text:
Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
Climate data NCDC NOAA records Weather
Guest essay by Joseph D'Aleo, CCM
Last month was the hottest June since record keeping began in 1880, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said Monday. It marked the third month in a row that global temperature reached a record high. According to the NOAA data, April and May were also global record-breakers. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was record high for the month at 16.22 degrees Celsius, or 0.72 degree Celsius above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees Celsius,' the NOAA said in its monthly climate report. "This surpasses the previous record, set in 2010, by 0.03 degrees Celsius.".
Nine of the ten hottest Junes on record have all occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years, the U.S. agency said.
However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data, with a major cooling of the past and allowance for UHI contamination in recent decades. The all time record highs and days over 90F tell us we have been in a cyclical pattern with 1930s as the warmest decade.
NOAA and NASA (which uses data gathered by NOAA climate center in Asheville) has been commissioned to participate in special climate assessments to support the idealogical and political agenda of the government. From Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.
The National Climate Data Center and NASA climate group also control the data that is used to verify these models which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. At the very least, their decisions and adjustments may be because they really believe in their models and work to find the warming they show – a form of confirmation bias.
Please note: This is not an indictment of all of NOAA where NWS forecasters do a yeoman's job providing forecasts and warnings for public safety.
NCEP gathers real time data that is used to run the models. When we take the initial analyses that go into the models and compute monthly anomalies, we get very small departures from normal for the 1981 to 2010 base period on a monthly or year to date basis.
The satellite data from RSS and UAH only available since 1979 also shows no warming for over a decade (two in the RSS data). It needs no adjustments that NOAA claims are required for station and ocean data.
This government manipulation of data may be simply a follow up to the successful manipulation of other government data that has largely escaped heavy public scrutiny.
Over the last 12 months, the CPI has increased 2.1%. Real inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. The BLS U6 measure, the total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force is 12.1%.
CPI is used to adjust social security benefits and military pay and to a large degree as one factor in industry wages. if you are feeling you are falling behind, it is because the real costs of goods and services have risen more than any income or benefits you receive. That is why the GDP actually fell early this year – between the high cost of energy and food, the discretionary income for spending retail and in restaurants fell.
Unemployment fell to 6.1% according to the government but the real unemployment is much higher. Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. Using the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job.
The sad news is if NOAA keeps providing the government with tainted data to justify its EPA assault on our country's only reliable energy sources, inflation will skyrocket and unemployment will follow.
The DDP Conference
Analysis of Temperature Change using World Class Stations
njsnowfan
NO!!
But UHI is real and needs to be accounted for.
There has been warming for half a century so warmer temperatures now are not unexpected.
So, what evidence do you have that the adjustments are politically motivated and not reasonable?
And are you an Australian psychologist based in Bristol?
Paul Homewood
When the margin of error is taken account of, statistically May was only one of an eight-way tie.
Furthermore, the NCDC global map shows just how little of the Earth's surface is being measured.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/noaas-hottest-month-claims-are-unscientific/
Such claims are simply unscientific and politically motivated.
Line 2 is from a previous paragraph.
Bruce Cobb
Of course we should trust them; they're the "experts".
Thank you for pointing out the difference between the people working in the field offices vs. the politically pressured people working in the data centers. I would say fully one third of the day to day forecasters are skeptical of AGW claims, and a majority are at least open minded on the subject.
Jaakko Kateenkorva
A quick glance of the maps and the intense heat seems to linger in sparsely inhabited areas, such as Siberia, Sahara, Himalayas, Alps, Nunavut, Northern Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador, Amazon, Andes, Kalahari, Gobi, open oceans and the poles. Taking UHI and the human CO2 emission sources into consideration it's paradoxical to say the least. How come CO2 need to travel so far before it starts warming? Or perhaps the problem is elsewhere?
dbstealey
TMF (@TMF42)
Very poor article – there is plenty of room to be skeptical about statistical adjustments, but saying that NCEP needs no adjustments and equating it to CPI and the U6 numbers (which are by definition cooked) – is just as politically biased as it accuses NOAA figures to be.
John W. Garrett
What does "NCEP" stand for?
John W. Garrett says:
http://www.ncep.noaa.gov/
ATheoK
"Should you trust NOAA…?"
__ll No!
Yes the weather side of NOAA heroically performs daily, hourly, minute by minute weather service. I still look outside to identify my place in the weather.
However, all of NOAA dealing with climate prognostications under the Gavinator do not appear to be working for the public nor for the good of the public. They do appear to be eager shills for eco and political hacks. There must be a lot of damp shoe leather in that hierarchy.
Otherwise, some stolid honest researcher in NOAA would be blowing a whistle. What is really puzzling is why there is not a group of whistle blowers. Especially as ATF employees are far more honest and ethical than the supposedly pure scientists, scientists who are apparently content to watch years of legitimate research destroyed in the name of eco-fear and tax burdens.
Notanist
Its been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Using a long-term natural trend to justify a political agenda might have worked if the Alarmists hadn't hijacked the scientific process to support their catastrophism. History will not be kind to them.
ShrNfr
I still think they should find the SCMAS tapes from Nimbus F and process them. That would bring the sat record back to 1973 or so. SCAMS who flew on Nimbus F was a reasonably good 5 channel instrument and the precursor to the AMSU. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2jAzrIpMIUYJ:nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do%3Fid%3D1975-052A-10+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
philjourdan
Perhaps the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) should be changed to "Anthropogenic Adjusted Global Warming" (AAGW). All the warming is now from Man(n) made adjustments.
The Expulsive
Of course you can trust the government…ask the Cherokee
Farmer Gez
Just checked our nearest local BOM weather station for June averages but found that its readings are an amalgam of a site 40 kilometres to the Southeast and another site 100 kilometres to the Northeast in a completely different climate zone. Hardly worth taking the averages for June seriously.
R Taylor
I'm sure that the NOAA numbers are right but they are in Hansen units (Hansens, named after the eminent scientist who discovered a whole new way to measure temperature), not degrees C.
Should I trust the NOAA's numbers? Maybe not, but I certainly would not trust the shadow government statistics website numbers either. John Williams' calculations and methodology are more sketchy and secretive than the government, and seem only to exist to scare you into buying a subscription to his premium service.
The TTFI (Things That Flower Index) says otherwise here in southern New York. Flowering is much belated this year.
ossqss
Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, unemployment would be well over 9%.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/nonfarm-payrolls-288000-unemployment.html
CD (@CD153)
I presume that the temperature data gathered by these organizations qualifies as official U.S. government data. If so, is there not a federal law against altering, manipulating or tampering with government data and records in ways that cannot be scientifically or otherwise justified?
If a law (or laws) are being broken here, I guess one is entitled to be exempt from it/them when the data fudging is being done to "save the planet" and wage ware on those "evil" fossil fuels that have made our lives easier and better. Apparently, when you are a CAGW crusader, you are entitled to break the law or have others break the law as long as you are in government.
Isn't it interesting when the nation's laws only apply to those of us outside of government?
pochas
Once a scam like this gets started, it's hard to stop. Too many dependents. Too many political debts. There just is no "Oops!"
Bob Tisdale
I left a similar comment over at Pierre Gosselin's NoTrickZone a couple of days ago.
Keep in mind that the NCEP CFSR.v2 is a reanalysis (the output of a computer model) and not data. There are few actual measurements of marine air temperature, so the air temperatures 2 meters above the oceans (70% of the surface) are computer-generated estimates in the NCEP CFSR.v2 reanalysis. They may be based on sea surface temperatures, but they are not actual readings of marine air temperature. And we also have to keep in mind that there are numerous other reanalyses. If all of the reanalyses disagreed with the actual global surface temperature data, then the surface temperature data might be suspect. The fact that one reanalysis disagrees with the data doesn't tell us much of anything.
Off topic: The very preliminary monthly NINO3.4 region SSTa are below the threshold of El Nino conditions and the weekly NINO3.4 data are only +0.08 deg C for last week.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/very-very-preliminary-july-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
Coach Springer
No way is the anomaly positive for my area, but that's what the map shows. This is propaganda – and it's dishonest.
We are now coming up on seven years since I first became aware temperatures were being "adjusted." It was August 7, 2007. http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
I hit the roof and used several F-words, including the one that rhymes with "odd." I was told not to be so hot-headed. I actually have learned a lot about keeping my temper, in the last seven years, however my original suspicions seem vindicated.
Over the years I have noticed a phenomenon among those who break certain codes of civilized behavior. They do not do it once and then leave it alone. They return-to-the-scene-of-the-crime and do the same thing, only to a greater degree. (If they took $10.00 the first time, it is $100.00 the second time, and $1000.00 the third time, and so on.) Finally their misbehavior becomes so glaring that even those indulgent people inclined to turn a blind eye simply have to say something. It is almost is the person wants to be caught.
If we haven't reached that point yet, we'll reach it this winter when people in New England have their power shut off and are freezing. However for me the dishonesty long ago surpassed the word "flagrant."
The swede
During JUNE here in Sweden we had colder weather than normal according to the swedish meteorology institute.
http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.37957!w4_juni14.pdf
so Sweden should be blue on the NOAA map but its shown as hotter ( red/pink ) than normal which it absolutely wasn't . So no , NOAA is not showing an image corresponding with reality.
"This surpasses the previous record, set in 2010, by 0.03 degrees Celsius."
In the real world however, that type of accuracy is very difficult to achieve even for a defined sample in a strictly controlled ISO 17025 laboratory environment. The difficulty is not necessarily due to the instrumentation or calibration, but the surroundings. The temperature varies as a function of time, location, pressure, humidity etc and is messed up by someone opening the door, walking into the room, exhaling etc.
