Summers In Texas Have Warmed By A Blistering 0.0 Degrees Over The Last Century

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Summers In Texas Have Warmed By A Blistering 0.0 Degrees Over The Last Century

  1. Lance says:

    Come on Steve, if you start the graph at around 1975, there has been TREMENDOUS heat increase…

  2. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

    Talk about “Cherry Picking”! You used the entire record. To be a climatologist you need to find the lowest historic temperature and trend to the warmest recent temperature. That is Normal “Scientific” practice in climatology!

  3. Blade says:

    Summers In Texas Have Warmed By A Blistering 0.0 Degrees Over The Last Century

    We’re gonna need … more decimal places.

  4. Ill wind blowing says:

    So what happens when someone sees through Mr. Cherry’s “plot” with the 100 year baseline?

    This happens:

  5. Ill wind blowing says:

    July Temperature
    Contiguous United States

    July 1901 – 2000 Average = 74.29 degF
    July 1895 – 2011 Trend = 0.11 degF / Decade

    • P.J. says:

      Start at a trough, finish at a peak. I’m going for some cherry ice cream.

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      Talk about cherries!

    • Hmm, why do you feel the need to use different data for your two points here? Are you trying to demonstrate that the average temperature and the trend of the change in temperature are unconnected? Because that’s what I’d do if I were trying to demonstrate a disconnect.

      Perhaps you should actually state in your opening paragraph that the average temperature for an arbitrary span has nothing to do with a trend line drawn against different data. That way it doesn’t look like you’re trying to lie by omission.

  6. Ill wind blowing says:


    “so you’re saying global warming only started 35 years ago………………..”

    So who’s saying that global warming can be disproven by cherry picking Texas? Uh, never mind, I know who.

    • Latitude says:

      I don’t see global warming in Steve’s post at all….only the fact that Summers In Texas Have Warmed By A Blistering 0.0 Degrees Over The Last Century


      • Ill wind blowing says:

        If you don’t live in Texas then you got the same attitude they have. You think that Texas is the world.

        Go back to the contiguous United States figures, because it doesn’t matter what you see (with blinders on) on Steve’s post. What is happening in a larger context is what matters.

    • So you’re saying that Global Warming only occurs in areas that don’t have thermometer records going back more than 50 years?

    • Jimash says:

      Texas is big.
      If something is happening globally shouldn’t it be happening in Texas too ?
      And Oklahoma ?

      • Ill wind blowing says:


        “Texas is big.
        If something is happening globally shouldn’t it be happening in Texas too ?
        And Oklahoma ?”

        You know what’s really sad, Jimash? I actually think you’re serious.

      • That’s just silly, Jimash. IWB doesn’t believe that Texas is on the globe. And we all know that IWB is all about facts, not belief.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “That’s just silly, Jimash. IWB doesn’t believe that Texas is on the globe. And we all know that IWB is all about facts, not belief.”

        Any fool can make a joke but only another fool can appreciate it.

  7. Ill wind blowing says:

    I forgot that Steve used summer, not July. Everything else, baseline as well as start end dates are the same as his. So, without any further ado:

    Summer (Jun-Aug) Temperature
    Contiguous United States
    Summer (Jun-Aug) 1901 – 2000 Average = 72.10 degF
    Summer (Jun-Aug) 1895 – 2010 Trend = 0.10 degF / Decade

    • Summer is when it gets hot.

    • P.J. says:

      Trough to peak … it can only mean:

    • Jimash says:

      “Summer (Jun-Aug) Temperature
      Contiguous United States
      Summer (Jun-Aug) 1901 – 2000 Average = 72.10 degF
      Summer (Jun-Aug) 1895 – 2010 Trend = 0.10 degF / Decade”

      So what of it ?
      I went and did NJ too. 0.1º F per decade.
      That is 1º per century in a place where swings of 100º per year are common.
      And This to you is a big deal ?
      You do not think it can ever go the other way ( as it has done before) ?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        1. A rise in temperature of 1F in the last century is not the same thing as saying 1F per century because the increase can escalate rapidly in a much shorter period of time.

        2. Most of that increase has been occurring in the last 4 decades, an indication that there is an escalation occurring.

        3. An increase of 1F, the statistical average throughout the globe, is sufficient to start changing weather patterns.

        4. There are still further increases coming ahead which will distort the weather further. Another 1F within the next 30 years not taking into account any further increases in fossil fuel burning

        And no, it’s not going to go the other way. It’s not merely a trend that we’re looking at on paper with no knowledge as to the conditions that are causing it. Those conditions are not going to go away.

