again. Does anybody know of a major university that doesn’t run a surface weather station?

          Perhaps there will be a new trend in place where they run a CRN station that they have to take a field trip to. Some universities have enough land to have one on campus.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        As I said Gordon when you say NOAA this or that, its important to know which NOAA you are talking about.

        There is NOAA the Civil Service and there is the NOAA Academia. Two completely different organizations with completely different loyalties. It would be nice to label them as such with NOAA-Civil having the career scientists of civil service in charge of science. And NOAA – Academic.

        I am not claiming one is necessarily better than the other. It only becomes very clear when an issue gets politicized as to where loyalties lie.

    • barry says:

      “If you know of a good paper. I would read it.”

      This paper, the methods paper that describes how USHCN v2 was compiled, refers to work done to address UHI from 1988 and also in the paper itself.

      They adjustment algorithms are tested on fabricated data that has deliberately been infected with the sorts of biases the method is designed to weed out. This is one of many tests done to see if the method works. The urban heat influence is corrected by pairwise analysis, which you can read about here.

      “An automated homogenization algorithm based on the pairwise comparison of monthly temperature series is described. The algorithm works by forming pairwise difference series between serial monthly temperature values from a network of observing stations. Each difference series is then evaluated for undocumented shifts, and the station series responsible for such breaks is identified automatically. The algorithm also makes use of station history information, when available, to improve the identification of artificial shifts in temperature data. In addition, an evaluation is carried out to distinguish trend inhomogeneities from abrupt shifts. When the magnitude of an apparent shift attributed to a particular station can be reliably estimated, an adjustment is made for the target series. The pairwise algorithm is shown to be robust and efficient at detecting undocumented step changes under a variety of simulated scenarios with step- and trend-type inhomogeneities. Moreover, the approach is shown to yield a lower false-alarm rate for undocumented changepoint detection relative to the more common use of a reference series. Results from the algorithm are used to assess evidence for trend inhomogeneities in U.S. monthly temperature data.”

      Another way they test the algorithms is to invert the sign of every datapoint and see if they get a mirrored result. If so, this means that there is no warm or cold bias inherent in the method.

      It really is worth investigating the methods that the compilers use, rather than ignoring and dismissing them with a wave of the hand.

      “They pick a proxy out of the sky and go with it.”

      Yeah, waving your hand like that.

      Here is a 2013 paper that estimates and tests for correction of UHI using several independent methods.

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

      The issue has been known about for decades. The temperature record compilers have been researching it for decades. I don’t see any evidence that Fall et al inspired the compilers to modify their approach, and nor should it, as Watt’s peer-reviewed work offered nothing new, just a bit more detail.

      Has Watts given up on surfacestations? That was the one great thing he has done for research on this subject.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        From your first link –

        “Adjustments for undocumented changes are especially important in removing bias in minimum temperature records.”

        Why the need to remove supposed bias which has not been documented?

        Do you bother reading your references?

        Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. If the observations are incorrect, derived statistics will likewise be incorrect. Observing thermometer temperatures is meaningless in almost all cases.

        Reading a thermometer tells you what the thermometer temperature is – not what it “woulda, shoulda, coulda” been. If a thermometer is showing a higher temperature that what you think it “should be”, either the thermometer has failed in its job, or your “thinking” is fantasy.

        Facts are facts, Get used to it.

      • barry says:

        “Do you bother reading your references?”

        Yes, the whole thing. You should try it, so you actually know what you’re taking about.

        But that’s not what you’re interested in, is it?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        The paper you cite using several independent methods says:

        ”Urban sites were defined as those characterized by a 19302000 population growth of ≥10 people/km2, which yields similar-sized numbers of urban and nonurban stations, as shown in Table 1. While there is no available justification in the literature for this or any specific 19302000 population growth cutoff as a proxy for urbanization, this value was chosen to be reasonably conservative and to produce an urban/rural division generally in line with the other urbanity proxies.”

        I would assume that Roy is going to test this assumption and has 20 more years of data to use.

        The excuse for such an assumption has gone by the wayside (too much work to do it right). Today with the amount of data in GIS mapping (while they have been doing it for 5 decades it has only been a bit more than 2 decades that this software has been widely available for desktop computers) and USGS itself greatly accelerated the use of the software by providing an online platform. Back in 2000 we hardly had an internet and very few available online databases.

        Thats why I said I would love to see a post 2020 study. The 2019 paper I provided to you shows unexpected UHI effects from an encroachment not expected to yield UHI. I don’t think Roy is going after that but I don’t know for sure. What is for sure is that in the past 2 decades there are orders of magnitude more information in databases to work with.

      • barry says:

        “The 2019 paper I provided to you shows unexpected UHI effects from an encroachment not expected to yield UHI.”

        Again, you falsely report.

        “During one of these annual visits, site technicians noted encroachment at the Kingston, Rhode Island, Plains Road Site station. From discussions with the site host, there were plans to expand a parking lot, reroute a road, and move a heated greenhouse all within 100 m of the station. Rather than remove this station prior to construction, it was decided to leave the station in place and record the nature of the air temperature changes caused by the encroachment. This decision was feasible because of the existence of a second Kingston USCRN station (Peckham Farm Site) only 1.4 km to the south that assured continuity of the climate record at this location, and provided an unbiased observation set for comparisons.”

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/6/jamc-d-19-0002.1.xml

        What is wrong with your mind? They didn’t negligently place the station, they noted the burgeoning encroachment and decided to use it as a case study on UHI!

        This is a pattern with skeptics. Invent a story about climate researchers that is the opposite of what actually happened.

        Gordon does exactly this with his “they deleted thousands of stations,” BS. In fact, the reason that there are fewer stations in the most recent past is the retrospective addition of historical data that doesn’t update automatically to NOAA.

        Seriously, ‘skeptics’ get it back-asswards all the time, and you have just demonstrated this brilliantly, Bill.

      • barry says:

        That study, by the way, is written by NOAA employees who work on the US temperature record. Just as NOAA has been doing for years.

        It’s great that you’re aware of a lot of research on UHI.

        But the narrative you have on it is misguided. The effect on the temperature records has been assessed and addressed in multiple ways for many years. The paper I linked you shows only several of these.

        There is a paper list on it that goes up to 2013.

        https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/papers-on-urban-heat-island/

        If you’re excited about UHI, you should acquaint yourself with these.

        I know you’re looking for the post-2020 bombshell, but you might as well inform yourself of the state of the science. Roy is not helping you with that, and nor is Anthony.

        If you want to help, you could go to that web page and offer suggestions to the compiler to update that list, as I’ve done on other topics there. I might even do it for UHI and get the list up to date, when I have time. But I’m traveling tonight.

      • barry says:

        Here’s a post 2020 study:

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/20/jcliD200118.xml

        They find UHI affects minimum temperatures more than maxima, corroborating most other studies.

        The largest difference of min/max av. temp trends between rural stations and all stations is 0.032 C/decade.

        All stations: 0.388 C/decade
        Rural stations: 0.356 C/decade

        How does Berkeley Earth assess the same trend for the same region?

        0.0335 C/decade

        So Berkeley’s assessment is even lower than the rural result.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          The BE study I saw used the linear assumption also using lights seen from a satellite to divide rural and urban. Same problem as Hausfather the study you previously provided.

          the Chinese study you provided isn’t any better. They used a percentage of developed areas over a 10km2 around the station and adopted the linear assumption.

          then you claim: ”What is wrong with your mind? They didnt negligently place the station, they noted the burgeoning encroachment and decided to use it as a case study on UHI!”

          You are losing your mind. I never said they negligently placed the station there. I read how this came about.

          I am not the least big concerned about CRN and have said so more than once in this post’s comment section. Further Roy think he is very close to CRN. Since I know Roy has and uses ENSO smoothing algorithms for comparisons and looking at your data comparison of UAH to CRN I can just eyeball the ENSO relationships and see he is going to a lot closer than your trend lines indicate. So I have no concern there either.

          One point I was trying to make is the CRN standard of trying to keep development 100 meters away. I followed Anthony’s work and he wasn’t calling out 100 meters. I don’t remember the number but I think it was about 10 meters. So that’s leaving a lot to be desired in the ‘good’ station network. And my gawd, what do they do in foreign countries? Its got to be a mess.