Therefore, declaring accuracy of hundredth of a degree turns into a joke even in those circumstances. Let alone, if the measurand is the whole Earth and the instrument is hovering somewhere well over 300 kilometers away.
Lake Superior had the longest period of ice cover in the satellite era this summer, and Michigan is shown with above normal temperatures?
Joseph D'Aleo says,
201406[1]
The first statement is illustrated with a map of global temps for June 2014. The second statement is illustrated by, and appears to refer to, a chart of temps from the US Midwest.
Why the switch between global and US? If you are going to refute a NOAA assertion about global temps, you need to use global temp data.
Similarly, many people have commented that this year and June – July have been the coolest (well, less hot in the latter case) here in Madrid, Spain, for many years, This is consistent with the ncep maps shown above, and with others I have seen showing cooler than average western areas of Europe. Yet it is showing pink on the NOAA / GHCN chart for June (also above).
As a sanity check, I zoomed in on the above map for Lake Superior, and in May and June it was running 3 to 4 C behind normal. From another surface temperatures graph:
http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php?lk=s&yr=0
it looks about right, at least for the lakes. Shorelines influenced by the lakes, I'm not sure. Lake Superior temperatures are really lagging at the moment, 10C behind recent years.
Allan MacRae
May and June in Calgary were pleasant, but not unusually hot,
We had a cold, hard winter, but the central and eastern parts of the continent had much colder weather..
July has in general been nice. Thank God for that.
I still suggest we are heading into a global cooling phase. Hope to be wrong about that…
"Getting old and hate the cold."
Probably not, with a 95% confidence level, although rounded off to the nearest descriptive ("Hell Yes" on one end to "Hell No" on the other), there is a 97% consensus of "Hell No" based on a non-disclosed method of analysis of blogs discussing NOAA claims.
As a disclaimer, this writer agrees with some of the posters here that the answer is "NO". I did not accept the "Hell No" reply since I believe that we should keep the Hell out of non-scientific responses.
/grin
latecommer2014
I have lived in the same house in" small town central California " for thirty years and have kept daily temp and rh numbers. This May and June are defiantly not the warmist I have recorded.
My official weather comes from the local airport site surrounded by concrete runways and is always 2 to 4 deg F than mine. Surface temp as reported by NOAA are NOT accurate or reliable.
Sorry I looked at the wrong map, the top NOAA temperature departure map shows Lake Superior only about 1 or 2C below average. They failed my sanity check.
Gary Pearse
Certainly N. America isn't contributing its share – things are pretty blue this summer:
http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/tempcity_nat_640x480.jpg
Here in Ottawa, July feels like September, some days a bit cool for September. At some point, sceptics are going to have to get into the data collection business – Col. Sanders can't be allowed to continue to look after our chickens. Were getting back extra crispy.
Rod Everson
Yes, 41% of the "working age" population is not working. But that calculation includes my mother, who is in her high 80's, and every other aged retired person in the U.S. who isn't institutionalized.
The 41% converts into the so-called 90+ million working age Americans who are without a job, an equally senseless metric that has gained popularity only recently. Let's stick to numbers that make sense. They're bad enough to make the point that the economy has performed miserably the past five years.
I think we would all agree that the poorly sited ground stations need some adjustment. However, if after the adjustments, the result doesn't agree well with other measuring systems, perhaps either further adjustment or a re-adjustment would be in order.
Maybe even providing the methodologies being used for the adjustments to others for analysis would be helpful.
That is, assuming the purpose is to "get it right".
The unemployment numbers reported by the Labor Department are not filtered, in-filled, or otherwise manipulated, and they are not retro-actively adjusted. Furthermore, the calculation methodology has not been changed in decades – the headline number is calculated as follows:
[# of people looking for work] / [# of people working + # of people looking for work].
In the monthly report, the raw number is reported, as well as a seasonally-adjusted number.
Yes. the labor force participation rate has decreased considerably in recent years, and that is an important issue for our economy. But that doesn't make the reported unemployment number invalid or misleading.
Likewise, the methodologies used by BLS for calculating the various inflation statistics are simple, clearly explained, and reproducible. They also have not changed in a number of years. More importantly, CPI numbers can be checked against other, independently-determined measures of inflation – the GDP deflator for example, to insure that they are unbiased and accurate.
To compare the CPI and unemployment data to the unholy mess made by NOAA, GISS, and other climate agencies is not reasonable or sensible. These agencies have engaged in constant revisions, they conceal or distort their adjustment mechanisms, and importantly, their resulting time series do not compare well to independently-determined temperature measures.
I'm afraid that by bringing in unrelated arguments about which Mr. D'Aleo knows little, he is risking his credibility in discussing those climate and measurement issues in which he is an expert.
Dermot O'Logical
If you say "No", then you're ascribing either incompetence or malice (or possibly both) to the NOAA. All claims of No without clarification need [citation required] tags.
For my part, I haven't seen an independent review of how the adjustments are made. If no-one qualified has done such a review then I'm leaning to the "No" front on the "malice" track, because not publishing that information means they aren't doing Science.
References to such a review putting me straight gratefully received.
… total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $165 Billion
No wonder the record shows it's warming. They paid enough for it to wiggle its trunk.
The truth is that the heat is pushed to far to the north. Due to changes in ozone (solar activity) during the winter in the north will be reverse swing.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/mspps/np_images/amsua_ts_des.gif
How would you know?….
Even NOAA has said the temperature history is crap and has to be adjusted………
Trusting NOAA unconditionally is not science. Accept their statement as their best effort but not necessarily correct and then verify it. That is the scientific method, not an example of being judgmental.
Pamela Gray
Without a color signifying average range the data will appear upon presentation to be biased. Any statistician skilled at data presentation will admit that.
A difference of plus or minus .5 from 0 anomaly seems to me to be well worth designating as showing no change. Particularly in light of the unreported but likely large reanalysis error margin.
Just a side note related to my observation of the grids. I sure would like to get my hands on that code. I wonder if the smearing technique smears warmer temperatures further out than it does colder temperatures.
PeterB in Indianapolis
The vast majority of days in June in my area were 10 to 15 degrees (F) BELOW NORMAL (about 5 to 7 degrees C below normal) for the month of June, and yet the NOAA output shows my region as having a positive anomaly.
Ridiculous.
Ren is very onto something there… gotta say it.
Let's see vast areas of cloudiness in the south. There arrives a little solar energy.
http://www.sat24.com/image2.ashx?region=world&time=false&index=1
goldminor
Since Unisys stopped publishing their sst and ssta charts, I had to switch to other sources. I now look at the daily NOAA, Weather Zone, and Tropical Tidbits ssta maps. This has been educational. Tropical Tidbits and Weather Zone are the best of the group. NOAA uses too much red and the oceans are ablaze with the overwhelming red. The other two sources have great resolution as compared to the NOAA data. NOAA shows the oceans anomalies as being warmer than either of the other sources. Then with their heavy handed use of red, which overwhelms the eye, detail in the oceans is obscured and set ablaze.
Unisys has started producing ssta info again, hat tip to ren. The main reason why I liked Unisys so much is that they use a borderless east /west on their chart, so that I can tile the pic onto my desktop and see a seamless picture of the globe. Unisys does not have the higher resolution of Weather Zone or Tropical Tidbits, though.
Barbee
And politics are to blame-in 2014 everything is political. Political lies.
MattN
I am really, really tired of them fudging the numbers and lying to me about the temperature.
So, no, I do not trust a US government agency to tell me what the real temperature actually is.
http://www.sat24.com/world.aspx
Jaye Bass
If it shows anything other than cooler than usual for the Southeastern US, it's gotta be wrong.
*unusual
*usual
This is the winter in the south.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
Whether one should trust the possible June 2014 record temperatures is not a big issue in my opinion . An isolated monthly record in one season only is not significant in a background of declining global temperatures even if the temperature was correct .
Annual Contiguous US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998. This is happening in 7 of the 9 climate regions in United States. Only the Northeast and the West both of which receive the moderating effect of the oceans, had slight warming trend of 0.2 and 0.3 F/decade respectively. Theses 16 year annual temperature declines illustrate that despite any summer warming , the cooling during winter , spring and fall offsets any summer warming resulting in the annual temperature declines . It shows that the problem is not global warming at all but global cooling. The rate of winter cooling is 3.7 times greater than the rate of summer warming, clearly showing that the years are cooling more than they are warming.
Winter temperatures in United States have had a cooling trend for 17 years at about -1.78 F/ decade according to NCDC/NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data. In United States, 8 out 12 months of the year are cooling. Only March, June and July are still warming
The winter temperatures in United States were colder in every region except the West and the long term trend since 1998 is that winters are getting colder. Overall, for United States the past winter was the 34th coldest since 1895. North America is experiencing a cold cycle currently like they had 1895-1920 and again 1955-1979 and hence I see this cooler pattern to continue for several decades. These events have nothing to do with global warming or man's influence.
Not only have winters been getting cooler since 1998 in Contiguous US [48 states] and Canada, but winters have been getting colder for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and for the Globe as a whole. Global Annual land temperature trend has been declining since 2005 at- 0.6C/decade. Winter global land temperatures have been declining at -0.2C /decade. Northern Hemisphere winter temperature trend has been declining at -0.34C/decade.
Why are winter temperatures so important? Because very cold winters lead to cold spring and cold summers and lower the annual temperature as we are seeing this year. This has led to 17 year pause in the rise of global temperatures and will lead to 2-3 decades more of colder global temperatures due to cooling ocean cycles and currents
Jeff Alberts
Since there is no global temperature, I can't trust this article either, it seems.