      • P.J. says:

        @IWB: “4. There are still further increases coming ahead which will distort the weather further. Another 1F within the next 30 years not taking into account any further increases in fossil fuel burning”

        Let’s just assume for the moment that this is indeed true. If so, what are you doing to reduce your CO2 emissions? If you aren’t doing anything of note, why not?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “There is no long term trend in Texas summer temperatures.”

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “Let’s just assume for the moment that this is indeed true. If so, what are you doing to reduce your CO2 emissions? If you aren’t doing anything of note, why not?”


        Joe Responsible:
        We’ve got to do something about that tyrant overseas!

        John Dont Givashit:
        It’s not a big deal. Nothing’s happening over there that hasn’t happened a dozen times in the past. And look, we’re still here.

        Joe Responsible:
        Yes it is a big deal. So what if it’s happened in the past? We’re not going to be here if we keep thinking like that. I still say that we’ve got to do something.

        John Dont Givashit:
        So tell me, smart aleck, what are you doing about it?

        Joe Responsible:
        What am I doing about it? What the hell do you think that I can do?

        John Dont Givashit:
        Why you can get a rifle and a ticket and go fight that tyrant yourself? You’re all talk and no action.

        Joe Responsible:
        That’s ridiculous! There’s nothing that a single person can do.

        John Dont Givashit:
        So why don’t you take a million of your whining buddies, with their rifles and tickets, along with you?

        Joe Responsible:
        Then what!? We all swim to those heavily fortified shores and take potshots at the tyrants troops while we get mowed down?

        And if some of us make it through, do we then ask anyone we find, in sign language of course, in what direction to go and if we can hitch a ride to wherever?

        John Dont Givashit:
        Yeah, something like that.

        Joe Responsible:
        You’re insane! That’s no way to accomplish anything! You’re completely irresponsible, John!

        John Dont Givashit:
        No, Joe; you just don’t give a shit since you’re doing nothing on your own.

      • P.J. says:

        @IWB: Your reply is ridiculous and completely dodges the question. So I will ask you again … what are you doing to reduce your CO2 emissions? If you aren’t doing anything of note, why not?

        By the way, there is one line in your reply that sums up your apathy quite nicely:

        “There’s nothing that a single person can do.”

        There are lots of individuals doing many things to reduce their impact on the environment, be it CO2 emissions or otherwise. By saying global warming is our fault and then doing nothing about it, makes your words empty and hollow … kind of like Al Gore.

  8. julienne stroeve says:

    I’m just curious, how do you all decide what temperature data to believe? Is there a reason why this data record should be trusted over others? Will you believe any temperature data record for any US region from NOAA’s web site, or is it city/state specific? Is the data from NOAA considered to be more accurate than that from other institutions?

  9. Jimash says:

    Dr. Stroeve,
    I am probably the least qualified person here.
    I make the naive assumption that our publicly funded National atmospheric and oceanic administration does make an attempt to accurately record and report the observed temperatures reported to it.
    As we all know picking the start and end points determines the trend.
    IF we look at the famous hockey stick graph what we see is 1000 years of below average temperature followed by 4-5 years of what is assumed to be “normal ” Temp, and then an increase.
    This is the illusion created by minimizing the MWP and maxing the LIA, both of which are now known to be real.
    So knowing that 1880-95 was a miserable cold dank time and that the 1970’s were desperately
    wintery and cold ( causing us to dance to keep warm), we can see that an upward trend is easily derived.
    I cannot see why below average temperatures would be any advantage, or that it is in any way possible to recapture the not-that-good weather of the 60’s .
    Having skewed the normal by removing the good weather and dismissing the bad,
    my question back to you is how was the concept that the time of the “normal” temps are “normal”,
    determined except by adjusting and skewing the data, which you MUST know to have been the case ?
    How, (considering the preponderance of low temp periods) do we actually know that the normal was the normal, and that now is not closer to normal ? ( for our historical interglacial period).
    Excuse my ignorance.

  10. julienne stroeve says:

    Jimash, one of the reasons I ask is that I’ve also seen many attempts to discredit temperature data records such as this one from NOAA, so I’m trying to get a better understanding if there is any methodology or reasoning for choosing one over another. Obviously we want as long and as consistent data record as possible. So we have the satellite data record, which is the most consistent 4 decades of temperature monitoring we have, then we have stations, that have changed instrumentation, cities have built up around the stations, which has been shown to lead to biases in those temperature data and lots of work has gone into removing those biases, and then we have various attempts at temperature reconstructions based on paleoclimate evidence.
    Trying to piece all these diverse sources of temperature information together into a long-term record is not easy (I’m glad I’m not the one trying to do that).

