Obviously, members of the Cult of Climastrology will have two main complaints. First, we’ll hear about how this is “cherry picked”, because they don’t seem to have a grasp of the concept of working back from now. Second, they’ll yammer on about the US only being two percent of the globe.
(Daily Caller) Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.
The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality†climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.
The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,†NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.†In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases†in the temperature record.
Here’s what it looks like
Is the trend “statistically significant”? That’s debatable, being a decrease of .61 degrees F in 10 years. But, the actual hard data does show a decrease.
Does it mean cooling is coming? Not necessarily. What it does show is that computer prognostication models continue to fail, models based on Mankind being mostly/solely at fault for the warming of whichever period the Cult decides to use, such as 1980 to 1996. Now that’s cherry picking.
Interesting factoid there Teach about the USA. Perhaps you should also have added that the USA comprises less than 2% of the surface of the Earth
Ahh, the lame 2% argument. Obviously, you didn’t read the article. It said some dopey liberal would use the 2% argument. Congratulations!!
In regards to climate change,:
1) 2% – Of all climate change documentation, only 2% is factual.
2) 2% – The average brain capacity of a climate truther (also see liberal, progressive, Gump. etc..)
To try to apply real data to this theory is racist and rapey, and I denounce you.
Yet John Temperature readings in the USA were the holy graille back in the day when reading stations were in asphalt parking lots.
Now NOAA ended up with so much grief over this that they embarked upon a relocation of their thermometers in areas that would not be affected by anything other then actual heat retention…..the readings flatlined.
An interesting side note is that their Satellite readings showed only a 4/10th degree warming of the stratosphere from 1970-2009….I pointed this out to them….after several months the data was taken off line reworked and put back up showing a higher degree of warming…….
Basically they reworked the data.
Its total BS CRAP like this that makes deniers totally believe that AGW is about wealth distribution and not actual global warming….
Especially now that the IPCC seems to being saying in new reports that global warming can be managed and that they want a piece of that pie too.
Didn’t the IPCC publish a report in late 2014 suggesting that man made climate change was being highly over exaggerated?
Teach you do seem to pick and choose what NOAA data you think fits best into your view.
We now have proof that John never actually reads the posts beyond the headline. See my opening paragraph.
Someone at the NOAA is getting his ass chewed out big time today for letting this data get out without applying the necessary political adjustments.
Oh well, I’m sure that the adjusted version will come out very soon and this little slip-up will all be forgotten.
The contiguous U.S. is only 1.5% of the Earth’s surface. Theories of anthropogenic warming do not predict that every area of the Earth will warm equally. Some areas may cool. However, the mean global temperature will tend to increase over longer periods.
Here’s 2014. Notice that overall temperatures were above average globally, but cooler in some regions.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201401-201412.gif
Notice that overall temperatures were above average globally, but cooler in some regions.
What is the average temperature globally?
Teach typed:
Yes. Work backward until you get the desired result. That is the definition of cherry picking! It helps to include 1998 in your interval, doesn’t it? lol
Just because you point out the deficiencies of your own argument doesn’t immunize you from criticism. Look at the map that Zachriel linked. It was cool in part of the US, off the tip of Tierra del Fuego and in the north Atlantic. The rest of the Earth warmed.
Once again NOAA took all their data sets and reworked them.
For example for a 150 years ships used to throw a bucket over the side of the boat, pull the bucket up and put a thermometer in the bucket and get a temperature reading.
Then they decided to start taking intake readings in the engine compartments…..the temperatures in the intake were noticeably hotter……..ergo….
they go back and ADJUST 100’s of years of temperature readings because now the intake mainfold readings are warmer then normal.
Warm is good to them. Cool is not.
The debate is always that water entering the intake is going to be warmer because its entering near a hot running engine compartment.
Warm or cold I do not care. The problem persists that the science is settle even while the AGW crowd keeps adjusting the data to meet their expectations.
The death throes is 2 degrees warming of the planet and were all doomed.. Now the IPCC says that can be managed and there are actually benefits to it.
They now want a piece of that pie too…..they want to redistribute wealth because its those evil rich nations that have destroyed the planet……..then out of the other side of their mouth they are saying….but there are benefits of a warmer planet and we can manage it and humankind will adapt.
