Sea Ice Extent (Global Antarctic and Arctic) – Day 108 – 2018


A new analysis of Global Land Daily temperature data

From Clive Best: A new analysis of Global Land Daily temperature data

This post describes my attempt to reproduce global temperatures from scratch. By scratch I mean using all the original  raw temperature measurements from the NCDC daily weather archive without adjustments.

The largest accessible archive of raw temperature measurements is the NCDC Daily Archive. It consists of 3 billion measurements from 106,000 weather stations starting in 1763. I have used all this data to calculate global temperature anomalies without any corrections and without  discarding any data except where flagged as duplicates.

The method I use is based on Icosahedral grids which has the advantage of being equal areas on the earth’s surface The connections to each grid point form hexagons like those on a football. I am using a 2562 node grid, for details see: Icosahedral Binning. distribution for December 1980. These are the average anomalies formed from all stations within each grid cell. All cells are of equal area across the earth’s surface. I calculate the grid location numbers for all 106,000 stations. Those stations which share the same grid location are assumed to follow the same climate. I can then calculate the normal monthly temperatures for each grid point as being the average over all member stations for that month covering the 30 year period  from 1961-1990, which  is the same normalisation period as that used by HADCRUT4.

The advantage of this normalisation method is that afterwards I can use it as a reference to derive temperature anomalies over the grid cell irather than for all stations individually. This means I can use every recorded station temperature covering any time period because early stations ending before 1960 and newer ones starting after 1990 can still be included due to their contribution to the average temperature in each cell. All 3 billion temperature measurements can therefore be processed. However, unlike all other studies,  I am using no adjustments or any homogenisation. So these results are based on the raw temperatures  as originally recorded, which  are illuminating.

Clearly before 1950 temperatures are much higher than any other index, including Berkeley which also uses data back to 1750. The reasons are as follows.

  1. There are only 2 or 3 stations recording temperatures back to 1750 and these are all in central Europe, however some CET stations are missing before about 1830. The number and area covered gradually grows as corresponding temperature anomalies  reduce until around 1830 when a few US & Australian stations begin to appear.
  2. The spike from 1875 to 1895 is a sudden influx of US stations. This triples the spatial coverage and so dominates the global average. Exactly why the spike appears and then disappears 15 years later is unclear to me. However  pre-industrial temperatures depend critically on any adjustments made to US stations. My results show that the raw data disagrees strongly with CRUTEM4, GISS and NCDC itself. Interestingly though Berkeley sees a hint of  the same trends before 1850.

Berkeley however use a completely different method, and the data is after adjustments and homogenisation have be applied. After 1950 the agreement with CRUTEM4 is rather good comparison to CRUTEM4. After 1950 the agreement is good.

Adjustments and homogenisation make only small differences to the result after 1960. However these have always increased slightly net annual warming land. Note also that the raw data implies higher average temperatures for the early 20th century.


The raw data apparently show much higher temperatures before 1950 than other datasets. Is this due to the normalisation method? Well maybe it is. If you just have one station within a grid cell, as is the case before 1850, that the anomaly relative to the many stations average in 1985 may be biased. However I wanted to use all temperature data even those without coverage in the normalisation period. In general though I believe the raw data show higher mean temperatures than the ‘corrected’ data.

I was surprised to discover just how important the US stations are in setting the pre-industrial temperature baseline, as evident by the large spike in 1880. This is because the US surface area is much larger than northern Europe, the only other location with significant coverage. Consequently USHCN corrections, which have been discussed many times before, are critical to determining how much the earth has warmed since the 19th century.

Finally here is an animation of all the monthly distributions from 1868 onwards. The couple of stripes appearing around 1919 are cells which span the dateline which I later corrected !

Processing this data takes around 30 hours of iMac computer time but takes  far more time writing the algorithm and debugging it !


An interesting plot twist – call it an anomaly

And read the comment by Tim Ball regarding his interaction with Hubert Lamb.

Watts Up With That?

We’ve covered this topic before, but it is always good to mention in again. Howard Goodall asks this on Twitter:

“Ever wondered why climate scientists use anomalies instead of temperatures? 100 years of catastrophic warming in central England has the answer.”

He provides a link to the Central England Temperature data at the Met Office and a plot made from that data, which just happens to be in absolute degrees C as opposed to the usual anomaly plot:

Now compare that to the anomaly based plot for the same data from the Met Office:

The CET anomaly data is here, format example here.

Goodall has a point, that without using anomalies and magnified scales, it would be difficult to detect “climate change”.