    You’re correct to question what is “normal”. And there is a lot of debate about that. Is normal the average temperature experienced during an interglacial period, with the continents in the same place as today, and no huge volcanic eruptions to disrupt the climate? Is normal the temperature estimated from paleoclimate data when the amount of carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere was the same as before the industrial revolution? Actually, that has me wondering…what is the average temperature of the Earth with the continents in the same place as today when CO2 was at the level in 1850? What is the standard deviation in that temperature? Seems the ice cores would give that information.

    Probably what you really want to know is: do the increases in carbon in the atmosphere from human activities cause warming and how much warming does it cause? I’m assuming of course that you don’t debate that our activities have increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

    And this is not an easy question to answer. While physics shows us that CO2 and CH4 and H2O absorb infrared radiation and are greenhouse gases, it’s not easy to quantify how much of the warming we’ve seen since 1850 is a result of increases in GHGs. While laboratory measurements have shown that gases such as CO2 absorb infrared radiation (a lot of that done by the US military during the cold war), it’s not easy to separate out contributions from natural variability and GHGs since both are acting on the climate system at the same time. We don’t have another Earth to do an experiment by which we keep all things the same but keep GHGs at levels seen in 1850, so instead scientists build models to try to simulate how GHGs impact the climate. You may not trust the models, and they have their limitations, but in the models the observed warming is not simulated without including the observed record of GHGs.

    There are other ways too, such as monitoring the amount of energy escaping to space in the wavelengths of CO2 absorption. There have been several satellite missions focused on this, the most recent one the NASA AURA, and they show that there is less energy being emitted back to space at wavelengths that CO2 absorbs at. Then there is monitoring of more downwelling longwave radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. Those studies suggest that the increase in CO2 from our activities has warmed the planet. Will it continue to? That’s something I think is harder to answer because that relies on the climate models and accurate modeling of cloud and aerosol processes (which still has a ways to go) and also modeling of all the various feedbacks in the climate system.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      In the 8 months that I have looked at this blog I have seen every one of your assertions questioned, including that CO2 increase in caused by Humans. All that isotope data and estimates of natural co2 sources are hogwash. Submarine volcanies and mod ocean ridges. As Steve has pointed out in hundreds of posts there are hundreds of places where the temperature has hardly gone up at all and almost no place where sea level is increasing at a rate faster than would be expected 12,000 into an interglacial. Enso, cosmic rays seeding of clouds, solar effects, and other long term variation is responsible for all the non existent temperature increases. the Arctic is steadily recovering from the anomolous 2007 low, Antarctica is gaining ice and getting colder. There are no biological indications of climate change and polar bears are doing fine thank you. The satelites are garbage and readings meaningless. Don’t you know about the 300° temperature reading in lake Michigan? And what about the two satellites that WOULD have disproven global warming that coincidentally (wink wink) blew up on launch or landed in the ocean. And during Hansen’s testimony, they turned off the air conditioners! And Freeman Dyson himself says the models are all a meaningless exercise because they do not have a clue what the true parameters of all the variables are, so they just make stuff up.
      What you don’t seem to understand is that ALL the scientists involved in climate research are in it for the money or are stupid or are scared of losing their jobs if they tell the truth. Even the ones that question alarmist consequences are incapable of understanding that the trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could not possibly have a significant effect on the climate.
      Here you go and say that there are valid reasons for the (always upward current and always lower past) temperature adjustments, when Hansen has refused to show people his data. Why do you believe such obvious lies. All Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Jones and the rest of the team DO is lie, and prevent the truth from getting published.
      Listen, maybe you are a new scientist and have not gotten the proper indoctrination but NO climate scientists thinks there is any natural variation in climate. it is ALL controlled by CO2. You should make sure your colleagues do not read your blasphemous statements of uncertainty. The science is settled and no one can say anything that contradicts that. Steve and others have shown belief in ACC is a religion with only dogma and no real science can be allowed in it. Hopefully now that you are being exposed to the truth, you can help turn the tide back to reality, but you must be very careful. Maybe you can tape Hansen at a party , get him drunk and admit that he just changes the temp data to suit his agenda. And Mann and his bristlecones. You could be of great service to your country. I am sure Morano could hook you up with the right people (wink wink).
      other wise you may end up being called a maroon or worse if you keep posting questions on this site. But don’t worry I hold the record for absorbing the epithets. And I am sure Steve is an old fashioned gentleman, who would not allow others to attack you (most people here pretty much know what Steve will accept and what he won’t and they dutifully attack any that dare question Steve’s authority on any subject, and of course they support anything he says, because he only writes the truth).
      Speaking of authority. You have obviously seen how Steve pretty much knows more than almost any scientist in any field that has the slightest bearing on Climate change. Once the global climate change house of cards falls apart. I was thinking you could help reform the peer review process. it would be so much easier if everyone sent all their articles to Steve and let him make the determination of whether they are worthy of being published or not. I am thinking once he is vindicated in all his arguments that are posted on this blog (in my experience he has never been wrong about anything), it should not take too much to make that change. Frankly, here will be no one else who could be trusted

