When it's winter, yes.

Just because some of us are suffering through a particularly cold and snowy winter doesn’t refute the fact that the globe is warming as we continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001.

My data of complete cases for absolute temperatures:

Article Extraction of the global absolute temperature for Northern H...

Please take care for the data used in order to make serious inferences...

weather is NOT climate

Ken

As always you clip something and alos write "we are told":

A scientist presents references instead of clippings

Other desinformation: Where is the cooling since 1998

Climate cannot cool startingat a given year: climate is the average over a longer period and climate chnage can only be judged from a moving average

By the way did you miss 2015 2016 and 2017? Perhaps you do not that these are the warmest on record, as even deniers like dr Spencer and Antony Whatts agree upon

Oh modern gods of science, we have lost our common sense of logic.

I copy a common motto:

" If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. "

So, if it is extremely cold, then probably we face cooling and not warming...

Ken

It is very difficult to project weather extremes becasue when such an event occurs it means once a year and for statistics this means at decades for a reasonable statistics. THIS is what every climatologist ackowledges. Therefore do not read your usual pulp media, including Nat Geographic

Dear all ,

If we study the Extreme Value Distribution for minimum and maximum global temperature in Northern Hemisphere, see Section 4 in:

Article Extraction of the global absolute temperature for Northern H...

we will see that:

"... We found that according to GEV limitations we are waiting an upper bound of 23.868 C for the average of maximum yearly temperatures, which is greater than the expected value by 3.106 C. For the cases of minima, the upper bound was found to be -1.103 C, greater than expected value by 2.371 C. Thus we keep in our mind that a temperature change of ~ +3 C above mean values is expected to be a statistical limitation, based on two centuries data analysis."

I remind that mean values for ectrema are

• for maxima = 20.762 C
• for minima = =3.474 C

Additionally I copy from next 'terrifying' report:

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2017-set-be-top-three-hottest-years-record-breaking-extreme-weather

"... Global mean temperature for the period January to September 2017 was 0.47°±0.08°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average (estimated at 14.31°C)."

So we terrify people and plan $bn projects in order to fight a 'big' increase of 0.5 C° which -as EV analysis has shown- is much less than the +3 C° statistically expected from 200 years data.

By the way the number 14.31°C is not correct.

If we use the complete data cases of publication for 1981-2010 we'll find a value of:

• avg=9.31 °C

That is 5 °C less than the reported one.

(Keep in mind that northern hemisphere is supposed to be warmer than southern one.)

So we deal with:

• Non reliable data (excess use of non complete data)
• Anomaly presentation instead of absolute temperatures (you can never find the base temperature in those reports! coincidence?)
• Presentation in °F which always gives larger differences (I remind that dF = 9/5*dC, so for dC=1 it is reported a dF=1.8 )
• No serious Extreme Value analysis

Sorry, again it is one more Big Project like LIGO, CERN and other favorite ones of our times...

PS In Greece we pay a large amount of money in every electric bill for "special tax air emissions" - the CO2 tax...

Ken

Again disinformation.

1. There is no absolute global temperature

2. You use a newspaper and a popular magazien as references but denounce the science of Climate Change as given in the IPCC-report AR5 of Workgroup1 compiled by hundreds of climatologists?

The definition of temperature:

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

In next lesson we'll present more info...

Step by step...

Ken:

We've been over this again and again: A GLOBAL absolute temperature is not defined only the ANOMALY:

read the literature once. From THE denier:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

https://moyhu.blogspot.nl/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

"cold temperature"

Cold is the presence of low température (0°C), but "How to take a temperature correctly and knowing when it's important to call the doctor?"

See references:

temperature - How are hot and cold defined? - Chemistry Stack Exchange

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/.../how-are-hot-and-cold-defi...

Ken

Every climatologist uses anomalies and you obviously have your own ideas. Fine but do not spread this disinformation and for once READ one of the studies on the reason why ANOMALIES are used at the MEASURING SITES

Here again for the nth time

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Ken

and, as a start for further reading

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

I am fine with labeling Kenneth's unsourced clippings misinformation.

