Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record.
NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it.
The graph below is the monthly average of all daily high and low temperatures at all NOAA USHCN stations.
Thermometer data is here : Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
December isn’t complete yet, but is running far below normal and forecast to get colder.
NOAA will reporting something very different, because they subtract up to 1.7 degrees from older temperatures. Essentially all reported US warming is due to a hockey stick of temperature adjustments, which makes the past appear to be much colder than what the thermometers measured at the time. (They of course do not mention this in their press releases.)
Complete station list can be seen below
BREWTON 3 SSE AL USC00011084 FAIRHOPE 2 NE AL USC00012813 GAINESVILLE LOCK AL USC00013160 GREENSBORO AL USC00013511 HIGHLAND HOME AL USC00013816 SAINT BERNARD AL USC00017157 SCOTTSBORO AL USC00017304 SELMA AL USC00017366 TALLADEGA AL USC00018024 THOMASVILLE AL USC00018178 TROY AL USC00018323 UNION SPRINGS 9 S AL USC00018438 VALLEY HEAD AL USC00018469 AJO AZ USC00020080 BUCKEYE AZ USC00021026 CANYON DE CHELLY AZ USC00021248 CHANDLER HEIGHTS AZ USC00021514 CHILDS AZ USC00021614 FT VALLEY AZ USC00023160 GRAND CANYON NP 2 AZ USC00023596 HOLBROOK AZ USC00024089 KINGMAN #2 AZ USC00024645 LEES FERRY AZ USC00024849 MIAMI AZ USC00025512 PARKER AZ USC00026250 PEARCE - SUNSITES AZ USC00026353 PRESCOTT AZ USC00026796 ROOSEVELT 1 WNW AZ USC00027281 SACATON AZ USC00027370 SAFFORD AGRICULTRL CTR AZ USC00027390 SAINT JOHNS AZ USC00027435 SELIGMAN AZ USC00027716 TOMBSTONE AZ USC00028619 TUCSON WFO AZ USC00028815 WHITERIVER 1 SW AZ USC00029271 WICKENBURG AZ USC00029287 WILLIAMS AZ USC00029359 YUMA CITRUS STN AZ USC00029652 BRINKLEY AR USC00030936 CONWAY AR USC00031596 CORNING AR USC00031632 EUREKA SPRINGS 3 WNW AR USC00032356 FAYETTEVILLE EXP STN AR USC00032444 GRAVETTE AR USC00032930 MAMMOTH SPRING AR USC00034572 MENA AR USC00034756 NEWPORT AR USC00035186 OZARK 2 AR USC00035512 PINE BLUFF AR USC00035754 POCAHONTAS 1 AR USC00035820 PRESCOTT 2 NNW AR USC00035908 ROHWER 2 NNE AR USC00036253 SUBIACO AR USC00036928 BERKELEY CA USC00040693 BLYTHE CA USC00040924 BRAWLEY 2 SW CA USC00041048 CEDARVILLE CA USC00041614 CHICO UNIV FARM CA USC00041715 CHULA VISTA CA USC00041758 COLFAX CA USC00041912 CUYAMACA CA USC00042239 DAVIS 2 WSW EXP FARM CA USC00042294 DEATH VALLEY CA USC00042319 ELECTRA P H CA USC00042728 FAIRMONT CA USC00042941 FT BRAGG 5 N CA USC00043161 HANFORD 1 S CA USC00043747 HAPPY CAMP RS CA USC00043761 HEALDSBURG CA USC00043875 INDEPENDENCE CA USC00044232 INDIO FIRE STN CA USC00044259 LAKE SPAULDING CA USC00044713 LEMON COVE CA USC00044890 LIVERMORE CA USC00044997 LODI CA USC00045032 MARYSVILLE CA USC00045385 MERCED CA USC00045532 USC00045983 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL CA USC00046074 NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR CA USC00046175 OJAI CA USC00046399 ORLAND CA USC00046506 ORLEANS CA USC00046508 PASADENA CA USC00046719 PASO ROBLES CA USC00046730 PETALUMA AIRPORT CA USC00046826 QUINCY CA USC00047195 REDLANDS CA USC00047306 SAN LUIS OBISPO POLY U CA USC00047851 SANTA BARBARA CA USC00047902 SANTA CRUZ CA USC00047916 SANTA ROSA CA USC00047965 SUSANVILLE 2SW CA USC00048702 TAHOE CITY CA USC00048758 TEJON RANCHO CA USC00048839 TUSTIN IRVINE RCH CA USC00049087 UKIAH CA USC00049122 VACAVILLE CA USC00049200 WASCO CA USC00049452 WEAVERVILLE CA USC00049490 WILLOWS 6 W CA USC00049699 YOSEMITE PARK HQ CA USC00049855 YREKA CA USC00049866 BOULDER CO USC00050848 CANON CITY CO USC00051294 CHEESMAN CO USC00051528 CHEYENNE WELLS CO USC00051564 COLLBRAN CO USC00051741 DEL NORTE 2E CO USC00052184 DILLON 1 E CO USC00052281 EADS CO USC00052446 FT COLLINS CO USC00053005 FT MORGAN CO USC00053038 FRUITA CO USC00053146 GUNNISON 3SW CO USC00053662 HERMIT 7 ESE CO USC00053951 HOLLY CO USC00054076 LAMAR CO USC00054770 LAS ANIMAS CO USC00054834 MANASSA CO USC00055322 MONTROSE #2 CO USC00055722 ROCKY FORD 2 SE CO USC00057167 SAGUACHE CO USC00057337 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS CO USC00057936 TELLURIDE 4WNW CO USC00058204 TRINIDAD CO USC00058429 WRAY CO USC00059243 FALLS VILLAGE CT USC00062658 GROTON CT USC00063207 STAMFORD 5 N CT USC00067970 STORRS CT USC00068138 DOVER DE USC00072730 GREENWOOD 2NE DE USC00073595 MILFORD 2 SE DE USC00075915 NEWARK UNIV FARM DE USC00076410 WILMINGTON PORTER RES DE USC00079605 USC00080211 ARCADIA FL USC00080228 BARTOW FL USC00080478 BELLE GLADE FL USC00080611 DE FUNIAK SPRINGS 1 E FL USC00082220 EVERGLADES FL USC00082850 FEDERAL POINT FL USC00082915 FERNANDINA BEACH FL USC00082944 FT LAUDERDALE FL USC00083163 FT PIERCE FL USC00083207 INVERNESS 3 SE FL USC00084289 LAKE CITY 2 E FL USC00084731 MADISON FL USC00085275 OCALA FL USC00086414 PERRINE 4W FL USC00087020 SAINT LEO FL USC00087851 TARPON SPGS SEWAGE PL FL USC00088824 TITUSVILLE FL USC00088942 ALBANY 3 SE GA USC00090140 BAINBRIDGE INTL PAPER GA USC00090586 BRUNSWICK GA USC00091340 CAMILLA 3SE GA USC00091500 COVINGTON GA USC00092318 DAHLONEGA GA USC00092475 EASTMAN 1 W GA USC00092966 GAINESVILLE GA USC00093621 GLENNVILLE 3NW GA USC00093754 HAWKINSVILLE GA USC00094170 MILLEDGEVILLE GA USC00095874 MILLEN 4 N GA USC00095882 NEWNAN 5N GA USC00096335 QUITMAN 2 NW GA USC00097276 ROME GA USC00097600 TALBOTTON GA USC00098535 TIFTON GA USC00098703 TOCCOA GA USC00098740 WARRENTON GA USC00099141 WASHINGTON 2 ESE GA USC00099157 WAYCROSS 4 NE GA USC00099186 WEST POINT GA USC00099291 ABERDEEN EXP STN ID USC00100010 ARROWROCK DAM ID USC00100448 ASHTON 1N ID USC00100470 