          Next time I am in Tijuana I will have to visit their weather site.

        • barry says:

          “You are losing your mind. I never said they negligently placed the station there. ”

          Oh yes? Then please explain what you meant by this.

          “The 2019 paper I provided to you shows unexpected UHI effects from an encroachment not expected to yield UHI.”

          You are saying they placed the station without anticipating any UHI effect from encroachment.

          That is completely wrong, as quoted above from the paper.

          They went ahead with the station placement in full awareness of the UHI encroachment in order to measure the UHI effect.

          You do not report the science faithfully is what I’m saying. I don’t think you read it carefully, or you read it through some mental filter.

        • barry says:

          “the Chinese study you provided isn’t any better.”

          You’re welcome. Remind me not to help you find papers in the future. how is your own search with post-2020 papers on UHI coming?

          By the way, do you think Roy is going to use linear trend analysis or something different? Previous of his posts on UHI suggest he will use linear trends to test for divergence over time. He has also used the pairwise method used by NOAA.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Now you are mocking using linear trends? You can’t be serious. You aren’t really that dumb are you. You just playing a role here right?

            If UHI isn’t linear you will be able to show a linear difference in warming rates between ‘properly binned’ stations. . . .that will be a UHI component attributable to those stations.

            And since urban areas are grossly over representative compared to the land area they take up warming in the raw mean then gets multiplied in the process of gridding and kriging.

            I assume when you talk about USCRN being close to USCHN you mean in raw data form right? Then that would be the explanation of why when Bindidon grids the data the trend steepens. That steepening IMO is a huge red flag.

            Roy notes that only 13.2% weather stations show less than 5% urbanization meaning 86.8% are urbanized at more than 5%. I would be surprised to learn that more 10% of the land has 5% urbanization.

            You can show me a thousand UHI studies that assume UHI is linear with percentage of urbanization and you could miss UHI totally if Oke is right that the UHI effect is most pronounced at low levels of urbanization.

            The question that Roy is pursuing is whether the trend is 1.4c/dec
            1.7c/dec, or 2.0c/dec, or 2.3c/dec.

            A lot of scientists are betting on 1.7c already.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            opps I use century number rather than decades. so its .14c/dec; .17c/dec etc.

          • barry says:

            “Now you are mocking using linear trends?”

            What on Earth are you talking about? I’m saying Roy is using them because you are saying that they aren’t good enough for studying UHI.

            “I assume when you talk about USCRN being close to USCHN you mean in raw data form right?”

            I mean the homogenised data set that NOAA use for their national US temperature record is virtually identical to USCRN.

            https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/ann/12

            In fact, the homogenised data set has a very, very slightly cooler trend than USCRN.

            Good to see you’ve stopped wrongly claiming that the station in the 2019 paper was placed with no awareness of UHI. It was placed knowing UHI would encroach, as a case study on the effect.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry continues to lie after being corrected. The man is destroying his own credibility.

            I never said the crn station that was encroached after its establishment was wrongly placed.

  70. Willard says:

    Earlier, some troglodyte wrote –

    The Revelle Factor isnt a factor.

    Denial was strong in that troglodyte.

    If the ocean is the prime net source, you would need to find a sink that has taken up around 1500 Gigatons of CO2 EXTRA, the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

    Also, why is the atmospheric oxygen concentration dropping faster than the CO2 increase?

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Wiltard the propagandist,

      You’re not worth responding to most of the time, including now.
      Do you see the Revelle Factor anywhere in the continuity equation for CO2? It is in countless Atmospheric Physics textbooks. Learn some physics.

      • Willard says:

        How is that a response, Troglodyte?

        You are just pouting.

      • Entropic man says:

        I don’t think you understand. The Revelle factor defines the rate at which the ocean can release CO2 to the atmosphere.

        Including CO2 absorbed by various sinks, Berry’s hypothesis requires that the ocean release the equivalent of 4ppm/year to the atmosphere. That is 31.2 gigatonnes/year.

        Can you demonstrate that this is possible?

        The details of the calculation are above my pay grade but I’ve managed to pull two conclusions from the literature.

        1) The Revell factor is currently about 11.

        2 The amount of dissolved CO2 is low enough that the net flow of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the ocean, so the Revelle factor is actually defining the rate of uptake from the atmosphere to the ocean.

        Once again Berry is claiming net CO2 release from the ocean when the physics describes net uptake. Falsified again.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          As there is no GHE, and CO2 does not make thermometers hotter, what is the point of your comment?

          Is it another SkyDragon cultist diversionary tactic, implying that mankind’s efforts to put back some of the CO2 removed by Nature, are somehow bad, or sinful?

          Any hypothesis remains speculation or fantasy, unless it can be expressed in a way that allows falsification by experiment. Until then, it may be a case of one expert expressing a different speculation to another. All well and good, but as Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”

          Speculate away. Call yourself an expert if you wish. The sound you hear is me laughing at a SkyDragon cultist.

  71. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Extremely cold air from Siberia is moving south. North China (Mohe region) is reporting temperatures below -50 C – one of the lowest during the measurement period.
    https://i.ibb.co/qM0HMwm/326933976-724978299017832-560587358069662243-n.jpg

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    bill h…”It really does have the appearance you [Bindidon] dont know what you are talking about”.

    ***

    That’s not an appearance, it’s a fact.

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    Confirmation of NOAA’s cheating.

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202213/supplemental/page-4

    “Evaluating the temperature of the entire planet has an inherent level of uncertainty. The reported global value is not an exact measurement; instead it is the central value within some range of possible values”.

    “…a reported global value of +0.86C 0.15C indicates that the most likely value is 0.86C warmer than the long-term average, but, conservatively, one can be confident that it falls somewhere between 0.71C and 1.01C”

    Note…the global temp is ***MOST LIKELY*** to be 0.86C warmer.

    Note…one can be ‘confident’. The word ‘confident’ in statistics is nothing more than a platitude. It could be totally wrong, even though it may be unlikely. Before Australian researcher Barry Marshall discovered that duodenal ulcers are caused by the bacterium h. pylori, I am sure scientists would have claimed a 95% confidence level the ulcers were caused by stress and excess stomach acid.

    There is no precision in ‘confident’, a guess is still a guess. This is not as if someone had taken 10 measurements using a thermometer and estimated the error as +/- of a certain measurement, it is an outright guess. In other words, NOAA is not estimating the error on each thermometer reading as +/- 0.15C, they are estimating the error in guessing at the global average.

    If you were reading a standard thermometer graduated in 0.1C intervals, a standard error in reading the instrument would be no more than 0.05C. If you summed all the thermometers globally, the error should be no more than 0.05C, and that’s being generous.

    The +/- 0.15C error is a guess because they use only 4000 buoys to cover 70% of the planet’s surface area in the oceans. They have also admitted to using less than 1500 thermometers to measure the other 30% which is the solid surface.

    I made a mistake the other day and reported Earth’s land surface area as 510 x 10^6 km^2. I feel exonerated since all the alarmists missed it as well. The land surface area is 148.9 x 10^6 km^2 and the oceans are 361.1 x 10^6 km^2, for a total of 510 x 10^6 km^2. Those are approximations.

    Anyway, 4000 buoys will cover 361.1 x 10^6 km^2/(4 x 10^3 buoys), giving us 90.3 x 10^3 km^2 per buoy. That buoy is also drenched with sea spray and I am pretty sure Argo buoys submerge between readings. Therefore NOAA’s claim of a +/- 0.15C error margin is absolute bs. It is, as I claimed, nothing more than a guess.

    The area covered by that 1 buoy is approximately 100,000 km^2. That’s about the area of South Korea. Yet NOAA is claiming you could stick one thermometer in Korea and estimate the temperature of S. Korea with an error of only 0.15C? You’d be lucky if you could estimate it within +/- 2.5C.

    We have already been introduced to the chicanery of NOAA when they announced 2014 as the hottest year ever, using a probability factor of 48%.