Kenneth,

With respect, I am not sure what point you are making. Can you boil it down clearly for me?

Do you trust the science? Do you think humans are contributing to climate change? Will reducing CO2 emissions help, in your opinion?

-Michael-

Ken:

Why don't you read what you cite:

"The average annual temperature of the globe is ABOUT 59 deg. F (15 deg. C). That value can be added to global anomalies to approximate absolute temperatures."

Why don't you STUDY the link that I will provide again

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

Ken

Who are the all of us that rely on absolute temperatures for CLIMATE CHANGE?

"World Weather Records"??? Even Spencer and Nick Stokes use the usual databases as every normal climatologist does:

HADCRUT etc

Ken

You just do not accept that Climate Change is associated with CLIMATE and not with a few data points scttered around the world

BTW how did Darwin calibrate his thermometer?

Dear Kenneth,

I am afraid that my processed data

Article Extraction of the global absolute temperature for Northern H...

have more stations than those of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) that you have presented some days before.

My data have: 586+3405+ 896 = 4887 stations instead of 167+2643+626= 3436 from GISS and they are complete cases without imputation. Look their distribution here:

Data DTChristopoulos 2014 Stations North Hemisphere

The "tuning" of temperature records is not a mystery. Since the data is presented in a time series, the series are adjusted when new data is added, because the new estimates affect the ways the series are constructed (e.g., if this were an ARIMA model, for example, the addition of new data points affects the trend in the series). Since new data are added in two ways (new stations are added, and NOAA suggests that 1,200 new data entries are made a month), these change the series and the estimations. Some of those measures add new station data over time, since as new data is added, station data covering omitted stations can be included once a sufficient number of observations from a station have been collected.

Moreover, reports of temperature at some stations are not all taken at the same time of day, which affects the temperature reading. So, one of the adjustments is for time of day of measurement.

When station measuring devises are assessed, sometimes it is discovered that the equipment is mis-calibrated, and so a correction is applied. Seems like sounds scientific method to take these issues into account.

There are other adjustments. Those are explained here, and linked to the raw and adjusted data provided. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

Dear Kenneth,

I have already answered in a previous post that:

If we use the complete data cases of my publication for 1981-2010 we'll find a value of:

• avg=9.31 °C

That is 5 °C less than the reported one of 14.31 °C in a terrifying report I mentioned before.

I think 5 degree of Celsius is an enormous difference...

PS Since you are more familiar than me in NOAA and NASA data sets, could you please provide me their 1981-2000 average temperature of Northern Hemisphere in °C?

Thank you

Ken

1. You answer your own questions:

The global absolute temperature has to be interpolated

The anomaly is in the first plabe cthe average of the differences at the stations

2. ANSWER how Darwin calibrated

3. People do not appreciate THE temperature that is why there is the

WIND-CHILL have once a look at for instance for New Year's eve:

http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KNYC.html

means it was bitter cold becasue of the gusts

or HEAT-INDEX

Dear Kenneth,

".. NASA/GISS doesn't provide those data? "

Unfortunately I was not able to find them!

Sorry, maybe I am a miss-qualified researcher...!

Can somebody in this thread provide me with next simple number:

• Northern Hemisphere all stations included average absolute temperature of period 1981-2010?

I thank from now the brave research who will answer!

Ken

You deliberately spread your own disinformation

Anomalies are accurate in hundredths of degrees. NOT the "absolute temperatures"

STUDY the scientific links I give you here again

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Leave climatoloy to the climatologists

Some replies....it’s a long one.

#1, the hottest year from 1895-1950 was not 1921 as indicated above (by Kenneth a few posts up, but he used a copied clip noting the dates 1886-1944 for the data range), but if you look at the long term temperature chart from the link that follows, it was 1934. So, on this point we need to “adjust” the data being used in this discussion. Here's a nice graph. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/ytd/12/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2015&trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017

And, if you want to know more about ranking US years by temperature, I recommend this Guttorp, Peter, and Tae Yen Kim. "Uncertainty in ranking the hottest years of US surface temperatures." Journal of Climate 26, no. 17 (2013): 6323-6328.

# 2, to reject climate science findings, Kenneth often argues in many posts that small decimal points changes in temperature are rather meaningless (and in part, as Harry noted, the decimal are a function of averaging data across many measures, so, as we would all know, even if the beginning temperatures were all whole numbers their average could have decimal places). But here, when discussing whether NOAA adjusts past temperatures, Kenneth now makes the opposite claim – that some small change in the temperature made by NOAA in one year affects whether or not you find a climate change effect. Ignoring the inconsistency in those two arguments about small temperature changes (see # 3 below for more), it is unlikely that a small change in a temperature reading in one year changes the trend of a 122 year time series. But, you could do an experiment, and take the unadjusted NOAA data and correlate it with the adjusted data. Or you could take the NOAA data, and just play around by changing the value in the year (whether its 1921 or 1934) by a small amount and see what happens when you compared experimentally adjusted and raw data trends. Now, just to make your life simple, I did this, and changed the 1921 value by a “good amount” (1 degree since you don’t like decimal places), and examined the correlation between the 1 degree adjusted series and the unadjusted series, and they are similar.....r = .9956, s.e., 0.09. Moreover, you can also look at the correlation between each temperature series and time, and again, you don’t see much difference – the correlation changes by about 1.2% across the two series of data. This could also be done using ARIMA and other moving average estimates (using common 3 yr MA, and 30 yr MA reflecting climate model suggestions), which I did, but they are more difficult to explain, and essential show the same outcome. Now, I didn’t use anomalies, but absolute temperature since part of Kenneth’s argument is about absolute temperature, and, besides, this is a post in a discussion, and not an article for review – and you would need the full set of observations from all the stations for the anomalies – and really, the results wouldn’t be very different anyway in terms of the relationship between the two different series of temperature measures.

# 3 Somewhere previously, Kenneth suggested that the one degree change in temperature over time (I forget what year was used as the example for the beginning of the series of temperature data, and this could well be something from another post in a different question, but its relevant), wasn’t very much, and we should ignore it. Well, that’s not really true in relation to scale of measures, and also to substantive distinctions between temperatures and their effects. If the mean temperature is, for example, 54 degrees F, and you have a long term trend where the deviation in temperature ranges from + 3.26 degrees to -1.96 degrees, as it does in the aggregated 1895 to 2016 temperature series for the US, then 1 degree is proportionately a lot of change -- its 1 degree relative to the 5.22 degree range of change in the data. Also, in terms of scale, we could measure 1 degree change against the mean (say, for example, it was 54 degrees), which percentage wise is a much smaller change, but that would be questionable since the range of temperatures used to construct the mean doesn’t include the entire 54 degree range that is possible in an absolute measure of temperature. Second, there are substantive issues related to 1 degree temperature change, which I probably don’t need to review for a scientist, but, nevertheless here is an example. Water, at normal atmospheric conditions, freezes at 32 degrees F. Water at 33 degrees does not. The 1 degree change in temperature causes a change in the physical state of the water. So, here one degree change is pretty important, wouldn’t you say?

#4 Its hard to believe this is a conspiracy (in crime terms, we could call it a fraud). Why? Well, consider that there isn’t just US data on temperature, but global temperature measures made by scientists around the world in different countries. Was there a big huddle and they all (the thousands of people taking these measurements) agreed to engage in a systematic fraud? And why? What would be the motive or purpose for all these people to agree to engage in a conspiracy to change temperature measurements? Now, I have previously written about evidence on the opposite issue – doing nothing bout climate change during the GW Bush Administration --

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225789568_Global_warming_and_state-corporate_crime_The_politicalization_of_global_warming_under_the_Bush_administration

where there is evidence of a conspiracy to prevent changes in US energy and climate policy linked to officials in government who have a connection to the oil industry.