BERN ID USC00100803 CAMBRIDGE ID USC00101408 COEUR D'ALENE ID USC00101956 DWORSHAK FISH HATCH ID USC00102845 FENN RS ID USC00103143 GLENNS FERRY ID USC00103631 GRACE ID USC00103732 HAZELTON ID USC00104140 HOLLISTER ID USC00104295 JEROME ID USC00104670 KELLOGG ID USC00104831 KETCHUM RS ID USC00104845 LIFTON PUMPING STN ID USC00105275 MACKAY LOST RIVER RS ID USC00105462 MAY 2SSE ID USC00105685 MOSCOW U OF I ID USC00106152 NAMPA SUGAR FACTORY ID USC00106305 NEW MEADOWS RS ID USC00106388 OAKLEY ID USC00106542 PAYETTE ID USC00106891 PORTHILL ID USC00107264 PRIEST RIVER EXP STN ID USC00107386 SALMON-KSRA ID USC00108080 SANDPOINT EXP STN ID USC00108137 ALEDO IL USC00110072 ANNA 2 NNE IL USC00110187 AURORA IL USC00110338 CARLINVILLE IL USC00111280 CHARLESTON IL USC00111436 DANVILLE IL USC00112140 DECATUR WTP IL USC00112193 DIXON 1 NW IL USC00112348 DU QUOIN 4 SE IL USC00112483 GALVA IL USC00113335 HARRISBURG IL USC00113879 HILLSBORO IL USC00114108 HOOPESTON IL USC00114198 JACKSONVILLE 2E IL USC00114442 LA HARPE IL USC00114823 LINCOLN IL USC00115079 MARENGO IL USC00115326 MCLEANSBORO IL USC00115515 MINONK IL USC00115712 MONMOUTH IL USC00115768 MORRISON IL USC00115833 MT CARROLL IL USC00115901 MT VERNON 3 NE IL USC00115943 OLNEY 2S IL USC00116446 OTTAWA 5SW IL USC00116526 PALESTINE IL USC00116558 PANA IL USC00116579 PARIS STP IL USC00116610 PERRY 6 NW IL USC00116738 PONTIAC IL USC00116910 RUSHVILLE 4NE IL USC00117551 SPARTA 1 W IL USC00118147 URBANA IL USC00118740 WALNUT IL USC00118916 WHITE HALL 1 E IL USC00119241 WINDSOR IL USC00119354 ANDERSON SEWAGE PLT IN USC00120177 ANGOLA IN USC00120200 BERNE WWTP IN USC00120676 BLOOMINGTON IN UNIV IN USC00120784 BROOKVILLE IN USC00121030 CAMBRIDGE CITY 3 N IN USC00121229 CHARLESTOWN 5 NNW IN USC00121425 COLUMBUS IN USC00121747 CRAWFORDSVILLE 6 SE IN USC00121873 DELPHI 2 N IN USC00122149 GOSHEN 3SW IN USC00123418 GREENCASTLE 1 W IN USC00123513 GREENFIELD IN USC00123527 HOBART 2 WNW IN USC00124008 HUNTINGTON IN USC00124181 LAPORTE IN USC00124837 MADISON SEWAGE PLT IN USC00125237 MARION 2 N IN USC00125337 MT VERNON IN USC00126001 OOLITIC PURDUE EX FRM IN USC00126580 PAOLI IN USC00126705 PRINCETON 1 W IN USC00127125 RENSSELAER IN USC00127298 ROCHESTER IN USC00127482 ROCKVILLE IN USC00127522 RUSHVILLE IN USC00127646 SALEM IN USC00127755 SCOTTSBURG IN USC00127875 SEYMOUR 2 N IN USC00127935 SHOALS 8 S IN USC00128036 VEVAY IN USC00129080 VINCENNES 5 NE IN USC00129113 WASHINGTON 1 W IN USC00129253 WHEATFIELD IN USC00129511 WHITESTOWN IN USC00129557 WINAMAC 2SSE IN USC00129670 ALBIA 3 NNE IA USC00130112 ALGONA 3 W IA USC00130133 BELLE PLAINE IA USC00130600 CHARLES CITY IA USC00131402 CLARINDA IA USC00131533 CLINTON #1 IA USC00131635 ESTHERVILLE 4E IA USC00132724 FAIRFIELD IA USC00132789 FAYETTE IA USC00132864 FOREST CITY 2 NNE IA USC00132977 FT DODGE 