Every so often someone will post a link to an anonymous website that purports to show recent global temperatures. It doesn’t.
This data doesn’t look any other data set - either from weather stations, reanalyses, satellites, radiosondes, or argo floats, etc.
Nominally the data purports to be some kind of running average of weather station anomalies updated continuously as new data are posted.
While not an obviously terrible idea, there are lots of pitfalls - area weighting, etc. but you could do this properly if you wanted.
What I think they are doing though is just adding new data in and taking an average without any allowance for where the data are from or biases in that distribution. That would never work.
Of course, no one has a clue what they are actually doing; no public code, no publication.
But I think they haven’t even coded their own algorithm properly. Notice the very rapid oscillations at the beginning of the series that die away over time? No actual climate time series looks like that.
It’s what happens when you take averages over longer & longer periods tho…
My guess is that they are just putting new data into a summation and dividing by an ever larger ‘n’ - so that each new bit of data is progressively less influential.
Needless to say this gives you no useful information about ongoing temperature changes. 🤷
Feel free to judge folks who push this nonsense accordingly.
PS. I’ll happily correct any of this if someone can post a link to the code.
I have thoughts about scientists ‘debating’ contrarians, conspiracists and assorted bad faith actors (or authors).
For reference, I speak w/25 years experience of being a ‘public’ climate scientist…
Over that time I’ve appeared on multiple platforms (TV in studio/remote, radio, stage, panels, etc), with almost every high profile sceptic or do-nothing-er you can name.
These interactions have ranged from the incomprehensible (literally ppl talking over you the whole time)…
…to the pointless, & from the net negative to the moderately successful.
I’ve done formal debates and informal debates. I’ve. been sandbagged by unethical hosts who lied about other guests or formats, & walked into events that were stacked against the science from the get-go.
Also new from @NASAGoddard SVS, a rather disorientating video exploring different map projections of the globe:
Disappointed that they don't have my go-to projection for global maps, the Equal Earth projection (similar to Robinson, but equal area):
Or possibly the weirdest projection that has ever been used on a postage stamp, the van der Grinten projection, used on the Byrd Antarctic Expedition USPS stamp in 1933:
#Elniño is trending for obvious reasons, but let me inject a note of caution...
The conventional wisdom pays attention to the ENSO forecasts collated at IRI, which come in two flavors, dynamical and statistical. iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/…
The initialized dynamical forecasts project a very strong El Niño in the fall/winter this year (Nino3.4 > 1.5). However, the statistical models are far less bullish (predicting Nino3.4 < 0.5). The consensus forecast splits the difference more or less. But that's a big spread!
I was once asked by someone prominent in the tech/internet area whether there was anything to the his critiques of climate change mitigation. I said no, but I could tell he really wanted me to say yes. Lomborg's shtick is definitely appealing. But why?
The release of Lomborg's 'new' book (which appears to be the same as all his previous books) is a reasonable point to dive in:
The overall thesis is that [if we only had limited resources and a short time frame] we should focus all our efforts tackling acute crises in developing countries.
Now, the implicit part of the argument in [...] is rarely stated and not actually true. So that's an issue!
One of the most-read posts at @RealClimate is a description of the CO2 problem in six easy steps from 2007. In the subsequent fifteen years, there's more data, evolution of some details and concepts and better graphics. So time for an update! realclimate.org/index.php/arch…
Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.
Roughly 158 W/m2 of longwave energy emitted from the surface of the Earth is absorbed in the atmosphere.
Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect
Direct observations from space show clearly the impacts of CO2, O3 and water vapour in the emitted longwave radiation.
This claim that ‘IPCC needs 30 yrs to detect changes’ is nonsense. Conceivably someone said it(?) but basically all detection work relies on single to noise ratios which, depending on the variable & size of the signal,can lead to detection over much shorter or much longer periods
For instance, we can statistically detect the impact of a big volcanic eruption in stratospheric temperatures in months! But we can only detect the influence of orbital forcing over millennia.
The ‘30 year’ period is related to the concept of climate normals - basically how much weather should you integrate over to define the climatology, and is a reasonable estimate for mid-latitude surface weather, say. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatolo…