So, Just How Cool Has It Been This Year?
If you were thinking it’s been a cooler-than-normal year in the USA – generally speaking you’d be right.
But you might not realize just how much cooler than normal it’s been this year. This chart puts things in perspective.
Yes, you’re reading that correctly. That chart’s saying this year has been generally the coolest year in the US ever. We haven’t seen a year this cool overall as far back as good data exists – which is roughly for the last 120 years.
It’s also saying that 4 out of the 5 coolest years on record have been since 1990. And by eyeballing the chart, it also appears to be saying that the trend has been towards generally cooler overall since the mid-1930s or so.
But remember: global warming is “a reality” – according to our liberal “brethren”, it’s “settled science”. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Even when real data jumps up and says, “Hey, wait a minute . . . . “
(Hat tip to stevengoddard for the image and the info.)
Category: Global Warming
Since i don’t publish stuff like this here like I sometimes do on FB, check this out from the Telegraph (UK)…where Health Department officials are telling Britian’s elderly that they need to turn their thermostats down three degree’s from past guidance to help save money and combat climate change…You can’t make this shit up.
Well since the US isn’t the entire world it’s probably wise to review the world wide data as well:
Global Highlights
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record..
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
The jury is indeed still out on the science behind man made warming versus naturally occurring warming. But just because the US and North America are running cooler doesn’t mean the entire earth is cooler either.
The folks commenting on Mr. Goddard’s site are certainly an entertaining crowd however. There are a couple of folks there who want you to know that god is about to end the earth and induce the prophecies of the revelation. I also rather enjoyed their linking the global warming conspiracy with efforts surrounding gun control.
It made for some entertaining moments to start the work week.
VOC: you do know that the NOAA data has been “adjusted”, right? Just like the Australian data that purports to show 2.5C/century warming in Australia – which in reality actually shows a cooling trend over the last century of about 1C per century when raw data is used?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/boms-bomb-on-station-temperature-trend-fiddling/
Scientists and government organizations also protect their livelihood – e.g., their future funding streams. They know that global “warming” is a popular thesis today among governments, and many are IMO trying to give their political masters what they want – truth be damned.
Follow the money, my friend. Follow the money.
I was going to point that out to VOV as well, but you beat me to it and did a better job of it.
In my opinion, “adjusted data” is not SCIENCE. It is Hypothesis Confirmation. These so-called scientists with their adjusted data have set real science back a few hundred years. And if I hear the word “consensus” used in the climate change debate one more time, I think I will puke. Until they use real data, it is all about the money and the funding which has created a huge conflict of interest.
Now now. don’t muck up the lie by showing hard data showing oppisite. The truth doesn’t matter, just do what they say.
I will have you know that NPR, the San Diego Union-Tribune and allegedly NASA are reporting (once again) that this was the hottest year on record. Not where I live, not apparently in the Antarctic (they report the ice cap is melting, melting melting down there.
Somebody is lying.
They are talking global temps, the North American continent is in fact cooler, but globally not so much.
VOV: if the global data has been “adjusted”, then it doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about global data or local data. “Adjusted” data can be biased to yield any desired result.
The NCOA addresses this issue rather nicely at their site. There is more to capturing temperature data than using the raw data, siting of stations has a dramatic effect on the data. That’s true worldwide as well as in North America. The concept of using raw non-adjusted data as the complete picture is not necessarily the most accurate methodology for addressing data sets of this nature. Siting one station in a valley and another in a mountain both produce raw data, the mountain site data is meaningless when contrasted to the valley data unless you account for the temperature difference due to elevation. It’s not entirely accurate to suggest they are making shit up as they go to support a theory as yet unproven. If they were doing that why would they reveal data that indicates the US and North America are in fact cooler as you indicate in your chart but globally the temps are up slightly? Why not fudge the North American data sets to indicate a warming trend as well? The answer is simple, because they aren’t fudging all the data they are doing some corrections for siting of stations. I understand you don’t believe that the global warming crowd is using settled science, I don’t believe that either. But I also don’t think that discounting the mathematics used by the NOAA is appropriate either, nor do I believe they are running a vast conspiracy at the NOAA. There are temperature anomalies all over the globe, what do they mean and how we approach them is an appropriate study area. As with all study areas there will be two groups approaching the data with often opposing mind sets. I would argue that the sciences isn’t settled for or against the concepts indicated in these studies. I do believe we are approaching another long cycle of cooling, but I am not yet convinced that this cooling cycle is indicative of a zero effect by man on the climate. It might be that this cooling effect as a natural cycle easily overtakes the minimal human related temperature/climate issues. It… Read more »
VOV – Nicely stated. I do not think there is a vast conspiracy at NOAA. I do, however, think it is possible that agencies are acting in the own self interest to amass funding and power. No conspiracy to it really, unless human nature and confirmation bias constitute a conspiracy.
As far as their “math” goes, check this out for a random sample:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/
I am all for the “third view” you suggest, but it has to be reality based for me to jump onboard. If we actually are complicit as a species in climate change, the manipulation of, estimation of, and fabrication of data does not help any cause.
The raw data is now readily available today, VOV. It’s a bit hard to fudge data that’s readily available to anyone who wants to download it from the source pre-“adjustment”.