Bill Taylor
before i read anything other than the first part on the first page…….0.03 higher?????we do NOT have instruments capable of that much accuracy in arriving at a single number and calling it the earths temperature…..the confounders among the gathering devices would cause a LARGE margin of error alone…….they are making ridiculous claims that science does NOT BACK on any level.
qam1
@ herkimer – "Whether one should trust the possible June 2014 record temperatures is not a big issue in my opinion ."
It's a huge issue
1) Apparently the NOAA (and others) have got the orders to end the pause. If NOAA claims 2014 is the hottest year ever, all we will hear in the press is how the pause is over and how the skeptics were wrong and how they are justified for needing more $$$$$.
2) If they are manipulating the temps now, they will continue to do so in the future. We can return to Little Ice ages temps and it won't matter, they will just "make the" data show the world is still heating up and make us continue to brake more & more heat records.
Gary Pearse says:
I also noticed the scent of fall in the air this last week. It had been very hot here in Northern California prior to that. Now the evenings have started cooling down below 60 F again. The heat is broken.
Robert W Turner
It's obvious we can't trust them by the clear biases they exhibit and the constant propaganda in their press releases. I mean, why else would we mistrust and even doubt the competency of the agency that tells us last summer was going to be a very active hurricane season or that last winter was going to be mild?
R. Shearer
Yes, government collected and generated statistics are subject to political manipulation. I think most people would agree that such manipulation is increasing, for example double booking at the VA. The BLS uses sampling methodology for its birth/death model to make seasonal adjustments, etc., and then there is the exclusion of energy and food prices from core CPI. D'Aleo raising such issues has some validity.
Richard Greene
The comments on unemployment data are not relevant, are misleading, and distract from the useful information on temperature adjustments.
The employment data comments were intended to scare people into not trusting their government, but are a bad example — if employment data were the ONLY thing you knew about the US government, then you would be inclined to trust the government.
Yes, there are an unusually large percentage of people not officially in the labor force.
The data do not try to hide that.
Yes, total employment including self-employed today is still lower than in November 2007 just before the recession began — the data dow not try to hide that either.
We have been in the weakest rebound from a recession in American history.
In comparison, the 1929 recession was followed by the strongest rebound ever — it lasted four years before another recession started, with Real GDP averaging over +10% a year for those four years (compared with an anemic +1.6%/year average Real GDP growth since 4Q 2008).
My primary interest is economics, but I researched and wrote an article about global warming in my last ECONOMIC LOGIC newsletter.
Based on my research, more CO2 in the air is good news for green plants and agriculture, as most greenhouse owners already know.
Warming is also good news, especially if it is mainly over the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere during winter nights, as measured by satellites since 1979.
And only a liar would focus on surface temperatures in the post 1978-era of weather satellites, since surface measurements are inaccurate, non-global, frequently "adjusted", and 1800s-era thermometers consistently read low.
The fact that "climate astrologers" (AKA warmists, or science deniers) love surface data, and often pretend weather balloons and weather satellites don't exist, is simple: They can't repeatedly "adjust" 1930s data to be cooler because there were no satellites in the 1930s!
The frequently changing methodologies used to measure sea temperature in the past century could not possibly be accurate — some sailor throwing a bucket in the water and sticking a thermometer in the bucket is accurate?
The real debate should be why data from the various satellites don't match, whether or not their data are accurate enough to estimate the average surface temperature, and whether the average surface temperature would be a meaningful statistic if the data were accurate.
It's hard for me to demonize CO2 after finding out that several glaciations took place with up to 20X more CO2 in the air than today — there is obviously no CO2 – average temperature correlation in Earth's history.
If logic and accurate data from excellent websites such as this one eventually "ruin" the global warming "crisis", the leftists will simply invent another "crisis" that will require — surprise, surprise — that everyone does exactly as they say without question.
For 50 years the "greens" have predicted one environmental catastrophe after another to get attention, funding, and tell everyone else how to live.
They previously predicted catastrophes from fluoride, DDT, topsoil loss, AIDS, peak oil, ozone holes, SARS, mad cow disease, acid rain, ocean acidification, and even silicone breast implants.
Every prediction has been wrong.
Michael D
People who only read headlines must think that the average temperature is just zooming up. Yet there has been no average warming at all in the lifetime of young people now entering university.
phwest
Please ditch the Shadowstats nonsense, it weakens your argument. Accepting the Shadowstats methodology, the current CPI would be something over 800, (meaning prices are 8x the 1980 level) rather than the low 200s in the official figures. Having started my working life at the begining of that period, I can assure you the idea that the government has somehow underreported inflation by a factor of 4 is absurd. You can't maintain a steady bias in a stat that compunds without it becoming painfully obvious over a 30+ year time period, particularly not 5% a year.
What the Shadowstats data shows is the the pre-1980 methodology was clearly flawed. Not exactly the analogy I think you mean to make.
ONLY FOOLS "trust" government that is the basic concept of the founders of this nation……..the "eternal vigilance" required for liberty is watching the GOVERNMENT……they considered government a necessary EVIL.
Steven Kopits
What is "90 degree days"? Is it days with max temperatures of 90 deg? Days with temps in the 90s? Days with high temps in the 90s? All days with temps of at least 90 deg? I see the text, but is that the imputed definition, or the actual definition from the creator of the graph?
from memory gasoline was less than a dollar a gallon in 1980 so indeed on that item inflation has been 4 times that price……..in fact i paid less than a dollar a gallon when we first moved to bama in 1989.
If I presented a chart showing the S&P 500 stock market average starting just after the March 2009 bull market began, through today, I could point to that chart and claim "stock prices ALWAYS go up!"!
Of course a smart investor would realize my chart only presented one bull market portion of a total bull + bear market cycle — so my claim was meaningless.
Similarly, compiling averages of surface temperature measurements began AFTER a warming trend started in the mid-1800s.
It is NORMAL to expect new highs during this "bull market" of the average temperature.
That doesn't mean the "bull market" of rising average temperatures will continue forever (in fact, the" bull market" may have already ended a decade ago when the rising average temperature trend "paused").
It's true average temperature is not a "market", but this subject is certainly full of bull (not at this website, of course).
Herkimer specifically and to the point. Congratulations.
qam1 says:
I see your point but I think that they just get more publicity for their news clipping if we focus on the credibility issue only .In my opinion we should also point out more the insignificance of this warm June temperature and not just any possible incorrectness . NOAA are the first to say that we need a thirty year period to demonstrate global warming trends . One month in one season is not earth shattering nor indicative of global warming trend when the background trend over the last 17 years is one of no warming at all and where any summer warming is much less than the impact of steady winter , spring and fall cooling as we see in North America and especially in United States . It is like focusing on a warm day in the middle of a cold winter . It is nice when we have it but not at indicative of any long term warming. They are grasping at straws
Max Hugoson
Even though I'm "conservative" in my political leanings, I will point out …in this regard –
"Yes, 41% of the "working age" population is not working. But that calculation includes my mother, who is in her high 80′s, and every other aged retired person in the U.S. who isn't institutionalized.
This comment is "spot on". What we have here is a "serious failure to communicate". CHECK THE CIA FACT BOOK. Sweden has about 37% of their total working age adult population (18 to 65 ) working.
If you include the children, it means that 27% (or about 3.5 million) of the PEOPLE (dogs don't work) in Sweden support the other 73%
It is actually an incredible statistic that at 59% of working age adults ARE working in the USA.
That translates to 59/37 = > 160% of Sweden's number. WE ARE AN INCREDIBLY DRIVEN SOCIETY WITH PEOPLE WILLING TO WORK AND WORKING!
So, yes, I find the current "ruling elite" on the east coast, reprehensible, and damaging. But they will "fade", and the dynamic of this country will win out. To quote Adam Clayton Powell (who, by the way, supported Richard Nixon against Kennedy, because he knew both men, and he personally "liked" RMN, …indicating he wasn't a robot party loyalist..) "Keep the FAITH BABY!" Congressman Powell, you really did say something profound with that.
Wayne Delbeke
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe but look what is just beyond their coverage.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Unisys – very nice maps but the repeating colour scheme is a bit confusing, Maybe I need to look at it some more.
Odd that "Iceberg Alley" around Newfoundland shows a warm anomaly, maybe the ice melt went into that cool pool to the east. Thing is, there are still icebergs breaking up put there …
The WoodForTrees Index (WFTI) should be the standard. It simply averages the 4 main temp indexes. So, biases or drifts in one data set has minimal impact.
The WFTI is not near a high and is flat since Dec 2000.
Skeptics are also guilty by cherry-picking their favorite index (right now UAH) and saying the "earth hasn't warmed in 17 3/4 years". True …but the more robust WFTI puts that figure at 13+ years instead of 17+.
WFTI data is here…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2004/to:2014/plot/wti/from:2004/to:2014/trend
Jumbofoot
And just to muddy things a bit more… How secure is NOAA data?
http://touch.nextgov.com/nextgov/#!/entry/hacker-breached-noaa-satellite-data-from-contractors-pc,53d658eee56d0bb85364490a
"As I have blogged about before, there is a correlation between the SSM/I cloud water and the CERES net radiative flux variations, so the recent elevated cloud water amounts lead to less sunlight entering the oceans, which is consistent with the recent hiatus in warming."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/SSMI-cloud-water-thru-Jun14.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/07/june-2014-update-of-ssmi-ocean-products/
Since NOAA is now politically driven to comply with demands of its Master in the White House, then, no, I do not believe anything it says.