    Barry has claimed their website admission, that they slashed the global land surface database to less than 1500 thermometers, is a lie. I have supplied a link to the site confirming it, yet Barry insists it is a lie. What is the likelihood NOAA is lying about that when they have proved themselves to be unreliable climate alarmists? It’s not like an alarmist to understate the number of thermometers they use.

    • Willard says:

      C’mon, Bordon.

    • Entropic man says:

      We’ve already been over this. Th confidence limits of the global average temperatures depend on:-

      1) The internal variability of the mean of the data, which sets minimum confidence limits For the GISS data this is about +/-0.6C

      2) The sample size n. Confidence limits improve in proportion to measurement uncertainty*1/√n.

      Plot confidence limits against sample size and you get a rectangular hyperbola. Confidence limits decrease rapidly at small sample sizes, but you reach a sample size at which the graph flattens and further increases in sample size have very little further effect on confidence limits.

      In practice the useful limit on sample size is when the confidence limits due to sample size are the same as the confidence limits due to internal variability.

      For the temperature data the crossover point is 1500 stations.

      It is not a coincidence that NOAA,GISS, Berkeley and others use 1500 well distributed high quality stations for global average calculations.

      Extra stations give some redundancy but do not improve the quality of the means. Please give the old denialist meme that there aren’t enough stations the recent burial it deserves.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”Th confidence limits of the global average temperatures depend on…”

        ***

        Sorry, in science, you don’t need a confidence level when you have real thermometers. In that case, the error margin is the degree of error in reading the thermometer graticules.

        Confidence levels come into play when you don’t have enough thermometer readings to accurately cover an area. In that case, you must rely on not only statistical averaging but statistic homogenization. In other words, you need to use data from real thermometers to infer temperature within a certain distance of the thermometer then clean up (homogenize) the sum.

        NOAA owns GHCN, and GHCN has well over 100,000 stations available to them. Why then, does NOAA admit to using less than 1500 thermometer globally for surface temperatures? Adding the 4000 Argo ocean buoys, that is less than 2000 thermometers to cover the entire planet.

        Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS gave a glimpse into the problem. GISS can’t afford to process more than 1500 stations monthly. So, they use the 1500, or less, in a climate model, and fudge the rest of the temperatures. Same with NOAA, and that’s why they are offering a lame +/- 0.15C error probability globally.

        Given the use of a 38% probability of 2014 being the warmest year ever, GISS outdid NOAA’s 48%. The way they play with statistics, it’s a no-brainer that even the +/- 0.15C global error probability is bs as well.

        That’s why UAH is far more reliable than either NOAA or GISS. The sats cover 95% of the planet with bazillions of data points generated per orbit. Plus, the sats cover all of the oceans as well.

        • Willard says:

          > you dont need a confidence level when you have real thermometers

          C’mon, Bordon.

          Confidence intervals were invented for measurements.

          Thermometers are M E A S U R I N G D E V I C E S.

          How can you be that stupid?

          • RLH says:

            Confidence intervals are for statistics that CAN be used for measuring devices and measurements they take.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

            No willard confidence intervals were not invented for measurements.

            Confidence levels are for statistics when ‘sampling’ ‘representative populations’.

            If there was one thermometer in south korea it would be sufficient if and only if the temperature was the same throughout south korea.

            One might go about that by randomly spreading 100 thermometers around south korea and seeing if they all read identically in relationship to the accuracy you are seeking.

            Then if the climate never changed then you can use one thermometer for south korea.

            Of Course that is what Al Gore told us was true before mankind started messing up stuff.

            . . . .which once again proved the saying at the top of my post.

          • Willard says:

            You’ll have to fight that one with Neyman, Kolmogorov, Borel, Lévy, Fréchetchet, and others.

            Statisticians need an estimation method in general, but they sure need one for measuring stuff.

          • Willard says:

            My last comment was obviously for Richard.

            Gill’s rant is just that, a rant.

          • Swenson says:

            Weepy Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “Confidence intervals were invented for measurements.”

            Wikipedia says –

            “In frequentist statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a range of estimates for an unknown parameter.”

            In other words, a guess. Hopefully, a good guess, but a guess nevertheless.

            When I board a plane, I dont expect the pilot to express anything other than certainty that the plane will arrive at its destination intact. A 99% confidence interval is not good enough for me.

            For SkyDragons like you, you would accept Gavin Schmidt’s assurance that a year was the “hottest ever” with a probability of 38%. What do you assess his “confidence” as?

            You are truly stupid, aren’t you?

          • Willard says:

            What are you braying about, Mike?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop trying to troll.

  74. gbaikie says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAuBGNwIn6w
    Artificial Gravity: From Cinema to Reality – Jan 18, 2023

    Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    re Revelle Factor. Even though Roger Revelle produced this factor for the ocean, circa 1990, just before he died, he wrote a paper with Fred Singer cautioning people not to read too much into global warming propaganda.

    His announcement drove Al Gore ballistic. He studied under Revelle at one time and in his infinite stupidity, he interpreted Revelle as being an alarmist, like him. Gore inferred that Revelle had become senile and that Singer had taken advantage of his alleged, reduced mental capacity.

    These days, Gore is preaching his mantra of climate gloom and doom with no evidence that it is happening anytime soon. Meantime, he is making lots of money preaching the propaganda.

    • Willard says:

      C’mon, Bordon.

      Not that Revelle story again:

      So what did Roger Revelle say. We can look at the galley proofs. The comment on the side is Roger Revelle’s, and it says “one to three”

      http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/roger-revelle-was-right-eli-because-he.html

      You never pay due diligence to any of this.

      Ask your sidekick how that’s supposed to work.

      • Swenson says:

        Woeful Wee Willy,

        Talking in tongues again?

        How are you going, finding a sensible description of the GHE? Maybe thermometers react to heat – as Dr Spencer seems to be surmising. Anthropogenic heat.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          Braying again?

          It has been a while – tell us your molten Earth bit.

          • Swenson says:

            Wondering Wee Willy,

            Because you grovel so nicely, I’ll repeat –

            The Earth cooled from its initial molten surface over the last four and a half billion years or so, to its present temperature.

            Obviously, no “greenhouse effect”, making the surface hotter, operated during this time. Otherwise the surface would no5 have cooled – and it did.

            Additionally, at night, it can be observed that the surface cools, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. No “greenhouse effect” in evidence.

            Either short term or long term, no “greenhouse effect” to be observed.

            Anything you don’t understand? Rhetorical question, of course, you dont understand any of this, and you refuse to accept reality into the bargain. Go back to trying to troll – with a lot of effort, you might be able to annoy somebody.

            Give it a try, if you like.

            [laughing at dimwit with his masturbatory “JAQing off” insult attempt earlier]

          • Willard says:

            Well done, Mike!

            Bray again about deserts.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, please stop trying to troll.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Let me bring you up to date on Eli, aka Josh Halpern. He has a degree in physics but he teaches chemistry. Go figure.

        Eli co-authored a paper under his real name, Halpern. The aim of the paper was to discredit the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner who wrote a paper falsifying the GHE. When G&T quoted the 2nd law re heat transfer being only from hot to cold, Halpern et al responded that with a radiative transfer, that would mean one body was not radiating.

        That is typical of climate alarmists who have no idea what the 2nd law means, or the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. Halpern et al thought that two bodies radiating at each other had to transfer heat in both directions. The truth is, even with radiative transfer, heat is transferred in one direction only.

        As I have explained here many times, no heat is physically transferred via radiation. So, not only did Halpern et al not understand how heat can be transferred by radiation, they did not even understand the 2nd law.

        When Halpern quotes Revelle and makes insinuations about Fred Singer, excuse me while I snicker up my sleeve.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Gordo,
      In Berry’s third paper, he tests his model using IPCC’s Natural Carbon Cycle data, and they agreed. However, they disagreed when he used his model to test IPCC’s Human Carbon Cycle. This demonstrated how the IPCC treats Human and Natural carbon differently, violating the Principle of Equivalence. Equivalence Principle says nature cannot tell the difference between Human CO2 and Natural CO2. They both consist of a single carbon and two oxygen molecules.

  76. Willard says:

    Gill, Gill,

    Are you new to all of this?

    The Auditor peddled that story for years, and you never studied it?

    Does Andersen exist as an auditing firm anymore?