Frankly, using raw data should if anything give a false appearance of global warming. The world is far more urban today than previously. The urban “heat island” effect is real, is well-known – and tends to skew temperatures upwards in both summer (more concrete, more traffic, more air conditioning – which raises local outdoor temps via heat rejection) and winter (more heat production in the same area due to more people, traffic, etc . . . . ). Moreover, towns rarely get smaller during a time of generally increasing population – and rural/small towns show far less heat island effect than do large towns/cities.
The only time an adjustment makes sense for temperature data is for historical continuity – e.g., when a longstanding sensor has been moved to a new location, or when a new sensor is installed. Frankly, even then it’s problematic as hell – largely because of questions as to how to determine the “adjustment”. The best policy IMO is to simply not bother, but note that data before/after are not directly comparable.
Bottom line: across-the-board “adjustments” to raw data sets are IMO always highly suspect – because the “adjustment” required for one sensor may or may not be the same as the average. Even individual adjustments to particular sensors may be similarly problematic.
I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions from this. I live in Kansas and I have to mow my yard tomorrow. That’s all I know about global warming.
Here is a recent story that refutes people that deny global warming. Complete with cites of peer-reviewed academic journals.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/01/lenar-whitney/republican-congressional-hopeful-says-global-warmi/
FrostyCWO: as I said to VOV above – if the data on which those “peer-reviewed academic journal” articles are based has been “adjusted”, their conclusions are suspect.
FrostyCWO – and yet, Politifact would not contact this guy (read the comments) : stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/it-gets-more-bizarre-by-the-hour/
Simple question. Is 40% of USA raw temperature data fabricated? Politifact doesn’t want to know.
The global warming crowd that keeps issuing dire predictions that fail to materialize and who keep calling anyone who disagrees entirely with their views “deniers” has lost any credibility they may have had even if some of their concerns are valid.
I have no doubt that the world is probably getting warmer in varying degrees and I don’t know of anyone that thinks pollution is good for the environment but the constant drum beat of doom and gloom and pending catastrophe that fails to objectively look at all possibilities isn’t science, its a fucking money grab.
You cry wolf so many times you are just going to get ignored and these people who continue to act like climate science is a cult have set back the environmental movement decades.
Trend, huh?
Okay, well, the US southwest was hot, as is normal, but the monsoonal rains came out of the Gulf of Baja, not the Gulf of Mexico. The western southwest, on the western side of the Rockies, hasn’t had adequate rainfall in some time – lost track of it, but it’s been a while – and yet the western northwest is heavily inundated.
The midwest had below-average summer temps. I ran my furnace until June 5. Two inches of snow in April. I have pictures. Unusually cool summer for the northern midwest, but there was snow in the eastern Rockies in July, which is really not all that unusual.
It’s weather. Short-term.
But climate change? Research now shows that a return to a wet, green Sahara (indicating cooler climate) can happen in one generation, and it operates on a cyclical bnsis. The warming periods in ice advances over the last 400,000 years were generally shorter than the cold, ice-covered periods. That is how climate works. I think we can expect to see cooler trends for a whie, maybe longer winters.
Oh, yeah – for what it’s worth, the Saudis have intentionally dropped the price of oil per barrel to below $80 and have said, bluntly, that they are comfortable with the lower prices for an extended time to come. That was in Business Insider a couple of weeks ago.
I wish I could give a shit about global warming or cooling but, really, my concerns are a tad more immediate. Baracka Husseina Obola won a Nobel Peace prize and, without any pertinent experience, was elected president. What’s more, after four consecutive years of dismal failure, lies, and more lies, he was re-elected! So, as far as silly shenanigans and stupidity go, there is just no topping that stuff.
I can’t wait for him to write an autobigraphy! 😉
i can because if he doesn’t, it can’t flop and otherwise the rest of us be called rayciss for not buying the damn thing.
Look at the bright side, street. If it flops, it will end up in the bargain bin at some 2nd-hand bookstore. And it might come in handy as spare TP in an emergency.
Besides, the latter use would for me be eminently satisfying, emergency or not – particularly if the book was free or obtained for about $1. (smile)
You guys completely ruined my sarcasm. Thanks.
These days, it is rarely about the environment and all about a 13.4 billion dollar activist industry, that has significant influence on your way of life.
“These Radical Greens have shuttered coal mines, coal-fired power plants, factories, the jobs that went with them, and the family security, health and welfare that went with those jobs. They have largely eliminated leasing, drilling, mining and timber harvesting across hundreds of millions of acres in the western United States and Alaska – and are now targeting ranchers. In an era of innovative seismic and drilling technologies, they have cut oil production by 6% on federally controlled onshore and offshore lands”.
If we are going to burn oil (and we are) I would greatly prefer to burn someone else’s oil and keep ours for the time when we run out of other people’s oil or the time when they cut off our supply.
I ant one of those Y-valves. Use Saudi oil until the price gets too high, switch to US oil.
I don’t think I can have that but it is what I want.
And I want to be taller and better looking and about 25 years younger too.
The scientists that wrote the paper that started the man made global warming movement abandoned that theory back in 1990, when it became clear that there was no relation between raising CO2 and global warming.
Back in 1998, one of the scientists that wrote that original paper urged members of congress not to take action on “global warming” until they could do more studies on it.
Both scientists, like real scientists, rejected the “CO2 causes temperature rise” argument. The scientist that Al Gore identifies as his “mentor” eventually wrote articles against the man made global warming argument.
Here’s the link:
Make that 1988…