5NNW IA USC00132999 INDIANOLA 2W IA USC00134063 IOWA FALLS IA USC00134142 LE MARS IA USC00134735 LOGAN IA USC00134894 MT AYR IA USC00135769 MT PLEASANT 1 SSW IA USC00135796 NEW HAMPTON IA USC00135952 ROCK RAPIDS IA USC00137147 ROCKWELL CITY IA USC00137161 STORM LAKE 2 E IA USC00137979 TOLEDO 3N IA USC00138296 WASHINGTON IA USC00138688 ASHLAND KS USC00140365 ATCHISON KS USC00140405 COLDWATER KS USC00141704 COLUMBUS KS USC00141740 COUNCIL GROVE LAKE KS USC00141867 EL DORADO KS USC00142401 ELLSWORTH KS USC00142459 FT SCOTT KS USC00142835 HAYS 1 S KS USC00143527 HORTON KS USC00143810 INDEPENDENCE KS USC00143954 JETMORE 8NNW KS USC00144087 LAKIN KS USC00144464 LARNED KS USC00144530 LAWRENCE KS USC00144559 LEAVENWORTH KS USC00144588 LIBERAL KS USC00144695 MANHATTAN KS USC00144972 MCPHERSON KS USC00145152 MEDICINE LODGE KS USC00145173 MINNEAPOLIS KS USC00145363 NORTON 9SSE KS USC00145856 OBERLIN KS USC00145906 OLATHE 3E KS USC00145972 OTTAWA KS USC00146128 SAINT FRANCIS KS USC00147093 SCOTT CITY KS USC00147271 SEDAN KS USC00147305 SMITH CTR KS USC00147542 WAKEENEY KS USC00148495 ASHLAND KY USC00150254 BARBOURVILLE KY USC00150381 BEREA COLLEGE KY USC00150619 CAVE RUN LAKE KY USC00152791 FRANKFORT DOWNTOWN KY USC00153028 GREENSBURG KY USC00153430 HENDERSON 8 SSW KY USC00153762 HOPKINSVILLE KY USC00153994 LEITCHFIELD 2 N KY USC00154703 SHELBYVILLE 1 E KY USC00157324 WILLIAMSBURG KY USC00158709 WILLIAMSTOWN 3 W KY USC00158714 ALEXANDRIA LA USC00160098 AMITE LA USC00160205 BASTROP LA USC00160537 BUNKIE LA USC00161287 CALHOUN RSCH STN LA USC00161411 COVINGTON 4 NNW LA USC00162151 DONALDSONVILLE 4 SW LA USC00162534 FRANKLIN 3 NW LA USC00163313 GRAND COTEAU LA USC00163800 HOUMA LA USC00164407 JENNINGS LA USC00164700 PLAIN DEALING 4 W LA USC00167344 ST JOSEPH 3 N LA USC00168163 THIBODAUX 4 SE LA USC00169013 WINNSBORO 5 SSE LA USC00169806 ACADIA NP ME USC00170100 BRASSUA DAM ME USC00170814 CORINNA ME USC00171628 EASTPORT ME USC00172426 FARMINGTON ME USC00172765 GARDINER ME USC00173046 HOULTON 5N ME USC00173944 LEWISTON ME USC00174566 MILLINOCKET ME USC00175304 PRESQUE ISLE ME USC00176937 WOODLAND ME USC00179891 BELTSVILLE MD USC00180700 CAMBRIDGE WATER TRMT P MD USC00181385 CHESTERTOWN MD USC00181750 CUMBERLAND 2 MD USC00182282 DENTON 2 E MD USC00182523 GLENN DALE BELL STN MD USC00183675 LAUREL 3 W MD USC00185111 MILLINGTON 1 SE MD USC00185985 OAKLAND 1 SE MD USC00186620 OWINGS FERRY LANDING MD USC00186770 PRINCESS ANNE MD USC00187330 ROYAL OAK 2 SSW MD USC00187806 SALISBURY MD USC00188000 WESTMINSTER MD USC00189440 WOODSTOCK MD USC00189750 AMHERST MA USC00190120 BEDFORD MA USC00190535 USC00190736 GREAT BARRINGTON 2N MA USC00193213 LAWRENCE MA USC00194105 NEW BEDFORD MA USC00195246 PLYMOUTH-KINGSTON MA USC00196486 PROVINCETOWN MA USC00196681 READING MA USC00196783 TAUNTON MA USC00198367 