Dear Kenneth,

Then we talk about total unreliable data from NOAA/NASA, since they report values too large. ( +5.52 °C is already a great difference).

It would be interesting for those giant institutes to report their quality indices of data used.

They can find such definitions in my paper.

Otherwise, threatening people with fake numbers is at least a ridiculous practice.

Dear all,

Is there any one in this thread that can provide me next 'ultra top secret number':

• Northern Hemisphere all stations included average absolute temperature of period 1981-2010?

If not, then please stop dealing with those issues...

Demetris:

Did you try this source . . .

• Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month: TXT, CSV

on this page: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Yes dear Michael,

I checked it and decided not to spend a whole morning trying to find the answer.

So, please if you have a clear link share it!

Thank you.

PS1 As you see they build their ''anomalies creation' on foundations that cannot be traced...

PS2 My only finding was:

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2017-set-be-top-three-hottest-years-record-breaking-extreme-weather

but they report Earth as a sphere only:

"... Global mean temperature for the period January to September 2017 was 0.47°±0.08°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average (estimated at 14.31°C). "

Even that is exactly +5°C greater than my -complete cases, no imputation used- computation of 9.31°C...)

Yeah..! That's right.. during winters, there may be a chance/possibility..

The description of the NOAA procedure is published here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/smith-et-al-2008.pdf

NOAA summary page on the data, with links to specific information is here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Did you look at the available CRU datasets?

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The northern hemisphere set is here: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-nh.dat

These data show the anomalies, and the percent of the surface area covered by 5 degree by 5 degree grids.

Dear Michael,

If it was supposed to derive by myself the answer, then I wouldn't ask it: I'd rather write another paper.

So, I repeat it for any else who is concerned to answer:

• Which is the Northern Hemisphere all stations included average absolute temperature of period 1981-2010 for NOAA/NASA data sets?

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for your answer about the period 1880-2000.

I'll compare it with mine data and return back.

But a 13.9 °C seems to me too large...

Dear friends,

The use of my data sets provided in publication:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.03.009

that are:

for the period 1880-2000 and Northern Hemisphere gave next result for average annual absolute temperature:

• 9.726 °C

Sorry but values like 13.9 °C for same time interval are too large.

Probably they have used their lovely method of imputation...

Cold weather is a function of the climatology of regions globally.

Variability in wealth and climate regionally as evidences that situation is changing and mitigation is required. That is why the future of farming is climate smart agriculture and Big Data.

Global warming is not a fact. No one can prove it. The ones who insist in saying this are earning nothing else but money.

Cimatology comes after solar and geological effects that IPCC researches refuse to take into account.

North Pole ice is Melting. But South Pole ice is growing.

If you look decently at geological past periods you will clearly see that CO2 GLOBAL CONCENTRATION ALWAYS INCREASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE AFTER AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE and not the other way round. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS VERY SIMPLE. Almost 4000 submerse volcanos mostly active.

I will not be surprised if in a few years they start saying we are going to a mini glacial era.

Due to the expansion of human activities following the industrial revolution and the excessive greenhouse gas emissions, the phenomenon of global warming has taken place.

There is a huge difference between cold weather and cold climate!

Following

I have already said my answers, but you do not care about them at all. Ken, you still did not answer my question. What is the difference between "weather" and "climate"?

What do you want to say Ken??? Willing to say that global warming has not happened? The air is colder?? Even my father always tells us how hot the air is!

You want to say "one degree Celsius increase in air temperature" is insignificant! This air temperature rise has changed the Earth's hydrological cycle.

Some experts says yes, because earth tries to equalize the excess heat through ice thawing and that will lead to drop in temperatures.