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern.
policycritic
NOAA forecast highs are now consistently 5 to 10 degrees higher than reality for where I live, and have been for the past four months. I use weatherspark.com's Dashboard (visual) to check for rain. I can choose the Norwegian Meterological Institute database as well, and it is always closer to what it is.
James Abbott
So the reaction to a record warm (if only slightly) monthly report from one of the major global temperature recording organisations is …"data manipulation".
Yet when we see cold months reported – just about anywhere, anytime by anyone – we don't hear those accusations of data manipulation – because such reports fit the sceptic narrative.
"Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?" is a poorly written article with no serious evidence to back up the headline. It is cherry picking of the worst order and uses irrelevant comparisons with economic data.
Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.
Joe D'Aleo, the artificially high price of gas is the culprit. No different than what happened in the last half of the 70s. The price of gas affects everything from the cost of food to transportation, and everything we're not buying (able to afford) because we need to pay to get to work (outside of subway/bike-friendly cities).
High unemployment means no income, therefore no spending, therefore no sales. Prices fall during times of high unemployment. Unless there is a cost price reason. Right now, inflation according to FRED is under target, under 2%. It's the price of oil that's causing any inflationary bump. And this administration is doing exactly ZIP about it.
James Abbott says:
You obviously are unaware of the discussions on this for the past few months by people using the official databases, and comparing them with data downloaded and preserved from the same sources over the past two decades. This article is not a heads-up. It is one of many.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2014_v5.png
pokerguy
Inflation rate of 9.6 sounds like a fantasy. I don't trust anybody's numbers.
Even sadder is green progressives have several women with very large chances of being the next POTUS. Conservatives have only a mention or two of ladies to be VP choices. Nobody else has a woman contender… and it's getting later in the game all the time. I could be wrong but the next POTUS will probably be a woman.
That is the point: cold months are under-reported! And that is the data manipulation. You cannot see what everyone else here sees.
"Yet when we see cold months reported "
I rarely see any cold temperatures reported or highlighted like the warm ones are by NOAA. Have you?
James the Elder
Richard Greene says:
No need to guess, unless you don't trust the government stats:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
All the numbers you could want.
James Strom
yam says:
Is this a real index or just a bit of whimsy? An index of plants' growth phases could provide a really accurate guide to temperature trends, better even than satellites. On the other hand there would be ample opportunity for mischief in keeping a formal index.
(I searched for TTFI and got the Table Tennis Federation of India.)
pokerguy says:
nflation rate of 9.6 sounds like a fantasy. I don't trust anybody's numbers.
I trust my wallet. In the last 8+/- years, fuel has doubled, milk has nearly doubled, my ice cream has gone from $2.79 a half gallon to $6.79 for now three pints and no matter how much I cut back, electricity keeps going up. The game is that if you downsize a product, but keep the price where it was previously, there is no inflation to mention. The inflation "basket" leaves out many volatile items, energy being the major deletion. I can't post any real stats; only observations. I do know that in my particular case, I have less liquidity every year over the previous and 9.6% is not out of the realm of possibility.
rogerknights
policycritic says:
The price of gas affects everything from the cost of food to transportation, and everything we're not buying (able to afford) because we need to pay to get to work (outside of subway/bike-friendly cities).
I remember that 60 years ago the price of a subway ride in NYC was a dime. The last I've read (I've moved) it's over $1.50.
Richard Green: maybe you should know what you are talking about before opening mouth.
The greens do not give a shite about the fact that out of 200 countries in the world, America is one of only 7 misguided and English speaking countries (wonder why english speakers are so stupid?) that puts a dangerous neurotoxin in the drinking water ( see Lancet, The Great Fluoride Deception). The Greens and Leftists have ignored the issue for 60 years. They put out propaganda accusing anyone who mentions fluoride of being a John Bircher. Fluoride has been proven to lower the iQ's of infants and children. It's time for Amerians to wake up. Israel's Supreme Court just prohibited fluordation as criminally dangerous medicating of a population without asking them permission. No wonder so many conditions like ADD after 60 years of brain poisoning.
James, if you really believe there is not data manipulation going on, then you are totally credulous and not worth engaging.
more soylent green!
Rod Everson says:
The working age is generally considered to be ages 20-65. Unless you're making up your own definitions or you unintentionally misstated your mother's age, then your mother is well past the working age.
david dohbro
it continues to baffle me that NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) uses ground-based stations and not satellite data to compute global atmospheric temperatures… There's nothing Aeronautic or Space in that.. Ask anybody if they know what method NASA uses and most will say they think NASA uses satellites… "buzzzzzz, wrong".
If you had access to this data as NOAA does . what would you be telling the public ? Would you be telling the public there is a major global warming problem in United States and use the JUNE data as an example .. Or would you alert the public that there has been a climate trend taking place the last 16-17 years toward declining temperatures generally and almost during every season except the summer and especially would you warn the public about the significant winter cooling that is happening? To me it is not so much what they are telling us or manipulating but what they should tell us but are not telling us . The public is watching this and see that there is a disconnect between what NOAA is telling and what they are experiencing . The past winter was a perfect example
WINTER (-1.79 F/DECADE) – DECLINING
DEC -1.22 F/decade (declining)
JAN -1.52 F (declining)
FEB -2.77 F (declining)
SPRING (-0.06 F/DECADE)- DECLINING
MAR +0.57 F (rising) but.dropped 10 degrees F since 2012 alone
APR -0.28 F (declining)
MAY -0.47 F (declining)
SUMMER (+0.48 F/ DECADE)-RISING
JUN +1.02 F( rising)
JUL +0.25 F (rising)
AUG -0.01 F( flat)
FALL( -0.44 F/DECADE)-DECLINING
SEPT +0.06 F (flat)
OCT -0.61 F (declining)
NOV -0.76 F (declining)
ANNUAL(-0.36 F/DECADE)-DECLINING
more soylent green! says:
No; BLS counts everybody not working or minimally working as unemployed. Young, old, whomever. So roughly two people pulling the cart and one in it.
I guess NOAA forgot to mention that YTD (until June) "Temperature: 0.1°F below average – coldest start to year since 1996." and that "Cool in the East – 13 states had a top 10 cold start to the year." source :
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/briefings/sotc-briefing-201406.pdf (slide 4)
You can find all monthly climate briefings here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/briefings/
Now I can see clearly why the occurrence of higher than normal (average) altitudes, seems to happen up in the mountainous regions, and when you get to the top of a mountain, you are surrounded mostly by high altitudes.
Weird, ain't it ??
rogerknights says:
It's over that now. 😉 $2.75 I think. Still cheaper than having to drive 30 miles to work.
"""""…..Ed Martin says:
And you can bet your bottom dollar, that about ten years from right now, we will have supposedly thinking individuals, pleading:
Well I voted for her in 2016, and I voted to re-elect her in 2020, but I never expected that "this" would happen.
Well it must be good to say, you were a part of history, and helped do something that had never been done before.
But that's why some folks have a motto:
" Never Again !! "
Have nothing at all against voting for a Woman POTUS.
I would have voted for the late Dame Margaret Thatcher.
Actually couldn't have done that; can't do this either. But y'alls go out and be part of " herstory".
Jaakko Kateenkorva says:
"In the real world however, that type of accuracy is very difficult to achieve even for a defined sample in a strictly controlled ISO 17025 laboratory environment. "
Correct, however the 0.03 degree C number is not a measurement, it is an average.
The accuracy is dependent on the number of observations, not on the accuracy of any particular one.
Bill Taylor says:
" we do NOT have instruments capable of that much accuracy in arriving at a single number and calling it the earths temperature…"
I'll remind you of an old formula from statistics.
Standard Error = Standard Deviation / square root (number of obs)
As the number of obs increases the SE decreases.
The anomaly is not a temperature reading, it is the result of a statistical caluclation.
James Strom,
'Things That Flower Index' was whimsical but the point I would make is serious. Flowering plants have been quite late to flower and there must be some reason for that. I was hoping that other people had taken note of what is happening in their areas.
Reply to yam
"'Things That Flower Index' was whimsical but the point I would make is serious. "
I enjoy logging when things bloom around here every year but the 'Things That Flower Index' has the same issues as thermometers….namely urban heat island.
In Washington DC, I remember hearing how the cherry trees bloom earlier now that back in the day. But they are seriously affected by the UHI which has grown substantially in Washington, DC.
KRJ Pietersen
Betteridge's Law of Headlines states that "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered without further ado by the word 'no'".
Reply to KRJ Pietersen
@KRJ Pietersen – Back in 68/69 I was selling papers to Marines at Camp Pendleton at the staging area for Vietnam. One day the headline read "Out of Vietnam in 1970?". I sold out in 10 minutes.
The rest as they say is history.
MJW
chuck says: The accuracy is dependent on the number of observations, not on the accuracy of any particular one.
While the accuracy of averaged measurements which have been rounded or truncated to a given precision is complicated, what you say isn't true in general. Suppose temperature measurements are rounded to the nearest degree, and the actual temperatures are uniformly distributed between 70.5 and 71. How many observations would be required to get within 0.1 degree of the true average of 70.75?
Walter Dnes
I'm working on a post about USHCN adjustments, that'll be out soon. I still want to do some sanity checking because it looks so bad. The preliminary numbers I have show that USHCN's adjustment to 2014 is .07 of a degree higher than the corresponding adjustment for 2010. Now *THAT* is what I call "man-made global warming".
MJW says:
"How many observations would be required to get within 0.1 degree of the true average of 70.75?"