      • suyts says:

        Tony, what was that about? While I’m sure Dr. Stroeve will be able to discern your sarcasm, you still come off as a rabid, foaming at the mouth activist. While you decry some people’s demeanor towards her, I would think she’d appreciate rational discussions over the word-salad you’ve presented. I would have thought you would be more apt to attempt to pick her brain about something or another. ………….Oh, wait that might have been your version of humor……. sorry if I missed that.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I just think it is funny how everyone is so nice to Julienne. None of the usual mudslinging going on when she posts. Not sure if that is because she is a woman, or that she is exactly the kind of practicing scientist that is routinely skewered on this site.
        Of course you and a couple of others are the exception in terms of engaging in mudslinging. And I hope you notice I didn’t use the word Manhattan or the word fraud once!
        BTW is there anything specific I posted that I is an inacurate representation on the views on global warming on this site? I wouldn’t want her to think i was exaggerating after all

      • suyts says:

        Tony, just because one person on this site has a view, it doesn’t mean all of us share that view. But, yes, many people have expressed, although more coherently, many of the views you touched on. Most of us don’t often conflate them as you have, and if I were to make statements of such I’d pose some rationale or evidence to support the view, as do most here. I would note, after much cajoling, Hansen did finally show his methodology. It has even met to the satisfaction of sometime skeptic Steven Mosher. It doesn’t meet my satisfaction. I reject a fluid, dynamic history. It lends to confusion and statements of facts are only facts within a certain time parameter. This isn’t conducive to establishing science. Orwell hasn’t a thing on him. Much more to say, but your lack of coherency and specifics precludes much more detail.

        As to the treatment of Julienne here, while some of it may run afoul of our sensibilities, I would point out that Julienne is a big girl, she’s got a PhD and everything. She’s been entrusted with great responsibilities by this nation. And, she’s not naive as to the people that frequent this site, nor the emotional charge which is inherent to the subject matter offered at this site. She’s intentionally engaging here and I’m pretty sure she expects to run into some resentment. I’d be surprised to find very many blogs where the readership wouldn’t take her to task for one thing or the other. Its the nature of her position.

    • suyts says:


      You said a mouthful there, and I’d love to chat with you about all of it. But, this venue doesn’t lend for that kind of conversation. …….. So, skipping down to your last para…… “……they show that there is less energy being emitted back to space at wavelengths that CO2 absorbs at.

      I’m sure you’re aware of the hubbub Dr. Spencer recently caused with his new paper showing more energy leaving than previously thought. If the prior statement is true and the latter statement is true, (and I’ve no reason to doubt either) then it seems we’re missing a mechanism or dynamic in play.

      But, even the general thrust of your comment shows that the level of certitude as often touted by the media and some of your colleagues is unwarranted. I find it oddly ironic, that it was the shrill insistence of such certitude that beckoned many of us skeptics to the blogosphere. There were too many chasms to traverse. The chasm between believing the plausible and knowing, and the chasm between knowing and understanding. Well, I guess things do work out for the best.

      Thanks for coming by Julienne! You always seem to give me things to consider!


      • julienne stroeve says:

        James, I still need to read the recent paper by Spencer. The only thing I’ve read so far about it is from Pielke’s web site. But it’s on my list of papers to read. Being associate editor for JGR Oceans has really cut into my time to read other papers lately.

      • suyts says:

        Sigh, I don’t know if it is just perception or level of engagement, but it sure seems to me that significant papers and studies are just flying out of the journals. I can’t keep up either. Some I have to totally ignore, others just skim over and not do it or me justice. Others, still, I have to determine if I want to dig deep into what the authors are stating. It’s a bit maddening. It is as if there’s some silly race afoot. I know people in your profession are always seeking to publish, but the cycle of discussion isn’t lending to establishing any science. Lately, a paper will be published, depending upon the likings of one side or the other, one side will jump up and say “Is not!!” and then the other side will say, Is too!!!…… then, the next paper is presented. Nothing gets established, and climate science in particular isn’t progressing at the rate I would expect it to.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS (Should I call you james?)