See this is the BS that makes the AGW position so untenable as to be almost comical if they weren’t ready to destroy your career and legacy for disagreeing with them.
From NOAA’s own website. Q&A page.
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe — from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships – 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all – to determine the global temperature record.
If you read more of their mumbo jumbo buried deep in PDF files are how they handle anomalies…
Here dont take my word for it. There own words:
What is a temperature anomaly?
The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.
and then to wit:
What datasets are used in calculating the average global temperature anomaly?
Land surface temperatures are available from the Global Historical Climate Network-Monthly (GHCN-M). Sea surface temperatures are determined using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) analysis. ERSST uses the most recently available International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) and statistical methods that allow stable reconstruction using sparse data. The monthly analysis begins January 1854, but due to very sparse data, no global averages are computed before 1880. With more observations after 1880, the signal is stronger and more consistent over time.
It gets better lest you fail to understand what they just said.
Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?
For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.
Got that? They use anomalies to record and measure temperature…not actual readings. So if it is 80 degrees in Las Vegas their Pairwise Homogeneity Algorithm (PHA) removes it in favor of an adjusted anomaly reading…..in essence the temperature should be warmer therefor we will make it warmer.
However the same can be said for cooler then normal locations….if it should be cooler they will adjust it downwards…however the overall result is that a slightly warming planet it shown to be much warmer then it actually is because they are using an algorithm that will account for any cooling and ajust it upwards to be more in line with any historical averages as they have calculated…However nearly all historical averages are anomalies and therefor totally IMO inaccurate. That is why they had to readjust the sea surface data set to be more in line with a warming ocean.
Again its this type of science that has skeptics becoming even more skeptical because these people actually think they can hide this data……..
or as the old song goes….HIDE THE DECLINE.
That’s great! The Earth isn’t warming after all so we have nothing to worry about.
It is warmer, so the data has to be adjusted.
The mean global surface temperature is about 15.0°C; however, the absolute temperature is not very reliable due to lack of coverage. That’s why scientists use temperature anomalies.
Word. The earth is warming….but your right we have nothing to worry about. Even the President of the IPCC literally just said that very thing Jeffery…..
We can manage global warming…humans will adapt…there are many benefits to a warmer planet………..WORD from your IPCC…stay tuned for more and they figure out how to get their finger in that pie as well.
Please direct me to where the President of the IPCC said that, thanks.
Also, if NOAA is lying about all their temp measures, how do you know if it’s warming or not?
I get my information from geologic records and ice core sampling from Greenland and Antarctica along with Tidal dating on the big Island of Hawaii and south pacific reef acidic measurements.
think for a moment Jeffery. NOAA adjusted their temperatures UPWARDS and we still have a relatively flat line.
About 12k years ago we emerged from the last great interglacial and the planet geologically has been warming every since. Now why would the planet warm if the CO2 was so low as the 280 PPM thats been estimated? And why would we suddenly have this huge spike in temperatures just because we added another 120 PPM of CO2 into the air in 150 years?
Gelologically there is an explanation but your not interested because it does not indite fossil fuel useage therefore I wont waste my time explaining it to you.
What I find sad is that you obviously dont read all that I write…>I linked this earlier.
Read the report: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
That has now changed. The received wisdom on global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always, full of stories about scientists being even more certain of environmental Armageddon. But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all.
Or as the former IPCC head who just resigned stated:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/03/31/climate-change-is-real-but-its-not-the-end-of-the-world-says-ipcc/
If you guys actually read your own bible you would understand that the last report that came out focused rather heavily on MANAGING GLOBAL WARMING AS OPPOSED TO MITIGATING IT…….because?
Because we just dont have the technology to reduce our co2 from 409 to 350 like Hansen says we need to do in order to save the world or that…….we can actually reverse the flow of your so called dangerous CO2 by 2035 the new “WE ALL DIE IF WE DON”T DATE.”
So they have now switched gears….anyone paying attention has noticed it and reported on it………
And now you know the rest of the story.
The mean global surface temperature is about 15.0°C; however, the absolute temperature is not very reliable due to lack of coverage. That’s why scientists use temperature anomalies.
Comment by Zachriel— June 18, 2015 @ 7:52 am
Like dude, anomalies and shit.