0.1 = (SD) / square root(obs)
square root(obs) = (SD) / 0.1
obs = ( (SD) / 0.1 ) **2
SD = square root ( 71 -70.5) **2 / 12 ) = 0.145
obs = 2.88……rounded to 3
For example…..the three readings could be 70, 71 and 71
The average is 70.666…… which falls into the range of 70.65 thru 70.85
nickreality65
NOAA the VA of climate science.
James the Elder says:
That's not what BLS says:
What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
Working age does not appear to be a factor*, that is, if somebody is in the 80's and meets the criteria of unemployed above, they are included. The comment I was responding to included "working age," a term that does not usually include somebody in their 80's. So a person can be unemployed and be beyond working age — that we can agree on.
*However, the use of working age in determining who is or is not in the labor force may be a factor used by BLS, I just didn't find it and I'm not spending more time Googling it. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Gerald Machnee
The last map has the Arctic all red while the Danish Met has the Arctic below normal for over two months in the Ice web site. Yep, something is fishy.
kenin
ok, first of all… that's a half truth. They really only provide forecasts for "PERSONS". Ya know, its a liability thing for those internal to the government. Anyways, i won't go into detail- it may take all year.
Also, why are both sides of the debate constantly trying to prove themselves with so-called data; when the real issue is the on going manipulation of the atmosphere by private corporations for other corporations.
Whether or not its cooling or warming-there is no debate!!!. Why? because its not mother nature doing the work anymore. Man keeps poking and proding, all the while distracting us from the real truth- CHEMTRAILS. (pardon me for lack of a better term) How come both sides of this debate refuse to talk about CHEMTRAILS/GEO-ENGINEERING? WHY??????
please read the following and focus on the section under INTERPRETATION and the definition of "weather modification activity"
oops here it is.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-5/page-1.html
Doug Proctor
Increasing the data observations to increase the accuracy:
This requires the measurement of the SAME phenomenon by the same equipment. Even the same temperature station doesn't measure the same God-created, absolute true-temperature each day. The error of today is not helped by the error of tomorrow.
As each day the temp is different, each event is separate. A thousand measurements of a thousand slightly different temperatures cannot be square-rooted to get an increase in accuracy. This is especially so for the ARGO data: the floats test the temp in different places each time. You are not zeroing in on one phenomenon.
It is like shooting at a moving target to determine it's shape: you aren't circling around a stationary, static point, getting by number of shots closer to defining the shape of the thing. Your chances of hitting the thing that's moving are exactly the same the 100th time as the first (unless you change your technique of leading, which is the same as changing your temperature measurement technique to a better one).
chuck says: For example…..the three readings could be 70, 71 and 71
The average is 70.666…… which falls into the range of 70.65 thru 70.85.
If all the actual temperatures are between 70.5 and 71, and rounded to the nearest degree, all the rounded values will be 71. So the average of the rounded temperatures will be 71 no matter how many observations are made.
chuck you didnt address my point we do NOT have the precision in gathering the information to arrive at the 0.03 accuracy they claim to be able to do…i understand the math involved, but MY point is combined the math margin of error and the CONFOUNDING factors of gathering the temps to be used in the math render the precision claimed as i said NOT possible.
" all the rounded to the nearest degree will be 71."
If the actual temperature is 70.5, a thermometer accurate to the nearest degree can read this i as 70, 0r 71, and in fact half the time it will read it as 70, and half the time as 71.
"render the precision claimed as i said NOT possible."
Please remember the 0.03 number is not a measurement of a physical quantity. It is the calculated average of a set of numbers. When you calculate an average the denominator has perfect "precision" The sum of the measured quantities has an assumed normal distribution with stated error bounds. The more numbers in that sum, the smaller the error bounds are in the Standard Error.
chuck: Not true.
If the actual temperature is 70.5, a thermometer accurate to the nearest degree can read this as 70, 0r 71, and in fact half the time it will read it as 70, and half the time as 71.
Why must I assume that thermometers that read to the nearest degree randomly select between the lower or higher value in proportion to the distance within that range, so that a temperature of 70.9 would read 70 a tenth of the time? I doubt that any thermometers behave that way, but even if some do, suppose, instead, I have a thermometer that always reads 70 for temperatures less than 70.4, 71 for temperatures greater than 70.6 degrees, and 70 or 71 for temperatures between 70.4 and 70.6 degrees, in proportion to the distance within that range. A thermometer certainly could behave that way, and if it did, my example, modified so the temperatures are between 70.6 and 70.9, would still produce an average of 71 for the temperature readings.
"Why must I assume ….."
Two things.
1) The distribution of readings of **most** non discrete measurements follows a normal distribution. The 70 degree reading (for a 70.9 temp) would not be a tenth of the time, as that implies the error of the measurement is uniformly distributed. It is more likely to be less than 1/100th instead of 1/10th.
2) Your example is very poor from another point of view. You would never use a measuring device with a +/- 0.5 degree error bound to measure a 0.5 degree interval. Your results would be meaningless.
chuck says: The distribution of readings of **most** non discrete measurements follows a normal distribution. The 70 degree reading (for a 70.9 temp) would not be a tenth of the time, as that implies the error of the measurement is uniformly distributed. It is more likely to be less than 1/100th instead of 1/10th.
If you agree that the error of the measurement isn't uniformly distributed, then I think you are acknowledging that the expected value of the average of the temperature readings isn't necessarily the mean of the actual temperatures. Suppose, in your example where 1/100th of the 70.9 read 70, that all the temperatures are 70.9. Ignoring the possibility of readings of 72, the expected value of the measurement average is 70.99 while the mean temperature is 70.9. Including the 72 readings slightly raises the expected average, making it even less accurate. No increase in observations allows the true mean temperature to be measured to within 0.01 degrees.
"However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data…."
Thank you for keeping that little inconvenient reality alive for all to see with their own eyes… if they will just uncover them.
Here also is a plot of the latest accepted dataset after removing the +0.75 °C/cy (0.000625 °C/mo) artificial adjustment creep from that dataset starting in 1940. (small deviances from linear were ignored but make little difference in the overall graph)
http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png or with less smoothing http://i44.tinypic.com/29axhua.png.
Approximated from these adjust plots: USHCN: http://i43.tinypic.com/s3m3wk.png, GISS: http://i39.tinypic.com/1zfrn1l.png, NOAA: http://i40.tinypic.com/2uy2bg4.png
Sure opened up my eyes, not exact but close enough.
The 59% figure is defined as Total Employed/Population over the Age of 16 (although I believe institutionalized people are omitted). In other words, my 80+ year old mother is included in the 41% not working. (I don't want to try adding a link to this, but googling "employment-population ratio" will get you to the source.)
The author of the article converted the statistic into "working age" Americans. It's not. It's total employed divided by everyone over 16. And that's exactly where the 90+ million Americans not working comes from also. Both numbers are crap, or at least the way they're being used is crap. They sound cool though, when you're trying to make the case that the economy is really, really, in bad shape.
Ironically, it's pretty easy to make that case without using bogus numbers to do it, but these numbers, and particularly the 90+ million number, keep cropping up all over the place, and are being misinterpreted every time they show up.
The way to make the 59% a somewhat more relevant economic statistic is to point out that it was over 63% during the Bush administration, and over 64% during the Clinton administration, although it's going to trend lower over time due to the huge number of baby boomers leaving the work force now.
Mary Brown: "I enjoy logging when things bloom around here every year but the 'Things That Flower Index' has the same issues as thermometers….namely urban heat island."
I'm from NYC so I can appreciate UHI. I'm not there now so more natural settings become more interesting.
chuck, i can do MATH and clearly understand what is being done far better than YOU……the math is CORRECT but the answer it yields is FALSE because the numbers the math being done on are NOT accurate to the precision required……….2 plus 2 equals 4….but if i had 3 and 2 factors to be considered then clearly the math is correct in the case of 2 plus 2 but that one of the factors being a 2 is WRONG…….
folks take this any way you desire but far too many folks of average intelligence talk DOWN to people about things they dont even understand.
put another way you can have a million numerical factors at play and do countless ACCURATE math calculations using only those million factors and all of the math be 100% accurate, BUT IF half of the factors were gathered wrongly and DONT represent what it is said they do, again the math is correct but the claims are WRONG because of improper gathering of the factors.
George E Smith, the liberals have a big lead in money too…
http://m.watchdog.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwatchdog.org%2F161107%2Fliberal-super-pac-donors%2F#2789
using ONE thermometer for ONE location how does one arrive at a single number and call it the temperature for the day? using 24 hourly readings and taking an average? confounder = within each hour CLOUDS can make a huge difference, rain can make a huge difference, reading taken before the rain is warmer than reading after the rain so which is correct for that hour?
my point is even arriving at a single number and calling it "the" temperature for that day at that location cant be done to a precise level………that same thing applies to each location………as i have said YES mathematicians can arrive at a number using the readings they are given but to say that is the single global temperature within accuracy of hundredths of a degree is pure and total BS.
Reply to Bill Taylor
"but to say that is the single global temperature within accuracy of hundredths of a degree is pure and total BS."
That is demonstrated by the fact that the four main temp indexes (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS) differ by quite a bit each month in raw value and change from the previous month.
However, with many different ways of measuring and many different indexes, we can get a pretty good idea of where temperature has trended. Since about 2000, the answer is nowhere.
" using ONE thermometer for ONE location how does one arrive at a single number and call it the temperature for the day?"
You can do it several different ways.
1) take the average of the high and low for the day.
