Brian Brettschneider has me blocked on Twitter, and says it is because he is too smart.
“I do not want to hear about the 1930s. It’s very likely I know far more than you do about the 1930s.”
It is pretty easy to see why he doesn’t want to talk about the 1930s.
The ‘adjusted’ temperatures show a rise from 1940 to 2023. The raw data shows a fall. When will these idiots realize they have been rumbled. How much was he paid to produce this crap?
here’s another take. in 1940 the population of Nevada was about 100,000 which is less than one person per square mile. they probably had no more than three or four official weather stations recording the highs and lows for the day and yet the entire state of Nevada is painted red on that map. I’m also wondering why the significant rise in CO2 has led to vast cooling in Saskatchewan and Alberta???
Hey I moved to Calgary Alberta in the spring of 1980 & I am pretty cool. Think that did it???
yes! do you know oil exec. Richard Kruger?
Maybe the lack of cool guys is the main driver of global warming.
And Clint Eastwood was the last time really cool in Firefox – after that movie global warming started.
So is his argument that 1940 was way cooler than this year? Because I can find no other way to interpret his graph, other than it represents the difference between the two end points, and if it represents the two end points, then they are just two different points on the bell curve of temperature data.
A trend would have to have some factor of variability because we all know that the temperatures varied up and down over the time period and that would be difficult to show on a temperature “map”.
But I always yield to anyone who declares that they know more than I do. Surely, they must really be smart and not just an overly egotistical knot head.
And other than his frightening coloration, most of the map shows that temperatures were within a fraction of a standard deviation from each other. I would have to challenge the 4.5F difference in the Sierra Mountains, as they were mostly mild in 2023. Either that, or 1940 was very cool.
His superior intellect has produced a meaningless temperature map without any basis to determine which is more abnormal, 1940 or 2023. Was 2023 closer to the mean than 1940? And, yes, I insist that the map can only represent those two years.
Bings? Marashinos? Nankings? Queen Annes? … ?
pick the cherries which suit your taste
I was watching an archeological program recently about the ancient (BCE) “Sea People” who were forced to migrate because of caused climate change.
Caused by those damned fossil fueled chariots and raising too many sheep I reckon.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
“BC”, please.
The Good Book accurately describes the likes of Brettschneider; Prov 12:15; ‘the way of the fool is right in his own eyes’.
Brettschneider reminds me of an 11 year-old kid saying his dad can whoop your dad. Speaking of 11 year-old kids, I lucked upon a recent photo of the chap. https://w0.peakpx.com/wallpaper/136/529/HD-wallpaper-hear-no-evil-primate-monkey-ape-chimpanzee.jpg
Jim Steele posted on X today about duping of the average voting citizen. The politicians get their information from useful scientists like Brian*. Long time readers of RCS will recognize my example of how UHI affected numbers from airport reporting locations can jack up the “average” this time of year. With two siblings now living near Spokane, WA, I monitor local weather there. This morning (7/17/24) Spokane Intl. Airport (KGEG) had a pavement enhanced minimum temp of 70F. Seventeen miles south at the USCRN site (TRNW1), inside the Turnbull NWR, it reported a minimum temp of 46F. The largest difference I have ever noticed in the years comparing the two locations, and that difference heavily juices any averaging done of Spokane-area temps.
*Brian, what is going on with Lake Superior? Looks very cold.
https://x.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1813681387435905440
The whole temperature gathering system needs to be critically analyzed and cropped to the stations that are well sited. Maybe add new stations nearby the bad ones
and run parallel from a decade or so, then readjusted the bad sited past data in accordance with the new well sited station data.
No, No, No… Airport weather stations are critical for aviation safety! They are correctly suited for their primary purpose, which is to insure aircraft can perform safe take off and landing functions. Plane’s airfoils depend on the actual condition of the air, which includes temperature at the runway.
What they are not suited for is general weather or climate purposes. Those who believe we must get rid of airport weather stations are completely misguided. What must be done is to remove them from general weather and climate analyses.
Problem is, airport weather data is measured every 30-60 minutes, 24 hours a day 365 days a year and have been for many many decades. So their data is really tempting to use for general or climate purposes.
We must not lobby to remove airport weather stations, rather the goal is to have their data removed from general climate reporting and analyses.
In your example of airport reading 70F and south air being 46F: If a Boeing 737-800 were to use the 46F value in it’s weight/balance/takeoff calculations – it would end up either over running the runway before lifting off, or lift off prematurely and [aerodynamically] stall after rotating and crash into an area near the departure end of the runway! The physics of lift on it’s wings do not give a crap about your 46F temp south of the airport, only the air temperature and density on the runway matters! (the plane can take off with air at 46F, but can take substantially more weight and less runway to do so. So if you load up the plane and assume you can use the short runway at KGEG, but the air temperature is 70F, “Houston, we have a problem”)
Yes, all the concrete and asphalt make the temps at an airport higher, but that is where the magic of airfoil lift takes place, hence the higher temperature (and lower density) air over the runway is of supreme importance to flying safely.
Agree 100% about the necessity of locating airport AWOS near runways for aviation use. If my post implies pilots use USCRN info from 17 miles away, I regret that. My now retired P-3/DC-10/B767 pilot brother-in-law would have objected strenuously. (I previously worked for an Army National Guard aviation unit at KGEG.) But if that site is part of the USHCN (or predecessor/successor collection) it is “juicing” climate records. Which is then waved in front of us as the need to build more windmills, or eat bugs, etc. Another somewhat separate issue, airports now are often moved well away from the metro areas they nominally represent. Spokane and SeaTac (Seattle) are examples of that.
Of course, if they are necessary to use for aircraft, it would be idiotic to remove them, and no one would. BUT it is also idiotic to use them for climate information, unless modified to reflect the heat island factor. Just because a station is no longer included in the climate information, does not mean it has no use and must be removed.
Why wouldn’t you put temperature sensors in the wings, BTW?
They are on the nose or forward fuselage in fact (OAT Outside Air Temperature sensors for airliners). But the actual temperature on the ground is important for both flight planning purposes (always done away from the plane) and for landing aircraft, which set up the landing configuration info often one hundred miles out.
You don’t want to devise your flight plan, and how many passengers and freight you can take in the crew office, then get to the plane to find out it’s 10 deg hotter than you planned for and have to take 2-3 tons less gross weight than your plan called for….
And the OAT as measured by the plane’s sensors is also important during flight, for identifying icing conditions. (you turn on anti ice systems if the OAT is +10 C or below when flying into visible precipitation – i.e. clouds)
He calls himself…he/him and a Mooseologist. That’s all I needed to know he was a BLOWHARD!