  77. Dennis says:

    CO2s Part in Global Temperature Rise
    Not having the skills of a disciplined researcher my laymans understanding of how CO2 behaves is that the IR radiation from earth (average temperature 60 degrees F) is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 molecules thus attaining the same temp ie 60 degrees F. The CO2 molecules in turn re radiate the same IR temp in all directions. That directed at earth because it is at the same temp has no effect on earth temp. The CO2 molecules are just a relay to outer space.
    Transfer of heat to the oxygen, nitrogen and argon in the atmosphere would have to be by conduction/convection. As the molecular mass of CO2 is only about 1/1500 of the mass of the three other components it seems to be improbable much of any change in temperature would be possible.
    Water vapor and condensed water (clouds) are another matter. This is the real GHG. Further water vapor in the atmosphere acts with positive feed back. As temperature rises so does the caacity of the atmosphere to hold more water. This could explain the gradual increase in global temperature that has been recorded.
    A role CO2 could be playing is that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is promoting greater plant growth which in turn through expiration by plants of water into the atmosphere is adding to the atmospheric waters GHG inpact. I have no idea if this would be significant or not. A greener earth does have added capacity to absorb atmospheric CO2. One might balance the other!
    Do I make any sense?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dennis…”…water vapor in the atmosphere acts with positive feed back. As temperature rises so does the caacity of the atmosphere to hold more water. This could explain the gradual increase in global temperature that has been recorded”.

      ***

      That may be regarded as a positive feedback but it’s not the type of PF that can lead to a catastrophic tipping point, as it is known by alarmists. Officially, that kind of PF has the formula..

      G = A/(1+AB)

      where G = overall gain
      A = gain of an amplifier
      B = feedback percent.

      It’s important to get it that A is a real amplifier that is capable of amplifying an input signal. There is no such amplifier in the atmosphere and there is no such thing, in general, as an amplification in the atmosphere. In other words, the PF to which you refer is not related to an amplification of heat.

      Water vapour makes up only 0.31% of the entire atmosphere and at that level there simply is not enough to create a warming that is significant. The Ideal Gas Law makes that perfectly clear.

      The type of PF to which you refer is a linear arrangement that has no gain. In other words, there is simply not enough WV or CO2 to warm the atmosphere.

      I suggest you reject that kind of propaganda. Gavin Schmidt, who is now head of NASA GISS, has a degree in mathematics. He could not offer an equation for PF with gain yet he programs that crap into climate models.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Tim Folkert says no. Much too simple. Climate Science is much more complicated, and there is a lot we don’t understand. However, many posters, mostly propagandists, will tell you the science is SETTLED!

  78. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy burps…”If the ocean is the prime net source, you would need to find a sink that has taken up around 1500 Gigatons of CO2 EXTRA, the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.”

    ***

    Have you looked at the size of the oceans, or the atmosphere? All those gigatons you mention make up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. They would make up even less of the oceans. Plenty of volume for sinking or sourcing.

  79. dennis says:

    Thanks Gordon for the response. What do you think about my conclusions about CO2?
    Neighbor on the Island

  80. barry says:

    Bill Hunter: did you know urban heat influence could have messed up the temperature record?

    NOAA: has 50 years of research on urban heat influence on the temperature record.

    • Swenson says:

      b,

      And NOAA still dont know what the influence might be. In any case, why does it matter?

      NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce. Their role is “To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, ocean, and coasts, . . .”.

      Official fortune tellers for the commercial world!

      NOAA cant even predict the tides with any accuracy. They dont seem to realise that if they manage to predict the weather, the climate is included, as the climate is just the statistics of past weather observations.

      Truly did someone say that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. And others, such as SkyDragon cultists, of course.

    • barry says:

      “They don’t seem to realise that if they manage to predict the weather, the climate is included”

      You don’t need to predict the weather through Summer to estimate it will be warmer than Winter. You can use physics alone for that.

      Poor ‘skeptics’ can’t even articulate the issues let alone address them.

      Try thinking instead of reacting for change, Swenson.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Well, that’s a fatheaded attempt to divert attention away from NOAA’s silly statements, isn’t it?

        I don’t think you are really trying to say NOAA can’t predict the future any better than a 12 year (or me, if you prefer), but that is what you imply!

        You poor deluded SkyDragon cultist, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that the surface cools at night – maybe the undefinable GHE runs away at night, because it is scared of the dark? That’s about as good a reason as any you can come up with, I guess.

        Go away and take a reality acceptance pill. Be prepared for a shock.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          barry says:
          ”They dont seem to realise that if they manage to predict the weather, the climate is included”

          You dont need to predict the weather through Summer to estimate it will be warmer than Winter. You can use physics alone for that.
          ——————-
          Yes you can Barry. But not to much less than one degree. And thats the point isn’t it? We understand well the influence of the angle of the sun, particularly when it darkens the poles. We have insolation charts. We don’t even have a blueprint of how cold CO2 warms the surface yet you believe in that.

        • barry says:

          “Yes you can Barry. But not to much less than one degree. And thats the point isnt it?”

          No, that is not the point. You’ve lost the thread of the conversation.

        • barry says:

          Bill, the GHE is well explained and referenced for over a century. If you want to join in with the cranks here on that, Roy and I will have to leave you to their lunatic theories.

          Roy Spencer:

          “Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. Its making us skeptics look bad. Ive blogged on this numerous times… maybe start here…

          The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation… including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you dont believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow… the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still… as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

          • Bill Hunter says:

            You went completely off topic with this reply.

            We went through this in detail with the discussion of that other guy that publishes on a different blog (I can’t recall his name). The point was that when one makes a diagram of a greenhouse effect with a ‘mean’ viewfactor of 1 and then expects a greenhouse effect to result by putting colder objects in the view that is what is meant by the adding of fluxes that you cannot do.

            We were regaled with this stupid model of a greenhouse effect endlessly a decade ago trying to promote multi-layered models of a greenhouse effect with uniform colder layers on top of warmer layers. Then you get on a blog that believes in that impossible model who then starts preaching it, obviously you are going to get some push back.

            The problem I see with the greenhouse effect is simple. Dr. Trenberth’s estimate of the backradiation seems too high in his radiation budget model. He recognizes it as a plug figure and has never supported the figure empirically.

            His failure to do that says one giant hole in the greenhouse theory exists whereby the proponents of the CO2 model simply cannot explain how it works.

            That model is where still mythical beasts like hotspots arose to explain how warming could be measured to confirm the model. None of those proponents talk about hotspots any longer near as I can tell. Now they talk about cold spots. Which of course gives rise to the mocking of boiling water with ice.

            If you can go back and rectify that omission and change of course in a logical way you will get my attention.

          • barry says:

            “You went completely off topic with this reply.”

            No, Bill, you changed to this topic, not me, when you said:

            “We don’t even have a blueprint of how cold CO2 warms the surface yet you believe in that.”

            Please keep up with the conversation, especially your own inputs.

            Roy Spencer understands the GHE, and has gone to some trouble explaining it on this very blog.

            If you’re going to join in with the crackpots that say the GHE doesn’t exist, or breaks the 2nd Law of thermo, then Roy and I (and Anthony Watts, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry) will leave you to their nonsense.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Its off topic to deny a 100% true fact. You come back with how its ”well explained”. Yammering about how you think it works is not a blueprint. A blueprint contains quantitative physics in like x +y =z. We are talking about complicated systems here were feedbacks are not well explained. If you believe they are you are an idiot.

    • barry says:

      “why does it matter?”

      Ask Roy. That’s the topic of his article above.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Telling somebody to ask someone else for an answer you can’t supply, just confirms your lack of knowledge.

        You dimwit. I asked you – if you don’t know the answer, just man up and admit it.

        Or keep wriggling and twisting, pretending that you know what you are talking about.

      • barry says:

        If you don’t know why UHI matters when it is the main subject of the article and has been discussed here ad nauseum, then nothing I could say will help you.

        It’s good that you’ve admitted you don’t understand the issue. That’s the first step.

        • Swenson says:

          b,

          Here’s what you wrote –

          “NOAA: has 50 years of research on urban heat influence on the temperature record.”

          Well, that’s a nonsensical piece of word salad, isn’t it? Yes, heat affects temperatures. That’s what thermometers measure. If the idiots at NASA want to pretend that temperatures need “adjusting”, that is their decision.

          50 years of research to establish that thermometers respond to heat? That’s as silly as saying that NOAA can predict the weather!

          You really are a gullible wee SkyDragon, aren’t you?

          Maybe you should actually read what Dr Spencer wrote. Here’s a sample – “Current homogenization techniques can remove abrupt changes in station data, but cannot correct for any sources of slowly-increasing spurious warming.”

          Still convinced that NOAA’s adjustments achieve anything useful?

        • barry says:

          I can’t tell whether you’re incredibly dense or belligerently sarcastic, but the result is the same. You babble like a drunk.

          “Maybe you should actually read what Dr Spencer wrote.”

          I did. But I also read researches doing what he says can’t be done.

          https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

          His remark isn’t credible.

          You going to read the paper through, or let Roy tell you what to think?

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            Just a sample from your appeal to authority –

            “UHI does not appear to represent a significant contributing factor in the homogenized CONUS-average maximum and minimum temperature signal over the past 5080 years.”

            You and Zeke Hausfather are free to deny reality if you wish.

            Even Berkeley Earth (nothing to do with University of California, Berkeley), says “the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”, totally ignoring the fact that an average reflects the numbers from which it is derived. Increasing some temperatures increases the average.

            Nearly as inept as Gavin Schmidt claiming a 38% likelihood meant “near certainty”!

            Carry on being a gullible wee SkyDragon.

          • barry says:

            Why read the paper to find out how they came to this conclusion when you’ve got Roy to tell you what to think?

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You wrote –

            “Why read the paper to find out how they came to this conclusion when youve got Roy to tell you what to think?”

            You didn’t want me read your nonsensical “paper”? Why post it, then?

            I’m not aware of Dr Spencer telling me what to think. Did you just make that up?

            I think what I wish, when I wish. Why not?

            I think you are sloppy and incompetent, and attempting to be gratuitously offensive. You can’t even do that effectively! How sad is that?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…you reference a paper published by climate alarmists then claim it is right whereas Roy is wrong.

            You insult Swenson as being ‘incredibly dense or belligerently sarcastic’. but it you who comes across as such. You are a narrow-minded climate alarmist who offers obtuse replies that are aimed at diverting and obfuscating the post to which you are replying.

            Several times, I have posted direct inks to NOAA sites where they admit slashing the number of reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500, yet you deliberately obfuscate what they said to make it appear as if they had in fact increased the number of stations. That’s dense.

            Then, when I posted a link to the IPCC to prove they had claimed a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, you replied with a deliberate obfuscation of what they said to make it appear such a 15 year flat trend as perfectly normal. One year may have been normal, maybe two, but not 15 years in the middle of a period claimed to represent anthropogenic warming.

          • barry says:

            “you reference a paper published by climate alarmists then claim it is right whereas Roy is wrong.”

            No I didn’t. For ‘skeptics’ everything is tribal.

            I pointed out that Roy said correcting for a long-term gradual change couldn’t be done. He made on mention of any attempts, so I showed just one.

            His omission is why his remark has no credence. He’s making flat statements in a blog, instead of what a proper scientist would do and refer to previous work on the matter, and explaining its strengths and weaknesses.

            But you and Swenson don’t need to bother your pretty little heads with that level of detail when you have Roy to tell you what to think.

          • barry says:

            “deliberately obfuscate what they said to make it appear as if they had in fact increased the number of stations.”

            Obfuscate? I quote the page you cite.

            “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.”

            Clearly you have a comprehension problem.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry says:
            ”His omission is why his remark has no credence. Hes making flat statements in a blog, instead of what a proper scientist would do and refer to previous work on the matter, and explaining its strengths and weaknesses.”

            You mean statements like the moon rotates on its own axis in a motion separate from its orbital motion without referring to previous work on the matter, and explaining its strengths and weaknesses?

    • Bill Hunter says:

      barry says:
      ”NOAA: has 50 years of research on urban heat influence on the temperature record.”

      As Roy points out in his article here that is what he is banking on.

      • barry says:

        He says nothing of the kind, fabricator.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          ” But the seminal study by Oke (1973) showed that UHI warming is non-linear, with the most rapid warming occurring at the lowest population densities, with an eventual saturation of the warming at high population densities.”

          Hmmmm, 1973 is exactly 50 years ago.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bill h…”1973 is exactly 50 years ago”.

            ***

            Please tell me it isn’t true.

          • barry says:

            Just as I thought. Roy refers to one study, and you equate that with “50 years of research.”

            You are not genuine, Bill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry you are making an irrelevant point. Your complaint is that UHI has been estimated many times over the past 50 years. Thats true but the question at hand is not that. Roy is pursuing a technique proposed 50 years ago and AFAIK has never been pursued.

            Roy notes this: ”But the seminal study by Oke (1973) showed that UHI warming is non-linear, with the most rapid warming occurring at the lowest population densities, with an eventual saturation of the warming at high population densities.”

            Whereas the 2013 Hausfather study, the one you provided, does not address this issue. Hausfather’s used a linear relationsip. And thank you for the link.

            Hausfather says regarding his work on population increases:
            ”Urban sites were defined as those characterized by a 19302000 population growth of ≥10 people/km2, which yields similar-sized numbers of urban and nonurban stations, as shown in Table 1. While there is no available justification in the literature for this or any specific 19302000 population growth cutoff as a proxy for urbanization, this value was chosen to be reasonably conservative and to produce an urban/rural division generally in line with the other urbanity proxies.”

            No support for a linear relationship just a guess?

            Hausfather sources Oke But on other matters than the UHI curve Roy says Oke validated in a study.

            Oke claims the relationship is like an inverted parabola rather than linear. Using a linear relationship and splitting the database in half would cancel out some unknown amount of UHI trend influence. As it was Hausfather didn’t find much.

            We will have to wait to see what Roy comes up with.

          • barry says:

            “Your complaint is that UHI has been estimated many times over the past 50 years. That’s true but the question at hand is not that.”

            My complaint is that Roy implies that no work has been done to account for gradual change due to UHI.

            The study I linked uses 4 different metrics to classify urban/rural stations. It utilises pairwise analysis for abrupt shifts (which can also assess inhomogeneities in gradual change when trends are included in the analysis), and rural networks to look for gradual change biases through trend comparison.

            “Roy notes this: ‘But the seminal study by Oke (1973) showed that UHI warming is non-linear, with the most rapid warming occurring at the lowest population densities, with an eventual saturation of the warming at high population densities.’

            Whereas the 2013 Hausfather study, the one you provided, does not address this issue. Hausfather’s used a linear relationsip.”

            If this is really what Oke is saying (I’ve read the paper and disagree with Roy’s interpretation, see below), then rural stations should show more warming than urban stations.

            But they don’t. Accounting only for TOBs, US urban stations have warmed more than rural. This is also the case if raw data is used, but the TOB bias is strong in the US, so this result should be treated with caution.

            Let’s quote Oke, by the way, on Roy’s point.

            “This means that for a given increment in P, TΔᵤ₋ᵣ increases more for a town than for a large city.”

            The literal meaning is that for each equal unit increase in population, the temperature difference is greater with smaller populations than larger. This is tested between different populations, as Oke’s study wasn’t done over time.

            But whether this equates to an actual greater increase over time for rural stations depends upon the actual increase in population for a given location. Rural areas do not accumulate residents at a higher rate than cities, in general.

            That may be why rural stations on average show a lower trend than urban stations.

            This is consistent looking at the 1895 to 1960 data, and the data from 1960 onwards.

            If there is a UHI ‘parabola’ for cities, the inflexion point is not 1960.

            So perhaps a useful test would be to do a multiple regression for urban and rural datasets, and find out if at some point the rural trend becomes greater than the urban.

            That would lend credence to Roy’s supposition, and would yield an inflexion point that could be used in his analysis.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry says:

            ”The literal meaning is that for each equal unit increase in population, the temperature difference is greater with smaller populations than larger. This is tested between different populations, as Okes study wasnt done over time.”