2) take readings every hour and average the result
3) take readings every 15 minutes and average the result
4) take readings every 2 minutes and average the result
5) take readings ever 15 seconds and average the result
6) take readings every second and average the result
Note that 2 is more accurate than 1
6 is the most accurate.
This type of reasoning is basic to someone that is enrolled in their first class in Calculus, where they teach you about limits and the process of integration (which is the opposite of differentiation)
Go back to my original post where I said that increasing the number of observations gets you more accuracy.
Mary Brown says:
Go to Dr Roy Spencer's website
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
And send him an email to tell him that his graph is "total BS"
(his email address is at the bottom of the page)
The "total BS" part of the quote comes from "Bill Taylor" not me.
My point is that each of the four main global temperature measurements vary quite a bit from each other.
Here are recent one year changes for 2013 from start to finish of the four main indexes…..
+.07 deg C
The difference between highest and lowest was .41 deg C. This certainly suggests that the error of measurement is greater than hundredths of a degree…more like tenths of a degree.
i assure you chuck IF i had the chance to discuss this with Mr. Spencer he would agree with me…….
I'm sorry, I must have misrepresented what you posted right after that quote.
"That is demonstrated by the fact……"
chuck i NEVER disagreed that using more info lessen error margin……AGAIN my point is in the gathering of the info NOT the math after it has been gathered…..seems having said that a few times now it may sink in…..
exactly Mary, the differing numbers in the 4 data sets DEMONSTRATE my point is correct by actual observation(SCIENCE).
"Mr. Spencer he would agree with me……."
I don't think Dr. Spencer is going to remove the graph on his website, the one that graphs the anomaly to 0.01 degree C
" exactly Mary, the differing numbers in the 4 data sets DEMONSTRATE my point is correct by actual observation(SCIENCE)."
Different thermometers give different readings even when they all are in the same place.
The observational differences I pointed out are changes in anomalies over a period of time in a consistent data set. They should have much lower errors than any single thermometer due to the large sample size and consistency of measurement. Yet, the variance from one to another in a single year is roughly the same as THE ENTIRE HUMAN-CAUSED CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING IN ALL OF HISTORY (perhaps 0.5 deg C)
Noise ~= signal
"They should have much lower errors"
Are you confusing differences BETWEEN indexes with errors?
You do realize that all four indexes have different instrumentation, different coverage and different methodologies?
Yes, but they are all trying to come up with a global temperature anomaly. If it was easy to do, they would all vary by similar amounts from month to month. The fact that they don't suggests considerable uncertainty in global temperatures.
I like to use the WoodForTrees Index (WFTI). It is a composite of all four main temp indexes. So, I think it has lower error and less bias than any other individual index and is the most representative of actual global temp changes.
A few weeks ago, i was arguing with somebody who tried to convince me runaway warming was still happening because of the 0.02 deg rise in ARGO deep ocean heat. That is laughably less than the error of measurement but there are those who argue that the ARGO errors are less than 0.01 deg C … mainly because there are ~3000 floats.
Mary, it seems chuck is saying the math is correct, i agree it is and expect you would also, but what you and i are pointing out is the factors used in the math have LARGE error margins, and chuck agrees they uses different info and methods…….those differing methods are where the errors ARE and any math done with erroneous factors will always give an erroneous answer even though the math done was correct…..you sens someone out to count the chickens in each pen and they come back saying there are 5 in each pen and you have 5 pens so that is 25 chickens total, BUT there were 6 chickens in one pen and 4 chickens in 2 other pens……..and to apply that silly analogy to the temperature you need 1000 pens that are interconnected and the chickens constantly moving from one pen to another in all directionsand more chickens being born every second and some dying every few seconds……..but chuck still says one guy can go count those chickens with no errors at all.
chuck in summary you CANT possibly hit infinite moving targets with ONE bullet….your one bullet being the math you apply to the info you've been given.
And I don't think he will remove his chart of atmospheric CO2:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-100.gif
See the CO2? No? Well then, maybe you can see it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
See the CO2? NO?? OK, let's try again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-1.gif
There. See it? Now, are you worried? I'm not.
Also, Dr Spencer has written, "The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified."
That means there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening; everything currently being observed has happened in the past, and to a much greater degree — and when CO2 was much lower.
So tell us: what can you post that is worth worrying about?
Steve from Rockwood
The 41% seems to reference "those Americans not in the labor force" aged 16 and older, not the "working age" population 20 to 65. Those Americans 16 or older not working are:
20% – 16 to 24
9% – 25 to 34
38% – 65+
This number will only increase due to demographics.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/economy/unemployment-rate/index.htm
dbstealey says:
Can you tell me what you are trying to prove? My comment was directed at the person that didn't think it was possible to get 0.01 degrees C accuracy in the measurement of the anomaly.
Reading is fundamental,
"they are all trying to come up with a global temperature anomaly"
Real easy
Take the average of the four values.
" That is laughably less than the error of measurement "
http://ww2.tnstate.edu/ganter/BIO311-Ch6-Eq1.gif
Which means if "n" is 3000, and you want a 0.01 error bound, as long as "s" (the standard deviation) of the AGRO's bouys is less than 0.5477…….you get 0.01 accuracy.
Can you tell me what you are trying to prove?
That you cherry-pick factoids like any other alarmist. As I wrote:
Tiny anomalies are not worth worrying about. Also, your comment about ARGO avoids the fact that the buoys show ocean cooling.
Science is fundamental, chuckles.
Not so fast….Sure, that's the case in basic statistics in a book. But, the bouys drift and thermometer accuracy drifts and they dive and come back up, and old stations die and new ones come online, and then transmit data which gets loaded into a computer and code adjusted by some grad student and an algo applied to correct for all these things and a million other little factors come into play that we haven't thought of yet.
So, when you roll dice or flip coins in a stats book, it's all neat and clean. In the real world, the errors are much larger that what this equation…
…predicts.
In my many years of statistical estimation and forecasting in real time in the real world, I find the uncertainty is almost always greater than what I originally assumed. Often this is because I made assumptions without even realizing them.
If the errors were as small as predicted by the standard stats formulas, then we wouldn't get widely varying readings from month to month in the different temp data sets.
Khwarizmi
a post from RGB at Duke University (physics):
= = = = = = = = = =
N[o]te well that the situation with this data is far worse than even this suggests, because while we have comparatively dense surface station readings (at least in some heavily oversampled regions like the US and Europe) the surface area of the Earth is 70% Ocean and our knowledge of that 70% sucks, especially in the era preceding the satellite record (which started to give us accurate SSTs).
If there were an honest human being working in climate science today, they would stop posting two decimal points — for example, 287.16 — for the Earth's mean temperature. They would stop posting one decimal point — 287.2. They would post no decimals at all, and they would add a confidence interval such that it is e.g. 95% likely that the true "mean temperature" of the Earth's surface (averaged over God knows what for God knows how long, given that it is a coarse grained average in space and time and not a relevant measure for dynamic energy balance — for that one would like the fourth-root-T-to-the-fourth "average") lies within the confidence interval, or otherwise post a meaningful error bar.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#comment-1183054
"Numbers are often rounded to avoid reporting insignificant figures. For instance, if a device measures to the nearest gram and gives a reading of 12.345 kg (which has five significant figures), it would create false precision to express this measurement as 12.34500 kg (which has seven significant figures)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
and if all that didn't help, maybe this will:
The idea is this: Suppose you measure a block of wood. The length is 5.6 inches, the width is 4.4 inches, and the thickness is 1.7 inches, at least as best you can tell from your tape measure. To find the volume, you would multiply these three dimensions, to get 41.888 cubic inches. But can you really, with a straight face, claim to have measured the volume of that block of wood to the nearest thousandth of a cubic inch?!? Not hardly! Each of your measurements was accurate (as far as you can tell) to two significant digits: your tape was marked off in tenths of inches, and you wrote down the closest tenth of an inch that you could see. So you cannot claim five decimal places of accuracy, because none of your measurements exceeded two digits of accuracy. You can only claim two significant digits in your answer. In other words, the "appropriate" number of significant digits is two, and you would report (in your physics lab report, for instance) that the volume of the block is 42 cubic inches, approximately.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/rounding3.htm
That's from a high-school lesson in mathematics.
Khwarizmi says:
The above example of significant digits is a good indication of how poorly we understand accuracy. If a block of wood was measured to within +/- 0.1 in. to be 5.6 x 4.4 x 1.7, there would be two end members, namely
5.5 x 4.3 x 1.6 (the smallest volume) and
5.7 x 4.5 x 1.8 (the largest volume).
The former is 37.84 cu in. (38) and the latter is 46.17 (46), compared to the measured 41.888 (42). This variation is +/- 4 cu in. or a 10% error of the volume estimate. The appropriate number would be 42 cu in +/- 4 cu in. (one significant digit) and it wouldn't even include all possible outcomes (the end members).
You cannot take several hundred temperature measurements using different instrumentation located in different places and reduce the error in the overall measurement by combining them. On a good day the accuracy of the earth's temperature is +/- 0.5 deg and the trend is measurable to half a century.
Steve from Rockwood says:
"You cannot take several hundred temperature measurements using different instrumentation located in different places and reduce the error in the overall measurement by combining them."
That is true..
However an "average" is not a temperature measurement, it's a descriptive statistic for a set of numbers. Don't confuse the apples with the oranges.
The Standard Error measurement of a population mean can be made more accurate by increasing the number of observations.
I have made no statement regarding the accuracy of any specific measurement. You, like others are confusing your apples and oranges.