Please also have a look at this link.

https://orca.cf.ac.uk/55262/1/Capstick%20Pidgeon%20public%20perceptions%20cold%20weather%20Clim%20Change.pdf

Global warming has happened many times in the past ......................Oh my God..Ken you make others mistake. You give wrong information. Obviously, air was never so warm before. This did not happened over the past thousand years. Did you see the hockey stick graph? Which is the result of many researchers. Scientists and the IPCC confirmed this. You can not deny it. You should not misleading others.

Ken

You must be corrected here also

Before 1960 the increase in CO2 levels could not have affected the global temperature because it was not significant

As for instance argued by Vaughn Pratt the pre-1960 30-year variation in temperature is a natural variation and therefore he uses a 60 years as the standard for a climate period

But you refuse(d) to read the appropriate science

My weak education.?? Ken You do not know anything about my education. You're talking so badly. I do not wanna response you. Where is the reference of the subject you wrote??????? Who approves this content????? I'm talking with reason and evidence, But your words do not have any valid references. You just put some clipped pictures that it is not clear where did you bring it.

Ken

You apparently do not even bother to read back your own clipping:

What the hell does thios mean

and what about a reference to an outdated clipping apparently of Jim Hansen

1. About what?

2. What is it we should guess

It is becoming a shame

And re Vaughn Pratt: you wrote to him; but you do not give us information on what. So we do not know why he did not answer. When you just sent him an one of your unreadable clippings I understand why he does not answer.

Ken

1. You apparently never hears of SCIENCE

I do not add something of my own; why and what should I

There are 100s of experts who have summarised current scientific knowledge; I constantly refer to that

What makes you think you know better and what did you add of your own that is of any scientific meaning?

2. What me worry about DRY ice; I referred you to Pratt's analysis of global temperature INCREASE versus the log-increase of CO2 with a sliding average of 59 years. The reference here again:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

PS Dry ice. I used it to cool my photomultiplier

Ken

CO2 accelerating? No way, or when you know better then show us YOUR CO2 data!

Ken

For the last time READ what the 59 years mean instead of coming with another completely obsolete clipping

Agree with Harry ten Brink

regards

Read Pratt's analysis instead of nagging about dry ice

Reference again:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/clim60.jpg

Ken

The figure shows the global temperature as a 59-year moving average

versus the logarithm of the CO2-concentration

According to basic climatology the relation between temperature and CO2 (increase) should be linear

The value can then be extrapolated for a doubling of CO2

A last urgent advice to you: READ once a contemporary discussion on warming

Ken

1. Are you kidding? Arrhenius made a back of the envelope guess after realising that CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation. Pratt here uses DATA. IN a century data have become available. Issue is how much does temperature increase with the feedbacks in the system.

2. Are you kidding to compare Earth eons ago with current-day Earth?

We are now in the anthropocene

with unprecedentedly increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (not only CO2)

The climate change is more complex from cold to hot which lead to rise temperature.

Ken

Proves again you have no idea about the 59 years:

It is NOT 59 years back but the climate period used for relating CO2 and global temperature

Briefly: 59 years is the period for the moving/sliding average

READ Pratt's analysis, instead of jotting down nonsense here over and over again

In the last 50 years for the land domains, there has been a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and evidently, there exists an increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights...Decreases in the annual occurrence of cold days and increases in hot days, while widespread, are generally less marked. The distribution of minimum and maximum temperatures have not only shifted to higher values, consistent with overall warming, but the cold extremes have warmed more than the warm extremes over the last 50 years.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html

Ken

And yes the analysis of Pratt is back to the 19th century: READ it for once and notice the change in the curve before and after ~1960

And about Christopoulos: don't make us laugh

Ken

SHOW me where I "have been complaining for years about skeptics in "denial" preventing action on the unprecedented warming"

This is pure slander you always accuse others of re you

It shows you are out of scientific arguments and turn to ad hominem

I do not advice you anymore to study real science, becasue that is apparently too hard for you

Ken

You really think you are a genius yourself about all aspects of climate change

I ask you What are YOUR real strong points in this area? Or does it suffice to have your opinion over everything that you happen to come across