        I do like it when we agree. Almost never completely, but it certainly happens 😉
        I do think that the “IS TOO” IS NOT” phenomenon is not terribly helpful, especially for people like me who have a much higher level of science understanding than the general public, but are clueless with regard to the intricacies of most of the details discussed.
        Spencer’s paper has been pretty much dismissed as unworthy of publication from what I have read recently by the ACC side, and of course it is being trumpeted by the anti side.
        I disagree however that the science isn’t progressing very fast. I think it actually is doing so, but it will take a few years for the dust to settle. As you know I am in no way convinced of yours and Steve’s and others arguments against ACC, but I am hardly convinced that the consequences of ACC are going to be anywhere near the level that Hansen and McKibben and Gore suggest. The polarization due to ideology has had a very damaging effect socially. I personally find the Evil socialist enviro-nazi meme to be worse than the obstructionist denier oil company funded one, but neither is very accurate, and it all leads to people emotionally engaged in showing that the enemy is wrong.

        Still I am not sure why everyone is so nice to Julienne. As you can probably tell, I pretty much tailor my tone to the tone I get from others. I learned that in game theory 😉

      • P.J. says:

        @Tony: “The polarization due to ideology has had a very damaging effect socially.”

        Agreed. That is not only true of AGW, it can be said of many things. And …

        “I am hardly convinced that the consequences of ACC are going to be anywhere near the level that Hansen and McKibben and Gore suggest”

        Agreed as well. If more people on the pro-AGW side would aknowledge this, the proposed solutions to the “problem” wouldn’t be so ludicrous. Even if AGW is real, mitigation would be far more realistic and cost effective than drastic reductions in carbon emissions.

  11. suyts says:

    @ Tony & PJ……… First,

    Tony, call me James if you like. I use “suyts” because its a moniker I’ve had since conversing on the internet was confined to discussion boards. I’ve just grown attached to it. Anonymity isn’t something I require.

    ….. running home from work……. more to say later.

    • suyts says:

      The more part….. @ Tony….. “Spencer’s paper has been pretty much dismissed as unworthy of publication from what I have read recently by the ACC side, and of course it is being trumpeted by the anti side.” ————— That’s true, worse, most of it was done before any had a chance to read the thing, much less go through and see what was really stated. I don’t know how others do it, but when I read a paper or academic study such as that, I read it once down, and then back up. Sometimes I reverse the order depending upon the style written in. Sometimes its easier to read the conclusions and then see how they went about getting them as opposed to the other way. I hadn’t even finished the first run when all sorts of stuff was stated that simply wasn’t even in the paper….. models?

      You said, “I disagree however that the science isn’t progressing very fast. I think it actually is doing so, but it will take a few years for the dust to settle.”

      Well, the overall premise hasn’t changed any in the last 3 decades in spite of much resources being thrown at the question. I think the most telling point is that when I ask about someone showing me an accurate global temp model, I get shown only Hansen’s 88 model. Now we can disagree as to its veracity and accuracy, but if we haven’t improved since then….. we’ve got problems. And, the problem is that the base assumptions going into the models are incorrect. As many models and as many runs by our supercomputers, we should have accidentally got something right. The base assumptions preclude this from occurring. That’s what I was referring to when I stated we haven’t progressed much. Paleo seems to be stuck in reverse, but that’s a welcomed sight.

      Lastly you spoke of the vitriol…..“Evil socialist enviro-nazi meme to be worse than the obstructionist denier oil company funded one, but neither is very accurate,….

      The problem is, there are indeed some socialist enviro-“nazi” types very much engaged in the greater discussion. The German gentleman, co-chair of working group 3(I can’t remember his name right off) stated that what the IPCC was engaged in was “redistributing wealth”. Co-founder of Greenpeace says he got out because the cause was taken over by communists. Every single solution to this alleged problem attacks industry and effective capitalist entities. They all call for shared sacrifice, (see additional taxes,with many exceptions) and they basically engage in class warfare. I submit, that American oil companies are something to be celebrated and emulated not degenerated. More so for the coal companies. Both provide this nation with cheap fuel and energy necessary for this nation and this nation’s people to survive. They provide jobs and a huge tax base. And, they’ve managed to make a few shareholders extremely wealthy! These are all positive attributes that we should want more of, not less. Obviously, not all people concerned about the CACC prospects fall into this category, but some do and they are very vocal. So, it lends to the appearance that most do.

      More about solutions and I’ll move on because this is already too lengthy. Tony, suppose I tell you I know how to cut the U.S.’ coal companies CO2 output in half in less than ten years, assure you that there would be over 100% return on investment in less than an additional 10 years, provide meaningful jobs and reduce the cost of electricity for nearly every household in this nation while increasing its reliability and availability. Is that something you’d get behind? Let me know if you would and I’ll tell you how to get it done. It is most feasible.