            And where are these studies that you claim have eluded Roy? Did your daddy just tell you they exist and you don’t know for sure?

            Maybe you got that from the SS.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Thats why the Berkeley Earth study failed to produce any significant UHI.

          They ignored the science as warmist inclined folks seem to tend to do and compared ”rural/low density to medium density urban” against the ”medium high to high density urban”. It should come out a near wash if Oke is right. Seems the correct split might be rural/high density urban vs the low to medium high density urban.

          Anyway Roy has done his binning of population density work above. Coming is to compare rates of warming versus his allocation of bins.

          Landsat data provides rich information via GIS software of the attributes of fine resolution areas allowing one to pinpoint geospatial characteristics down to a few meters. People especially under the supervision of the US Geological Survey have been filling data into these maps now for 5 decades. Great stuff for research purposes.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Berkeley Earth as I recall used satellites too. But they went by light density. Low light vs High light and split the proverbial baby in two, not paying attention to Oke’s findings.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Apologize please.

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Marxists don’t apologize. They regroup. You have to extinguish them.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            A lot of mean folks on blogs

          • barry says:

            “Thats why the Berkeley Earth study failed to produce any significant UHI.

            They ignored the science as warmist inclined folks seem to tend to do..”

            Berkeley Earth was established by climate ‘skeptics’, including Steve Mosher, who was working on surfacestation data in the late 2000s, Richard Muller and Judith Curry.

            They did a study on whether UHI infects the Berkeley record.

            https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

            They cite multiple groups and papers on UHI.

            You just say false stuff, Bill. They’re not alarmists, they don’t ignore the science.

            “Berkeley Earth as I recall used satellites too. But they went by light density.”

            Nope, satellite imaging of urban land area. It’s in the paper above, MOD500 urban mapping.

            You just report this stuff incorrectly. Because you probably understand it incorrectly.

            And you never admit it when you’re wrong. Here is a ripe opportunity.

            “Apologize please.”

            For what?

          • barry says:

            Berkeley do not correct specifically for UHI, as they believe their methods likely correct for it, which was borne out by the tests they made in the study above.

            Always worth checking out their methods, which were based on the criticisms ‘skeptics’ made about the official temp records.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20160312021936/http://berkeleyearth.org/about-data-set/

            A less well-known skeptic group also tried their hand at doing a better estimate of global temperature.

            https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/

            Not peer-reviewed, but they went to great lengths to get it right over many months. Some of their work influenced Berkeley Earth’s methods.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well Barry Roy is getting significantly different classification of very rural than did BE.

            BE found globally 42% of the sites were very rural.

            Roy is finding less than 5%.

            Of course BE uses a different database than GCHN. And BE used a different time window as well. Results were BE found a lot of UHI in the old global data and likely used that to increase the warming trend by down adjusting the old data. But they found negative global development from the 1950’s forward. . . .so did they warm the data from that finding?

            Or at least that is what has been seen to be going on. Slight upward adjustments of data from the 60’s forward and a considerable amount of cooling of data prior to that.

            BE has a graph supporting that point of view in the study you reference.

            We will have to see what Roy comes up with because BE didn’t even reference Oke 1973 and Roy is basing his approach on that.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”NOAA: has 50 years of research on urban heat influence on the temperature record”.

      ***

      I doubt that, no one was worrying about global warming in 1973. The bs did not begin officially till 1988. Even at that, NOAA was still publishing their temperature data graphs in 2012, showing a flat trend since 1998. Then, when the IPCC announced the flat trend in 2013, they went back and changed their own records to produce a trend.

      • barry says:

        I’ve posted the links to research on the UHI from fifty years ago.

        Your ‘doubt’ becomes your full-fledged belief. You’re not a skeptic.

  81. barry says:

    Gordon,

    “Barry has claimed their website admission, that they slashed the global land surface database to less than 1500 thermometers, is a lie. I have supplied a link to the site confirming it, yet Barry insists it is a lie.”

    Your ‘interpretation’ is the lie. Nowhere on that page do NOAA say they have actively deleted anything.

    Here is the quote.

    “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?

    The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.”

    There is no mention of active deletion of anything. That is YOUR lie. Furthermore, the 1997 paper that describes how the extra 4500 weather stations data came to be included in the database reveals that none of them were deleted.

    Next on that webpage:

    “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.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

    For the billionth time, the 4500 stations you think were ‘slashed’ were actually added retrospectively when they collated old data from around the world in the mid 90s. From defunct weather stations to historical data collections given to NOAA by meteorological institutes in various countries.

    They were never part of the 1500 that reported data once a month, and so they weren’t slashed’, deleted or expunged from the record. They were a one-time addition to the database.

    You’re promulgating a lie.

    For example, one station in the South of France ceased operations in 1973.

    How exactly did they ‘slash’ this station’s data if it hadn’t been collecting any for 20 years before they collected its data?

    It’s still in the database, but you would see that the data stops in 1973 and claim that the post-73 data was deleted.

    This is precisely your error of understanding, right here.

    • barry says:

      Furthermore, Gordon, not even Chiefio claims that they were deliberately deleted.

      Chiefio: “First, that there is no person actively pruning thermometers. 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 person’s intent, only the result.

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/kusi-coleman-tv-show-discussion/

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        The SkyDragon cult fascination with thermometer temperatures is a wonder to behold. Is there a point to this obsession? The temperature of an object is precisely what it is – it is no hotter or colder than it should be.

        Are you actually trying to insinuate that CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter?

        Maybe you could find an experiment to support such a ludicrous flight of fancy.

        Only joking – there are no such experiments. I’m just laughing at your gullibility.

      • Bindidon says:

        Aaah look!

        Blathering stalker Flynnson finally asks again:

        ” Are you actually trying to insinuate that CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter? ”

        But… Flynnson?!

        barry doesn’t simply try to insinuate that: he is at least 101 % ‘convinced’ of this fact.

        Why not, after all? Aren’t some not even ‘convinced’ that the Moon moves like a ball-on-a-string?

        *
        Un conseil, Flynnson: si vous n'êtes pas satisfait de mon anglais: apprenez donc le français, cela vous ira comme un gant.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Your English is quite good for a sour Kraut. You could improve your expression, and colloquialisms.

          Why should I use French on an English language blog? Why would you advise such a silly thing?

          Are you trying another SkyDragon attempt to divert attention from the fact that you can’t even describe this GHE that cultists worship?

          As to barry being “101%” convinced, good for him. Why should I take notice? Would you take notice if I said that I am 500% convinced that both you and barry are quite mad?

          Still no GHE. Keep pretending there is, if facing the reality of four and a half billion years of global cooling is too much for you. Oh, and the fact that the surface cools every night.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        From EM Smith of chiefio via Barry…”I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any persons intent, only the result”.

        ***

        Of course, he can’t know the intent but it is plainly obvious. NOAA through GHCN has slashed 90% of the GHCN stations since 1990. They have openly admitted to slashing at least 1 – (1500/6000) x 100% = 75% of the stations they use to create their temperature data base globally. And they offered 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability.

        NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut have gone back and retroactively changed temperatures to produce a temperature record more favourable to an interpretation of anthropogenic global warming. For example, when the IPCC announced in 2013, a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, NOAA retroactively changed the SST to show a trend.

        GISS was caught by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit, changing a US temperature record set in 1934 with the global average of 1998. They changed it back when caught. In the climategate email scandal, Phil Jones, then head of Had-crut, was caught in an email admitting he had used Michael Mann’s trick to hide declining temperatures. In another email he threatened to block papers from skeptics to the IPCC reviews.

        Gavin Schmidt, head of GISS, runs the uber-alarmist site realclimate with his buddy Michael Mann. The site is full of alarmist propaganda and no skeptics are allowed to comment. Unlike Schmidt and Mann, Roy allows alarmists like you to comment, even to the point of being defamatory about his work at UAH.

        It all adds up Barry, and the sum = cheating. Smith doesn’t have to offer proof of cheating, he simply supplies the evidence of it, leaving the rest of us to form our own opinions. What other opinion could a logical mind reach?

        • barry says:

          You’ve spent years just swallowing the contrarian narrative wholesale, and never bothered to check for yourself.

          Whack-a-mole yet again.

          “GISS was caught by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit, changing a US temperature record set in 1934 with the global average of 1998. They changed it back when caught.”

          A mistake, mot deliberate, they said, fixed the next day and publicly thanked McIntyre for the correction.

          I know what you’re thinking, it’s the sheer number of shady moments that tip the wheelbarrow. But almost all of these ‘scandals’ are manufactured and swallowed wholesale by ‘skeptics’. You demonstrate this with your very next words…

          “In the climategate email scandal, Phil Jones, then head of Had-crut, was caught in an email admitting he had used Michael Mann’s trick to hide declining temperatures.”

          It was Keith Briffa’s ‘trick’, not Mann’s. You’ve perfectly remembered the elided quote spun out by anti-AGW media. Here’s the full quote.

          “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

          The reason you don’t know that it Keith’s trick is that you’ve swallowed a media tagline, which misquotes the original.

          The media’s false elision was, verbatim, “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline.” They omitted Keith’s name because Mann has presence and is a juicier target.

          And you just regurgitate this same mistake years later. Blithely unaware. This is the true level of your understanding.

          “In another email he threatened to block papers from skeptics to the IPCC reviews.”

          Described as hyperbole, the papers mentioned actually ended up in the IPCC report. So what did Jones actually do about these papers apart from rant?

          Is your explanation going to be about facts, or will it be suppositional again?

      • barry says:

        Gordon,

        “NOAA through GHCN has slashed 90% of the GHCN stations since 1990.”

        But they didn’t. They added data from history. Data that wasn’t being updated on a regular basis.

        If a weather station in France ceases operation in 1973, but NOAA collect the data prior, how is that deleting the weather station?

        A government hands NOAA 12 boxes of records from its weather stations. The data therein goes up to the day that NOAA collected it, in 1996.

        How has NOAA deleted any data when this gets added to the pile?

        And yet you would look at the weather station data from this country in NOAA’s records and claim that the data from 1996 onwards was deleted.

        I’m not making these things up. This is actually what happened in the mid-90s. I’ve provided the 1997 study to you that explains this, many times.

    • Bindidon says:

      barry

      Thank you very much for this and other contributions concerning Robertson’s eternal lies.

      I’m currently really sad of endlessly replying the same stuff to his insanities.

      The very best is his incredible post on this thread about anomalies

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/#comment-1434883

      You just need to have a look at my recent reply to his usual brainless nonsense:

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217

      That IS Robertson’s REAL ‘knowledge’ about it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”The very best is his incredible post on this thread about anomalies…”

        ***

        You idiot, I am quoting verbatim from NOAA on anomalies. I have no idea what perverted understanding you might have about anomalies but whatever that might be, it is seriously in error.

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson

          As usual, you continue to lie and lie and lie.

          Here is what you ignorant idiot wrote some months ago:

          Take a look here at the NOAA global land and ocean bar graph and tell me ho there is a relationship between it and UAH data.

          https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series

          For one, NOAAs graph takes off on a distance linear trend from 1980 onward. The UAH graph is in a negative anomaly phase till 1997 then it is flat from 1998 2015.

          The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. UAH maxed out at 0.7C in 2016 and one year was 0.6C, the rest were 0.5C or below and recently, more typically around 0.3C.

          *
          You idiot still didn’t understand that you were comparing NOAA anomalies wrt the mean of 1901-2000 with UAH anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020!

          Here is what dumb ignoramuses like you see:

          https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png

          No wonder that you tell that NOAA’s data shows too much warming.

          *
          And here is what experienced people see:

          https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png

          because unlike you, they understand that only anomaly comparisons wrt the same reference period make sense.

          *
          Robertson, the guy who says time dilation doesn’t exist (though even Flynnson corrected you about that!), who says Einstein is wrong, who says Newton’s translator was wrong though there were many translators of his work, who denies lunar spin without having ever understood how it is computed, etc etc.

          *
          And commenters like Dennis trust brainless idiots like you… OMG.

        • barry says:

          “you were comparing NOAA anomalies wrt the mean of 1901-2000 with UAH anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020”

          How can someone have been discussing the temperature data sets for years and yet make this absolutely basic dumb mistake?

          Either it’s wilful ignorance or he just doesn’t have the mental capacity. I could understand a complete greenhorn making the mistake, but Robertson has no excuse.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson’s incredible stupidity is best shown when he 100 % gullibly repeats chiefio’s absolute nonsense:

      ” In the Canadian Arctic, they use only 1 station. ”

      Frogs like to say in such cases:

      ” Plus bête tu meurs. ”

      Robertson’s endless appeals to EM Smith’s pseudo-authority are typical for him.

      He loves contrarians, especially those who brazenly lie on their blogs.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”obertsons endless appeals to EM Smiths pseudo-authority are typical for him”.

        ***

        Em Smith has done stellar work researching NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut, then revealing their chicanery. Binny, an uber-alarmist doesn’t like having his authority figures revealed as the cheaters they are.

        • Bindidon says:

          E.M. Smith didn’t do any ‘stellar work’ at any time, Robertson.

          He was all the time just guessing, exactly like you.

          And that is the reason why you permanently appeal to his pseudo-authority.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…[NOAA]”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.

      [Barry]There is no mention of active deletion of anything.

      ***

      Duh!!! What does ‘shrunk’ mean? What does ‘no longer accessible’ mean? NOAA admits to skrinking [their word…shrink] the database from 6000 to less than 1500 and Barry claims there is no mention of ‘active deletion’.

      No matter how you interpret NOAA’s words, they have openly admitted to using less than 1500 stations globally to produce their land surface temperature record.

      Once again, in NOAA’s own words, from a recent, former site…

      Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”

      Barry’s denial runs deep.

      I am willing to bet they have taken that site down based on what I have posted here about it.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Where did you get the information that NOAA uses 1,500 temperature stations around the globe.

        Here is a current site:

        https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/global-historical-climatology-network-daily

        They have more than 100,000 stations. Half of those only record precipitation but the rest record temperature.

        Here is a map of all the global weather stations.

        https://databasin.org/datasets/de8f7f71e3334eba863ff6003484364f/

        • barry says:

          Norman,

          The 100,000 stations are from GHCN Daily database.

          The database Robertson is referring to is GHCN Monthly, a database with long enough records of min/max temperature (and other components like precipitation) to compile a global temperature.

          In 2009 there 1500 weather stations that reported data to NOAA once a month. The other weather station data that made up the 6000 stations was collected from archives and added to the database retrospectively.

        • Bindidon says:

          Robertson is, after Clint R, really the most ignorant poster on this blog.

          He refers with this elder NOAA page saved on the Web Archive, to GHCN V2.

          Its successor, GHCN V3, contained 7,280 stations worldwide from the very beginning.

          I downoaded that data during years, what he would never have been able to.

          It is in between deprecated and has been replaced by GHCN V4, with over 27,000 stations.

          Near these station sets, NOAA has the GHCN daily station set.

          Norman’s link shows only the entire station directory.

          I still use the ftp link for download, which ‘normal’ browser users no long can access.

          Here is the link for everybody:

          https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

          There you see the station list

          ghcnd-stations.txt

          and the station inventory

          ghcnd-inventory.txt

          which tells you which station offers which kind of measurements over which period.

          *
          Robertson is a contrarian ignoramus who has never been even able to download UAH data into a simple spreadsheet calculator.

          But claims he would be (or have been) an engineer.

          In my native tongue, we use to name these all-time boasting Robertson guys ‘ingénieurs d'opérette’.

      • barry says:

        “What does ‘shrunk’ mean? What does ‘no longer accessible’ mean? NOAA admits to skrinking [their word… shrink] the database”

        Is English not your first language?

        “The physical number of weather stations has shrunk”

        It plainly says there are fewer actual weather stations around the world – something NOAA has no control over.

        ‘Has shrunk’ is passive. There is no language here suggesting NOAA actively did anything to these physical weather stations, or deleted their data.

        Your ‘interpretation’ of this is pure fabrication.

        “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.”

        That sentence is probably missing a comma after ‘improved’. Whatever the case, none of the language here suggests NOAA did any deleting, but rather refer to events beyond their control.