The calculated average of a set of numbers is ***NOT*** a measurement of a physical quantity. It is a number that describes the SET of numbers it is derived from. Estimating a population mean from a sample gets closer and closer to the real value of the population mean as the number of observations increases. In the limit, you have EXACT precision in measuring the population mean when the number of observations equals the number of elements in the population.
"n the real world, I find the uncertainty is almost always greater"
Is the standard deviation for the temp (& salinity) measurements greater or less than 0.5477? You are free to include any and all sources of measurement errors that you can think of to answer this question. You must also take into account that the instruments in each buoy are calibrated before being used.
" That you cherry-pick factoids like any other alarmist"
A swing and a miss, strike one.
You have made the biggest invalid assumption you could possibly make
What is your evidence of me being an "alarmist?"
" Tiny anomalies are not worth worrying about."
Yes they are, especially when you are measuring the heat content of the oceans, or the mass of a Higgs boson You seem to forget when you multiply a very "tiny" anomaly with a very large number (quantity of water in oceans) the result is significant.
You seem to be in an argumentative mood. In fact, you're arguing with everyone here.
Let me cut to the chase:
Global warming has stopped. And not just yesterday — global warming stopped almost twenty years ago.
Everything else is obfuscation.
If you start with a tiny number that may have a large error and multiply "with a very large number (quantity of water in oceans)" the error can be enormous.
The standard error in ARGO data and sfc temperature would be miniscule in a perfect world of statistical sampling. But mentioned above are all the examples of why this is not the case.
For global sfc temps, the measurement error is often quoted as 0.15 deg C. which seems reasonable using the gut check and the monthly disagreements in data set. Pure statistical number crunching would put the number much less than .01 deg C
My mom taught me this concept. I would be praying for snow and would turn on the flood lights at night and squint and then yell "Mom! It's snowing".
She would glance out and say "I don't see anything"
"Look closer. In the light. Right there !"
Mom…"If I have to look that close, it's not worth seeing".
Much of the global warming debate is like that. If it has taken my entire (long) life to warm just a fraction of a degree, is it really worth looking out the window?
Trying to educate people that don't understand statistics or the mathematics behind measurement is not "arguing"
Please note, I have not mentioned ANYTHING about warming or cooling. Do yourself a favor and stop making rash assumptions
" that may have a large error "
Of course they MAY have a small error. The error bars and relevant parameters are included in the analysis of the data, in fact the "error" is already known.
chuck argues:
Trying to educate people that don't understand statistics or the mathematics behind measurement is not "arguing".
chuckles doesn't understand the central issue:
Global warming has stopped. Everything else is obfuscation.
"Global warming has stopped."
Some people say that, some say the opposite……time will tell.
In the meantime, please try to understand the issues underlying the use of statistics in science.
Chuck says…
"The error bars and relevant parameters are included in the analysis of the data, in fact the "error" is already known."
The true error of data in climate science can be estimated but certainly not ever 'known'. And you are completely ignoring my point…that there can be substantial errors which cannot be crunched away with textbook statistics. Like Antarctic sea ice coding errors and satellite drift errors in UAH data, and TOB errors in sfc temps, and urban heat island contamination, and instrument manufacture changes and station site changes and on and on and on.
And then there was the old LFM model which simply multiplied the precip by two due to coding error. Nobody noticed it for years but everybody knew that it had a nasty "wet bias". Stuff happens. Nobody can convice me of ARGO or sfc temp data errors less than 0.01 deg C. No way. Not even close.
Some people say that, some say the opposite…
And which group do you fall into? I think we know.
Satellite measurements — the most accurate data we have — shows conclusively that global warming has stopped. Those who question that data show that they cannot accept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us.
Because if they accepted the fact that global warming has stopped, then all the things they have been telling their friends, and writing in blogs, and that they believe themselves, has been flat wrong. Not because skeptics tell them they were wrong, but because the ultimate Authority — the real world — is showing that their beliefs are wrong.
That's hard for some folks to take. Skeptics are used to it, because skeptics want knowledge. Being right has a much lower priority. But climate alarmists need to be right, more than anything else. So they say things like, "Some people say that, some say the opposite." They will not let go of their debunked beliefs.
Being wrong is hell on their egos. So they obfuscate. But climate alarmists set the ground rules, not scientific skeptics. Live by your conjecture, die by your conjecture.
I'm glad you "know"
It's amazing that you can "know" something you have no evidence of. Nothing beats evidence-less proof of your "belief". I guess you are the "religious" type.
" Nobody can convice me "
You are free to ignore how mathematics works if you so choose. But the numbers tell a different story. The standard deviation of the temp sensors is significantly below 0.5477
" Nobody can convince me "
Ok Chuck. You follow you rigid stat formula and all its rigid assumptions that don't exist in the climate system.
I'll continue to do stats in the real world where I'm compensated according to my success.
End of discussion
It's easy-peasy. You cannot bring yourself to admit that global warming stopped many years ago.
Ergo: alarmist.
Got your number, chuckles.
You can make me wrong. Just admit that global warming stopped, therefore all the wild-eyed alarmist predictions were wrong, and there is nothing to support the "carbon" scare. It was a complete false alarm.
Go on, say it. ☺
"You cannot bring yourself to admit that global warming stopped many years ago."
It may have, it may not have. You can conclude nothing when I do not answer the question one way or the other.
Besides math, you don't do well at logic either.
"You follow you rigid stat formula "
You betcha.
The funny thing about mathematics is that the rules and formulas ARE absolute, therefore very "ridged"
chuckles says:
It may have, it may not have.
Alarmist exposed. Can I smoke 'em out, or what? ☺
"BINGO!" ???
A swing and a miss.
Global warming stopped 10,000 years ago.
That better?
Opps.
I forgot,
Global warming stopped 125,000 years ago, it stopped 225,000 years ago, it stopped 325,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago.
It stopped even more often the further back you go.
Do you still think I'm an "alarmist?
Global warming has started and stopped lots of times. But of course, we have been discussing the past twenty years. <–[another alarmist trait: move the goal posts].
There were endless predictions by the alarmist clique that global warming would continue, and accelerate — until that didn't happen.
Now, the alarmist crowd is trying to mis-label the halt to warming as a "pause". Wrong term. It cannot be a pause unless / until warming resumes. Which may happen. Or not. Or, cooling may commence. No one knows.
What we do know is that "pause" is the wrong word. For the past 17+ years, global warming has stopped. But alarmists still call it a pause.
That is only true when the population distribution is the same. This would be similar to increasing the number of temperature stations from areas with the same climate profile. It does nothing to improve accuracy. In fact it would increase bias.
"That is only true when the population distribution is the same"
No, the rule applies irrespective of the the distribution of the population.
" But of course, we have been discussing the past twenty years."
The jury is still out with regard to the past 20 years. In fact Monckton just published an article that says it is 13 years and 4 months . So, you've got another 6 years to deal with.
"The jury is still out with regard to the past…"
'But how can you stop people remembering things?' cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. 'It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!'
O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.
'On the contrary,' he said, 'you have not controlled it. That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'
He paused for a few moments, as though to allow what he had been saying to sink in.
'Do you remember,' he went on, ' writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'
'Yes,' said Winston.
O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
'Four.'
'And if the party says that it is not four, but five point seven three four — then how many?'
http://msxnet.org/orwell/1984 [with some precise adjustment]
===================================.
"chuckie"
Please send an email to "c_u_late_r@yahoo.com" and "chuck" will reply
[Reply: no need, your new email address has been verified as legit. Thank you for changing it. ~mod.]
But the "c_u_late_r@yahoo.com" address is also valid.
Are you censoring the discussion?
[Reply: your former email address came back as "Bad". The verification site is here. Deal with them, we just go by our site Policy. That ends the discussion. ~mod.]
[Snip. More sockpuppetry. ~ mod.]
"chuck"
dbstealey & richardscourtney
I'm still here, if you wish to continue discussing the physics of your "lagging thermal expansion" theory
Sorry, chuck, you're a broken record. You don't debate in good faith. Run along now, and argue with the Australian government's scientists. Maybe you can convince them, because you are certainly not convincing anyone here that thermal expansion is instantaneous.
milodonharlani
You have a couple of choices as to when global warming stopped during the current interglacial, which even at its height during the Holocene Climatic Optimum wasn't as warm as the previous interglacial, the Eemian (130 to 114 Ka), or MIS 11 (424 to 374 Ka). The HCO ended about 5000 years ago, but the Minoan Warm Period, c. 3000 years ago, may have been as hot, though for nowhere near as long.
So for at least the past 3000 years, Earth has been in a cooling trend, with ups & downs, but mainly down. The Roman Warm Period, c. 2000 years ago, was cooler than the Minoan WP; the Medieval WP, c. 1000 years ago, was cooler than the Roman WP & so far the Modern WP has been cooler than the Medieval.
It's not a theory. It's a fact.


BBC Radio's multi award-winning antidote to panel games returns to the stage in 2015 for a one-off Edinburgh festival performance of its highly acclaimed touring show. Join Barry Cryer, Graeme Garden, Tim Brooke-Taylor, Jeremy Hardy and host Jack Dee for an unmissable evening of inspired nonsense. Colin Sell provides piano accompaniment. This show is not being recorded for the BBC.
Sorry. We have no upcoming listings for I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue - The Official Stage Tour.


text:
Impossible Search Engine Marketing (SEM)
Capture Leads From YouTube Via Google's Lead Form Extensions
Updated on: 11 September 2020
Google is providing a new way for advertisers to capture leads by bringing its lead form extensions to YouTube as well as Discovery campaigns.
Lead forms help advertisers gather leads directly from their ads instead of directing users to a landing page. Google's goal is to help advertisers gain higher quality leads faster by driving users to take immediate action.