For example, annual global mean NASA GISS temperature data displayed as an anomaly plot:



Now here is the same data, through…

View original post 516 more words

Alarmists Fret, while Farmers Adapt

Science Matters

This latest alarm is about the eastward shift of the above climate zone boundary, which historically was located upon the 100th meridian. The narrative by alarmists is along the lines of “OMG, we are screwed because drylands are replacing wetlands. There goes our food supply.” Some of the story headlines are these:

As World Warms, America’s Invisible ‘Climate Curtain’ Creeps East

The arid US midwest just crept 140 miles east thanks to climate change

America’s Arid West Is Invading the Fertile East

A major climate boundary in the central U.S. has shifted 140 miles due to global warming

From USA Today

Both population and development are sparse west of the 100th meridian, where farms are larger and primarily depend on arid-resistant crops like wheat, the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies said. To the more humid east, more people and infrastructure exist. Farms are smaller and a large portion…

View original post 1,123 more words

ANTARCTICA : It’s Time We Had That Talk


Ross Ice Shelf - ANTARCTICA (popular mechanics)The Ross Ice Shelf is Freezing, Not Melting. Which Is Weird | Popular Mechanics

IT’S time for “the talk.” You know, the one we’ve been putting off because it’s “inconvenient”. That end-of-life conversation…

YEP! Antarctica, the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

2015 NASA Study

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 6.43.58 am.pngNASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA

Guardian Report 2015

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 7.12.50 am.pngWhy is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming? | Environment | The Guardian

2017 Study

Antartica 2017 Ice mass gain study.png

From the abstract:

Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level…

View original post 1,527 more words

HOW BAD IS THE GOVERNMENT’S SCIENCE? (It’s worse than we thought.)

Watts Up With That?

From the National Association of Scholars via an article in the Wall Street Journal.

Policy makers often cite research to justify their rules, but many of those studies wouldn’t replicate

Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim in 2005. Since then, researchers have confirmed his skepticism by trying—and often failing—to reproduce many influential journal articles. Slowly, scientists are internalizing the lessons of this irreproducibility crisis. But what about government, which has been making policy for generations without confirming that the science behind it is valid?

The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing…

View original post 651 more words

Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

Science Matters

Source :NOAA

Blaming global warming on humans comes down to two assertions:

Rising CO2 in the atmosphere causes earth’s surface temperature to rise.

Humans burning fossil fuels cause rising atmospheric CO2.

For this post I will not address the first premise, instead refer the reader to a previous article referencing Fred Singer. He noted that greenhouse gas theory presumes surface warming arises because heat is forced to escape at a higher, colder altitude. In fact, temperatures in the tropopause do not change with altitude (“pause”), and in the stratosphere temperatures increase with altitude. That post also includes the “meat” of the brief submitted to Judge Alsup’s court by Happer, Koonin and Lindzen, which questions CO2 driving global warming in the face of other more powerful factors. See Courtroom Climate Science

The focus in this piece is the claim that fossil fuel emissions drive observed rising CO2 concentrations. IPCC consensus scientists…

View original post 2,142 more words

It appears Solar Cycle 25 has begun – Solar cycle 24 one of the shortest and weakest ever

Watts Up With That?

Evidence of a Cycle 25 sunspot found

In our previous post: Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball, 

Our resident solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard commented and provided a link to something reported by his colleagues, something that likely would not have been possible without the fantastic solar observations of NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observeratory (SDO). He said:

Cycle 25 has already begun

It looks to me that SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24, so probably no Grand Minimum this time
(ignore the 2014 in the top line – it is just a place holder).

It seems a small sunspot has been observed, that has the opposite polarity of cycle 24 sunspots.

From the first link at Berkeley, Tomek Mrozek and Hugh Hudson write:

This brief Nugget simply announces that YES, we really have seen Cycle 25 [sunspot activity]. An earlier Nugget hinted at…

View original post 426 more words

More evidence that it’s COLD not WARMTH that hurts humanity

Watts Up With That?

From the UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI and the “after the Roman Warm Period” department

Unusual climate during Roman times plunged Eurasia into hunger and disease

A recent study published in an esteemed academic journal indicates that volcanic eruptions in the mid 500s resulted in an unusually gloomy and cold period. A joint research project of the Chronology Laboratory of the Finnish Museum of Natural History and Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) suggests that the years 536 and 541-544 CE were very difficult for many people.

An extended period of little light may make it difficult for humans to survive. The level of production of plants is dependent on the amount of available sunlight. Food production, i.e, farming and animal husbandry, rely on the same solar energy. Humans, meanwhile, become more prone to disease if they are not exposed to enough sunlight to produce vitamin D.

“Our research shows that the climate anomaly…

View original post 801 more words

Steve Amstrup is lying to the media about my critique of his 2007 model


Until now, my scientific paper post at PeerJ Preprints for review, about the failure of Steve Amstrup’s 2007 USGS polar bear survival model (Crockford 2017), has been formally ignored by Amstrup and his colleagues. But now Amstrup and his colleagues have taken to lying to the media about my analysis because he can’t refute it in a scholarly manner.

Mother with cubs Russia_shutterstock_71694292_web size

Amstrup was quoted by Erica Goode in her New York Times article on the Harvey et al. (2018) BioScienceattack paperpublished Tuesday (10 April 2018: “Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back”):

“Dr. Amstrup, however, said that according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the average September sea ice extent for the years 2007 to 2017 was 4.5 million square kilometers, “nowhere near the low levels projected it would be by the middle of the century.”

“To say that we already should have…

View original post 1,141 more words