      As to the obstructionist denier oil company….….. denier…., I would think is most harmful. Not to the skeptic cause but to the cheapening of the word. I tend to view it as unintentional (I believe the origins to be intentional) antisemitism. To me, it is just a word I can easily refute. To a person of Jewish heritage, it likely holds an entirely different meaning. So, it isn’t that it offends me personally, it offends me in the perspective I’ve just described. The “big oil” meme probably does more to help the skeptical cause than anything. It skews the perspective of alarmists and causes many to trip into irrational arguments. It goes to the “Know your enemy and know yourself…….” When one starts a debate with a false assumption about his opponent, they will lose the debate. I think we’re seeing a manifestation of this of late.

      Had more to share, but this is already too wordy……….

  12. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Tony, why not be nice? But not everyone is nice to me on this blog. I can name a few that are not. I certainly appreciate folks like James though, since even though he and I mostly disagree, we can do it in a respectful way and perhaps by being respectful in our debates it can lead to new thoughts/ideas we had not considered.

    • P.J. says:

      “even though he and I mostly disagree, we can do it in a respectful way and perhaps by being respectful in our debates it can lead to new thoughts/ideas we had not considered.”

      I couldn’t have said it better. Keep posting … Arctic sea ice isn’t something I know a lot about, so I am learning a fair bit from you going back and forth with James, Steve, and others.

    • Latitude says:

      respect is a two way street…..;-)

    • Jimash says:

      Thank you Dr. Stroeve, and I hope I am on your good list.
      I see no reason to berate you since you are willing to come and engage with us.
      It can only be of value.
      I appreciate your considerate answer to my previous post.
      Maybe I’ll learn something.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I started a long response and I must have closed the window by accident.
      In shorter form, I am respectful to those that are to me. SUYTS is , so are a few others. I am not a big fan of niceness. Friendliness, certainly, but niceness evokes a sense of superficiality. One is nice in order not to upset people. In that sense I totally approve of this blog. Steve and others here are extremely concerned, even alarmed, at what they consider to be a massive effort to misuse science in order to scare people into actions they contend will only benefit a select few and cause serious economic, social and even environmental problems. It is a plausible contention and they also have a tremendous amount of knowledge that is presented, some of which supports elements of that view. They have every right to be angry and to point out the inconsistencies and failures of climate science. They do not need, nor do I expect them, to be nice.
      I do take issue with the both the form of some of the attacks, as well as on the irrational and unsupported nature of both some of the posts and comments on this site. When I first joined the fray I was not particularly sarcastic. that quickly changed as the reactions to my comments became, in my view increasingly focused on my intelligence and not the content I was providing.
      I have repeatedly made points on here that are either ignored or completely distorted. I view myself as a skeptic, and much of my sarcasm comes from the observation that there is almost no skepticism of any argument made on this site as long as it opposing ACC. That of course does not mean that ACC is correct or that there aren’t aspects of it that are wrong or inadequate. But I enjoy pointing out the arguments that are obviously untenable and then being constantly surprised at the way some people here manage to find ways to continue believing them.
      I am not intimidated or bothered by the constant attacks on me, and I learn a great deal both about the specific climate related issues, and about how ideology allows people to distort information to fit their world view.
      I certainly appreciate your presence in these comments as it seems to force the conversation to substantive issues. I also appreciate that you do not engage in any of the male blustering that makes up so much of the argumentation on here 😉

  13. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

    Being one of the Nasties, I will only comment to TonyD and PJ
    You both are using worn out terminology to describe what the current fight is against. Global Warming was replaced by Climate Change and there have been a few newer phrases bandied about. The latest and best descriptor that is easily understood is Human Induced Climate Catastrophe! Those are four words that everyone can understand. People need to look up Anthropogenic and most can not even spell it so that leaves out the “A” in your acronym and Human Induced means the same. If the Chicken Little did not think a Catastrophe was about to occur then we would not be discussing Climate issues.
    That leaves us with the acronym HICC! 😉
    I will attempt to answer one of your questions that appears to have been overlooked by others! Why NOAA as a source for surface temperature data?
    I will restrain from commenting about the question coming from a person with a PHD in a related field.
    NOAA is the parent organization of the National Weather Service! Stay with me on this! Within NWS (National Weather Service) is a sub group called National Climate data Center (NCDC)!
    ALL of the temperature monitoring stations in the US with any amount of historical records are those belonging to NWS! NCDC also complies a list from other countries called Global Historical Climate Network. ( GHCN). ALL and that is ALL other groups that also manipulate surface temperature records get their land surface temperature records from NCDC. None of the reported surface temperature records are “Independent”.
    I will leave out statements about quality of records or even their value as you did not ask!
    The Thirtyone years of satellite records are recording measurements of the Lower Troposphere and not Surface temperatures. In another century they may get the inherent “Bugs” worked out of the method and it could prove of some value.
    I apologize if I happen to get a tad snippy but having retired from a life of being a trouble shooter I had to know how and why things worked to do MY job!

    • Latitude says:

      I like ICS……………..Irritable Climate Syndrome…….;-)

      Gramps one thing you mentioned that is very important and needs repeating….
      All temperature measurements prior to satellites are actual surface temperatures…
      …..satellite temperatures are lower troposphere
      They do not measure trends the same way………………

      Excellent post!

      • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

        There is always Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism! CACA 8)

      • suyts says:

        Indeed, I’ve often stated that comparisons of surface to sat data is apples to oranges. They’re not the same…..They’re not the same…..They’re not the same…..They’re not the same…..!!! And, given the strange crossing divergence of RSS and UAH, one is forced to recognize the accuracy isn’t as good as touted. Here’s their divergences. While if one looks at them in the aggregate, they are almost spot on, but upon further inspection we see leading up to about 1998 RSS was diverging warmer than UAH, then sometime around 1998…. (I really haven’t taken the time to look into exactly when) the roles reversed and UAH started diverging warmer. If one adds the divergences, we see a divergence close to 0.2 degrees C in a very short time! They aren’t as accurate as advertised. The surface records are worse…. and manipulated. While most of us accept the premise of a little global warming, there really isn’t any good justification for the acceptance other than no one can show otherwise.

        At some point, after Dr.’s Christy and Spencer leave UAH, I expect the divergence to be rectified in the same manner as the satellite sea-levels were rectified. I know currently UAH is showing warmer, but, I don’t think they’ll allow for arbitrary adjustments. After they leave, I’m not nearly as optimistic.

        I moved the trend lines to the same start point to better illustrate the divergence.

      • Latitude says:

        biggest problem is……
        …their margin or error is bigger than what they claim for temp change

        The WFT plot couldn’t show it any clearer………..thanks for that!

      • julienne stroeve says:

        The station measurements may or may not be actual surface temperatures. If you have a downward looking infrared sensor measuring the outgoing longwave radiation from the surface, then yes it’s a surface temperature measurement (depending on what you set emissivity at). You can also put thermistors in the ground to measure surface temperature. More standard have been temperature and humidity sensors mounted above the surface. Those give you near surface air temperatures. So it’s a bit misleading to call them surface temperature observations when they are actually measuring the air temperature above the surface.

        The satellites are measuring outgoing longwave radiation, which combines the signal from the surface and the atmosphere. While they design the satellites to monitor outgoing longwave radiation in infrared “windows” (i.e. at wavelengths with little to no gaseous absorption), some contribution from the atmosphere will remain, and of course when it’s cloudy, you don’t see the surface with visible or infrared observations. The “split-window” technique is often employed to determine surface temperatures from satellite. I have used this method myself over Greenland from AVHRR. This involves using both the AVHRR channels 4 and 5 (11 and 12 microns) to remove atmospheric effects. This technique is also used to determine sea surface temperatures. Since the station observations are near surface air temperature, and the satellite tries to measure the “skin temperature” of the Earth, they are not the same thing. Several papers over the years have examined the differences between these two measurements, and the relationship will naturally depend on the air stability.

        Grumpy of course I know about NOAA and NCDC and use their data on a regular basis. I have also processed all the historical data for the Arctic and Antarctic from the GHCN and made it in a more user friendly format, distributed by NSIDC.
        My question is more in lines of why would YOU trust those data? Why is Steve’s plot on Texas temperatures to be trusted? Steve says he likes it because it’s a long-term data source. So I guess he’s also trusting that they have made the appropriate adjustments when sensors were changed, or when observing practices were changed or when land cover/land use changed around the sensor, etc. Do you trust that NOAA has done a good job on making this a consistent, long-term data record? And if so, why?

  14. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

    I think it is useless garbage but it is the only “Surface” land temperature information available. This is a situation that proves the adage GIGO!
    You asked the question as if you were ignorant of the issue!

    • julienne stroeve says:

      Grumpy, I’m not ignorant about these types of measurements and in fact have installed thermistors, infrared sensors as well as temperature and humidity sensors on weather stations in Greenland. I have also developed algorithms to retrieve surface temperatures from satellite data. I don’t quite understand how you didn’t follow what I was trying to get at in my questioning, which is ‘what is your reasoning is for trusting a particular data set over another?’ But thanks for answering the question.

  15. suyts says:

    “My question is more in lines of why would YOU trust those data? Why is Steve’s plot on Texas temperatures to be trusted? Steve says he likes it because it’s a long-term data source. So I guess he’s also trusting that they have made the appropriate adjustments when sensors were changed, or when observing practices were changed or when land cover/land use changed around the sensor, etc. Do you trust that NOAA has done a good job on making this a consistent, long-term data record? And if so, why?”


    Julienne, I’m not sure you’re understanding the dynamics here. It isn’t about skeptics trusting. Its a challenge to alarmists. It is the temp record (in part) that the alarmists use to beat us about our heads that they claimed as proof that we’re hotting up. So, ok, we’ll play the game. As Steve states, its the only ball on the playground. When debating, there isn’t anything much better than using your opponent’s information presented to destroy their premise. Steve’s graph is a great use of the data in such a manner. The alarmist has to accept it, because that is the data we’re told we must accept as proof of our imminent demise! It leaves them with nothing other than the circular argument of cherry-picking the start dates. Which is funny because upon further inspection the start dates used by the alarmists are also arbitrary and holds no more validity than any start date chosen by a skeptic. So, whether Steve or any of us trust the data isn’t relevant. It is a way to turn the discussion to a no lose proposition and a wonderful debate tactic. Some may disagree with his employing it, but I think it tends to mute the wilder extreme local event noise as to allow for a more meaningful discussion.

    You later ask if we trust that NOAA has done a good job……… Julienne, I’ve no idea. The providence on the various records is sometimes a bit difficult to discern. I suppose it depends on if you are considering NCDC as NOAA or make the distinction between the two entities and the others. Any skeptic that has been at this for a while….(and that’s many of us here…) has gone to WUWT and seen the seemingly countless examples of improper manipulation, improper allowances for site or equipment changes, the difficulties with the siting itself, etc. now, who did it and when…. one has to dig quitea bit deeper. There are simply too many records and too many hands on the records. I guess if we’re giving kudos though, here’s one for not having a fluid and dynamic history such as GISS.

    Most of us would like to believe NOAA does a good and honest job without the burden of advocacy. Screaming arctic death spirals doesn’t intimate that sort of impartiality. That said, most of us realize Marky doesn’t do all of the actual work of NOAA….still the impression persists. Julienne, usually when concerning oneself with CAGW, we tend to look at the global record. Obviously, we would first look to GISS for a temp record…..knowing now, what many of us didn’t know going into this …mess, is that the record is the same physical record, but that each office puts their own stamp of manipulation on it. …. to adjust for inhomogeneous records and normalizing and the like… of course.


    • Latitude says:

      I think that’s called a “strawman”……….

      Setting it up as to why you trust one set of temperature data over the other….
      ….when the truth is, not trusting any of it

      but as usual, you did a better job of it than I could have………..;-)

    • julienne stroeve says:

      Thanks James for your answer. It’s helpful information that will come in handy next week when I’m on a panel discussing just these sorts of topics. Better understanding of where you’re coming from really helps!

      • suyts says:

        No problem, I’m happy to help. But, I’d be very careful about generalizations of skeptics. While “birds of a feather flock together”, there are many unique and diverse subgroups within the skeptical community. In fact, many wouldn’t have much to do with each other were it not for this singular issue. I think it is one of the most positive aspects of this experience. Liberals and conservatives, atheists and theists, and everything in between. If there’s one positive thing we can take away from this experience, is that the skeptics have shown that such a diverse group can still come together to serve a common cause. While many won’t appreciate this observation, it is a beautiful thing to behold and it renews my faith in humanity. Personally, I’ve come away with a different view than what I used to have about people of different views. People tend to view things in the extreme polar perspectives, but the skeptical movement (if you will) shows that western civilization isn’t doomed to this polarization, that we can and do come together for a common cause.

  16. Paul H says:


    You ask why Steve uses the NOAA data.

    This is the only set as far as I know that gives a ready analysis by state with a history going back to pre 1900.

    GISS can give histories of individual stations. As I understand it CRU’s data is much less user friendly and is basically a gridded set. UAH cannot give anywhere near as much detail.

    Of course a state like Texas in itself is only a small part of the world but amid all the alarm thrown our way by much of the media, it is important to remind people that many places are no warmer than they were back in the 19thC.

  17. suyts says:

    A belated rebut to IWB……. seeing how we keep coming back to this page, and no one else bothered to show this, I thought I’d throw this out……. mostly for fun…… to recap the small conversation……. Steve shows the summer graph of Texas…. IWB shows the graph of the last 35 years.(35.5?) showing an increase of 1 degree F….. Here’s another, with the same time parameters used by IWB…… …… showing an almost unprecedented increase of 1 degree F. Hmm….. glad we didn’t panic back then and blame the heat increase in the EMI generated by power lines…… us in rural Kansas would still be using block ice to cool our food if we had.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s