Here's how lead forms can have a big impact in reaching and engaging interested customers and bolster the conversions your ads generate.
How lead forms will look like in YouTube video ads
Lead forms are opening up a big opportunity on YouTube through TrueView for action campaigns. Apart from using calls-to-action (CTA) and headlines, advertisers can display a lead form that appears underneath the in-stream video for users to quickly share their information.
This can be done without redirecting them to a landing page, which significantly increases the likelihood of form completion and does not interfere with the viewing experience. By streamlining the user journey, this allows for a more seamless flow that can help you find quality leads in a more efficient manner.
Let's take a look at how Jeep is able to capture leads during early testing of lead form extensions on YouTube.
Image Credit: WERSM
Without having to leave YouTube, users can express their interest and fill out a form to book a test drive with Jeep easily.
According to Jeep, their use of lead form extension saw a tenfold increase in their completed leads. The automaker company further shared that the extension proved to be the most cost-efficient way across all ad platforms to generate leads.
How does lead form extension works
Lead form extensions were rolled out in search campaigns last year to allow advertisers to attach lead forms to their ads in mobile and tablet devices which appear in Google search results.
Consumers can click on the ad and fill in their details on the conversion form without having to leave the screen they are on. If the user is already logged into their Google account, the form will be automatically filled in and they can submit it quickly.
Before you can create a lead form, your account must meet the following requirements:
A good history of policy compliance.
A total spend in Google Ads of over USD 50,000. For other currencies, the spend amount will be converted to USD according to the average monthly conversion rate.
A suitable vertical or sub-vertical. Certain content that is "sensitive" and not allowed for lead forms includes alcohol-related, healthcare and medicines, and political content.
Lead forms can be added as extensions to existing campaigns in Search ads. For video campaigns, they are added during the campaign creation process. This can also be done from the campaign settings menu.
For advertisers who are creating video campaigns, they have the option to choose which type of leads they wish to capture: higher intent or more volume. The lead form type can be changed at any time during the campaign.
Higher intent: reach an audience that is likely to be interested in your product
More volume: reach a higher number of people with your lead form
The next step is to decide which pieces of information they wish to gather from users. This includes:
The company they are employed at
In addition to this standard set of questions, you can also choose more specific questions for each vertical. These include queries that are specific to job hunters, home buyers, and so on. If these options are insufficient, you have the ability to write your own custom questions to ask on the form.
How you can turn those leads into sales
Once a user has submitted a lead form, it is necessary to follow up on their intent immediately. Time is of the essence – according to Harvard Business Review, research statistics suggest that companies that respond to leads within an hour are 7 times more likely to convert them into sales.
As such, the leads collected via Google lead form extensions must be done efficiently and sync in real-time. The methods include:
Download and manage captured leads in a CSV file, which are available from the last 30 days.
Set up a webhook integration to automatically import data to your customer relationship management (CRM) system and receive leads in real-time.
Use Zapier to automatically import and export data between Google Ads and your CRM system.
Additionally, Google plans to roll out a feature later this year, that makes it easier and faster to import offline conversions by using the information that users have given in the lead form.
Lead data can be used to nurture leads with Google's Customer Match, an advertising tool that helps to increase brand awareness and drive conversions. By using information that customers have shared, Customer Match allows you to create PPC ads and target audiences similar to your most valuable customers and reach new audiences on YouTube.
Best practices for optimal performance with YouTube lead form
There are some tips to help you get the most out of your TrueView campaign on YouTube.
Begin with narrow audiences
Think about using a narrow audience at the start of your ad targeting. This can be done by creating custom intent audiences, where you can segment your ad groups by a list of keywords and landing pages you wish to target.
Another way is by remarketing audiences, which allows you to connect with people who have already interacted with your YouTube videos, website or mobile app. Remarketing ads can nudge audiences toward completing a purchase they had abandoned, and at the same time, increase brand visibility.
You can also use Customer Match, which has been previously explained. If you're seeing high-quality leads and low lead volume, then you should expand to additional audiences to get in front of more customers.
Use language targeting correctly
Trying to get your message across to others can be difficult if they don't speak the same language, Similarly, you want your lead form to appear to customers who can understand them.
Target a language that matches your lead form language. Otherwise, consumers may see the lead form but are unable to respond to it. Google does not translate ads or keywords, so you should be targeting one language per lead form. Ads will be shown to customers who use Google products (like Gmail or YouTube) in that same language.
Set the right budget
Your budget should be around 20 times your cost-per-action (CPA) bid to allow for sufficient daily conversions. Use Google's Maximize conversions bidding to automatically set bids based on real-time data and get the most conversions for your campaign within a specified budget.
Google will leverage every opportunity to gain the highest number of conversions possible while spending your daily budget efficiently. Make sure you are already tracking conversions that closely align with your business goals. If you've just started video campaigns, you can begin bidding conservatively at 2-3 times your CPAs for Search campaigns or 1-2 times for Display campaigns. Lower the target CPA 10-15% at a time to optimise toward your desired CPA while allowing for more conversions.
Have a clear creative
Make your messaging easy to understand why users should submit their information in the lead form. Have a clear call-to-action (CTA) with phrases like "Sign up" and "Learn more". For instance, if you are gathering leads in an automobile ad, you can use "Get quote" as the call-to-action.
Kim Spalding, the Director of Product Management, Small Business Ads at Google, said that consumers today prefer to use varied methods to connect with a business. A research done in March this year indicated that 1 in 3 shoppers would rather buy from a company that offers various ways to reach them – like calls and web forms.
Next to Google, YouTube is one of the most popular websites in the global market which makes it ideal for connecting with your target audience. The lead form extension presents an easy and practical way for users to show interest through the form submission while helping businesses drive more leads.
Engage in a digital marketing agency to help you get started in using lead forms for YouTube ads. You can leave the technical know-how to the experts and watch your marketing campaigns be optimised for capturing leads and driving conversions.
Ultimate Guide to Google PageSpeed Insights in Singapore (2020)
Maximising Your Facebook Campaign Budget With Cost Control

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Iterate over multi-index pandas dataframe and add first index to variable if certain conditions are met This is going to be a complex question about something I have struggled with for months:
The following is a much simplified pandas dataframe than I actually have, where 7, 9 and 1 being the column names and R1, R4, R2, R6, R9 and R7 being the first index and Tsi: 1, 2 and 3, being the second index:
df =         Tsi     7    9
        R1   1     0.2  0.1
        R4   1     0.4  0.6
        R2   2     0.7  0.3
        R6   2     0.3  0.1
        R9   3     0.4  0.1
        R7   3     0.4  0.6

I need to iterate over each column and add the first indexes to a list or a dictionary (any sort of variable I can use to keep the indexes in), but only if they belong to the same Tsi-group (1, 2 or 3 here).
I also need to get the variances for the values of this Tsi-group and this way see if adding one neighboring value will lower the variance, for this column.
If the variance gets lower, the first index of the neighbor needs to be added to the variable. This means that R2 will be added to the variable if it lowers the variance calculated for R1 and R4 (in Tsi-group 1).
For Tsi-group 2, both neighbors will have to be tested to see if they decrease the variance: R4 (belonging to Tsi 1) and/or R9 (Tsi 3) will be added if they decrease the variance of R2 and R6.
And again for Tsi-group 3, R6 will be added if it decreases the variance.
Im picturing the variable to be a dictionary with the column names being the keys and the first indexes to be the values, as lists of lists. But any variable that could store column names and the indexes would be fine.
What I'm expecting for the first column would be the following dictionary:
TsiDict = {7 : [['R1','R4'], ['R2','R6','R4', 'R9'], ['R9','R7']], 9: [[R1,R4,R2,], ['R2','R6','R9'], ['R9','R7','R1']] }

As I said, I have spent so much time trying to figure out how to do this, but what I have tried thus far ruins one of the goals I am needing to accomplish with this, like ruining the ordering or not storing correct column names or index.
Any help would be immensely appreciated!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


A 1 day training course that introduces learners to the safe working procedures required to safely extend a main earth bonding conductor to a gas meter as required by the Electricity at Work Regulations and Safe Working Practices.
N.B. The Safe Isolation portion of this course is optional.
Learners will receive training on how to carry out the extension of the earth bonding conductor to a gas meter safely and within the safe working practices as laid down under the Electricity at Work Regulations.
Employers can be confident that their employees are carrying out their work safely and within the statutory regulations.
Upon successful completion of the course, the learner will be issued with a City & Guilds accredited qualification in 5831 Scheme Unit 870 (if both Main Earth Bonding & Safe Isolation are achieved), or an ERS accredited qualification if only Main Earth Bonding is achieved.
Learners will be taught in both a classroom and a practical environment.
Learners will be assessed via a practical assessment and multi-choice question paper.


Sophisticated and elegant rooms with amazing pool view. This luxuriously decorated room features a cozy king sized bed, spacious wardrobe, flat-screen satellite TV, minibar and a safe box. The bathroom with shower includes free toiletries. Spacious air-conditioned room has a balcony that accords access to swimming pool and beachfront.


text:
Q: Automatically continue with exported file I am currently working on my first script. First I want to execute the Decrypyter program.
subprocess.Popen(["C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Service Delivery Tools\DataCollector\Decrypter.lnk"],shell=True)

After that I want to use the decrypted files. Is there a way to automatically reference the exported files? I have the code below so far.
conn_str = (
r'DRIVER={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb, *.accdb)};'
r'DBQ=example_data\Example.accdb;'
)