        And if parsing the language from that website isn’t enough, we have the 1997 paper that describes how the data was added retrospectively, and not deleted.

        https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf

        I’ll quote the relevant bits from that paper.

        Because most instrumental networks were established to monitor local weather and not the long-term climate, there are practical problems in using these data to study climate change. For instance, the records are often not digitized and/or are not readily available outside of the country in which they were measured…

        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…

        When possible, we tapped related projects for potentially useful data. For example, N.C.D.C recently collected and processed station normals for the period 196190 as a contribution to WMO. On occasion, a WMO member country supplied year/ month sequential data in addition to the 30-yr means and other statistics. Upon receipt of such records, the member country was contacted in regard to contributing the time series data to GHCN. The Colonial Era Archives initiative was also tapped in this regard (Peterson and Griffiths 1996). Started as a GHCN subproject to acquire data in very data sparse regions, this initiative digitized early temperature and precipitation records for stations operated by various European countries in their respective overseas colonies. Data for hundreds of early African stations have been incorporated from this source and the digitizing effort has been expanded to Asia and South America (Peterson and Griffiths 1997).

        So they collected old paper record and archived records and digitised them.

        And they did this in the mid 90s, which is when the station count drops away. It’s not that they deleted stations, they added them retrospectively.

        And if you read the paper you will see the familiar graph of station count, and underneath it they write:

        “The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time.”

        This was explained in 1997, 12 years before Chiefio wrote on the March of the thermometers.

        If only he’d read the source material and shared the information, he wouldn’t have caused people to “spin” (his word) his position into a claim of active deletion.

  82. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Such a polar vortex pattern in the lower stratosphere will be at work in late January in North America.
    https://i.ibb.co/J3kS2y5/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-23-104529.png

  83. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    “G = A/(1+AB)

    where G = overall gain
    A = gain of an amplifier
    B = feedback percent.”

    My maths is a bit rusty, perhaps others could critiqie my logic.

    G=A/(1+AB)
    G+GAB=A
    G=A-GAB
    G=A(1-GB)
    G/(1-GB)=A

    Applying this to global warming G is the rate of warming, 0.2C/ decade and B is climate sensitivity with a mmidrange value of 3.

    A=0.2/1-0.2*3=0.2/0.4=0.5

    The initial gain in the climate system is 0.08C/decade.

    This raises three questions.

    1) Is this a valid use of the gain formula? If not, what formula should be used to calculate gain in the climate system?

    2) Is this a reasonable estimate of the initial gain, and what proportion is due to CO2?

    3) If it is not due to CO2, can the sceptics explain the gain using other factors?

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Skeptics don’t have to explain the gain. They only have to falsify CO2. Ed Berry has. The gain is inexplicable.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…”My maths is a bit rusty, perhaps others could critiqie my logic”.

      ***

      It’s not your math, it’s you understanding of physics that is your problem.

      The A in G = A/(1 + AB), is a real amplifier that is capable of amplifying the input signal. Normally, without the feedback parameter, B, the amplification, A, with an input voltage of Vi and an output voltage of Vo, would be A = Vo/Vi. However, with B added we must modify the equation to allow for the change in the Vo/Vi factor due to B, hence the addition of G = overall gain.

      How you can apply that to the atmosphere is beyond me. Where is the amplifier?

      • Entropic man says:

        Gordon Robertson

        That’s my point. You cannot apply formulae from electronics to the physics of climate. Your “electronics englineering” is worth diddly squat in the climate debate.

        That’s why you and Stephen Anderson sound so pathetic. You have no relevant knowledge base at all.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ent…”Thats my point. You cannot apply formulae from electronics to the physics of climate”.

          ***

          Yes, you can. When alarmists steal a definition of positive feedback from physics, that requires an amplifier to make the equation viable, then it is perfectly fine to call them on it.

          There is no such thing as heat amplification in the atmosphere, or anywhere else for that matter, that involves a positive feedback with gain. The electrons PF is one of the only ones that involves such a gain.

          There are rare occasions when a natural phenomenon occurs involving positive feedback, like the one that took down the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge. That involves a natural resonance in a structure whereby the entire structure begins to vibrate and the vibration is naturally enhanced through resonance.

          In essence, the guy wires supporting the bridge deck were activated by a powerful, sustained wind, and their vibrations were transferred to the bridge deck, which oscillated on its own.

          You could experience that on an acoustic guitar if you could pluck it fast enough on a note that caused the body to resonate. However, the strings lack the power to pull the guitar apart, Not so with a bridge. A resonance that affected a guitar would be far too small to destroy the guitar but with a suspension bridge, a relatively innocuous vibration could destroy the bridge as it did with the Tacoma bridge.

          There is no equivalent process available in the atmosphere. We are talking about heat gain, so how does one increase the heat in a system in response to an input signal? The feedback signal in the AGW theory is back-radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere. It is presumed the energy back-radiated can be converted to heat in the surface, causing a feedback that causes the surface temperature to increase beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy.

          The flaw in the argument is the 2nd law. Heat simply cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface THAT WARMED IT!!! Even if it could, only about 5% of surface radiation is absorbed by CO2. Of that 5%, several percent are likely lost through the inverse square law and the fact that CO2 has to emit more laterally and upward than it can radiate down the way.

          So, out of the 5% captured by CO2, only 2%, for argument’s sake, makes it back to the surface, and that 2% is claimed to raise the surface temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy. We don’t need to refute the PF argument, common sense does it for us.

          • Swenson says:

            Gordon,

            What these SkyDragon cultists dont seem to accept, is that even if 100% of the energy emitted by the surface is somehow returned by a miracle to the surface (a physical impossibility), the best case situation is that the surface would not cool – receiving back just as much energy as it emitted.

            In fact, without an external heat source like the Sun, the surface will cool. Nighttime is an example of this.

            Four and a half billion years of history is an example over a longer period.

            The Earth cooled, and continues to do so. Ephemeral manmade waste heat will raise the temperature of thermometers, possibly on a large scale. For example, air heated by exposure to the heat from a nuclear power station may result in higher thermometer temperatures at some distance, as the heated air moves due to wind. Heated river water from a heat exchanger may travel some distance, warming air by radiation, which my be measured as having raised the temperature of distant land based thermometers.

            Due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere, it is impossible to determine the effects of waste heat released within the system in detail. In still clear air, with low humidity, radiation will rapidly proceed to space, with only thermometers directly in the line of sight being affected.

            Simple, but not amenable to calculation.

          • Entropic man says:

            “Heat simply cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface”

            Pretty well every physicist on the planet disagrees with this statement, and can provide evidence that in such a system heat can flow in both directions.

            Can you “prove” what you claim?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Entropic man says:
            ”Can you ‘prove’ what you claim?”

            Of course it would be most silly to even ask that question if you could prove yours.

            And since we are talking about cold moving to hot to warm hot more, it seems pretty reasonable that you prove it first. . . .and who agrees with you doesn’t mean squat.

          • barry says:

            “Heat simply cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface THAT WARMED IT!!!”

            But that is not what is being described as the greenhouse effect.

            If you can’t articulate what it is you object to, then you cannot possibly argue against it.

          • barry says:

            “Pretty well every physicist on the planet disagrees with this statement”

            No, every physicist agrees that a cool object cannot transfer its heat to a warmer one.

            Every physicist agrees that energy can be transferred between hot and cold objects via IR.

            The resulting temperatures is the NET balance of that exchange of energy.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            barry says:

            ” ”Heat simply cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface THAT WARMED IT!!!”

            But that is not what is being described as the greenhouse effect.
            ————————–
            Interesting!

            barry says:
            If you cant articulate what it is you object to, then you cannot possibly argue against it.
            ———————-

            I suppose you are here to articulate how it works right Barry. One cannot possibly argue against a phantom or one who changes his story every five minutes. Back a few centuries ago they burned such folks at the stake as witches.

          • barry says:

            Sure, Bill.

            GHGs influence the rate at which thermal radiation leaves the Earth’s climate system. More GHGs slow this rate.

            A system receiving continual energy input that has its rate of thermal emission slowed becomes warmer.

            Simple.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Barry says:

            ”GHGs influence the rate at which thermal radiation leaves the Earths climate system