WALPOLE 2 MA USC00198757 WEST MEDWAY MA USC00199316 ADRIAN 2 NNE MI USC00200032 ALLEGAN 5NE MI USC00200128 ALMA MI USC00200146 ANN ARBOR U OF MICH MI USC00200230 BIG RAPIDS WTR WKS MI USC00200779 CHAMPION VAN RIPER PK MI USC00201439 CHATHAM EXP FARM 2 MI USC00201486 CHEBOYGAN MI USC00201492 COLDWATER ST SCHOOL MI USC00201675 EAST TAWAS MI USC00202423 FAYETTE 4 SW MI USC00202737 HART 3 WSW MI USC00203632 HILLSDALE MI USC00203823 IRON MT KINGSFORD WWTP MI USC00204090 IRONWOOD MI USC00204104 KALAMAZOO STATE HOSPITAL MI USC00204244 MIDLAND MI USC00205434 MT PLEASANT UNIV MI USC00205662 MUNISING MI USC00205690 NEWBERRY 3S MI USC00205816 OWOSSO WWTP MI USC00206300 SOUTH HAVEN MI USC00207690 STAMBAUGH 2SSE MI USC00207812 ADA MN USC00210018 ALBERT LEA 3 SE MN USC00210075 ARGYLE MN USC00210252 BAUDETTE MN USC00210515 CHASKA MN USC00211465 CLOQUET MN USC00211630 DETROIT LAKES 1 NNE MN USC00212142 EVELETH WWTP MN USC00212645 FAIRMONT MN USC00212698 FARMINGTON 3 NW MN USC00212737 FOSSTON 1 E MN USC00212916 GRAND MEADOW MN USC00213290 GRAND RPDS FOREST LAB MN USC00213303 ITASCA UNIV OF MINN MN USC00214106 LEECH LAKE MN USC00214652 MARCELL 5NE MN USC00215175 MILAN 1 NW MN USC00215400 MONTEVIDEO 1 SW MN USC00215563 MORA MN USC00215615 MORRIS WC EXP STN MN USC00215638 NEW ULM 2 SE MN USC00215887 OLIVIA 3E MN USC00216152 PINE RIVER DAM MN USC00216547 PIPESTONE MN USC00216565 ROSEAU MN USC00217087 ST PETER MN USC00217405 SANDY LAKE DAM LIBBY MN USC00217460 TWO HARBORS MN USC00218419 WALKER AH GWAH CHING MN USC00218618 WINNEBAGO MN USC00219046 ZUMBROTA MN USC00219249 ABERDEEN MS USC00220021 BATESVILLE 2 SW MS USC00220488 BOONEVILLE MS USC00220955 BROOKHAVEN CITY MS USC00221094 CANTON 4N MS USC00221389 CLARKSDALE MS USC00221707 COLUMBIA MS USC00221865 COLUMBUS MS USC00221880 CORINTH 7 SW MS USC00221962 CRYSTAL SPGS EXP STN MS USC00222094 FOREST MS USC00223107 GREENVILLE MS USC00223605 HATTIESBURG 5SW MS USC00223887 HERNANDO MS USC00223975 HOLLY SPRINGS 4 N MS USC00224173 KOSCIUSKO MS USC00224776 LAUREL MS USC00224939 LOUISVILLE MS USC00225247 MONTICELLO MS USC00225987 MOORHEAD MS USC00226009 NATCHEZ MS USC00226177 PASCAGOULA 3 NE MS USC00226718 PONTOTOC EXP STN MS USC00227111 POPLARVILLE EXP STN MS USC00227128 PORT GIBSON 1 NE MS USC00227132 STATE UNIV MS USC00228374 UNIVERSITY MS USC00229079 WATER VALLEY MS USC00229400 WAVELAND MS USC00229426 WAYNESBORO 2 W MS USC00229439 WOODVILLE 4 ESE MS USC00229793 YAZOO CITY 5 NNE MS USC00229860 APPLETON CITY MO USC00230204 BOWLING GREEN 1 E MO USC00230856 BRUNSWICK MO USC00231037 CARUTHERSVILLE MO USC00231364 CLINTON MO USC00231711 CONCEPTION MO USC00231822 DONIPHAN MO USC00232289 FARMINGTON MO USC00232809 JEFFERSON CITY WTP MO USC00234271 LAMAR 2W MO USC00234705 LEBANON 2W MO USC00234825 LEES SUMMIT REED WR MO USC00234850 LEXINGTON 3E MO USC00234904 LOCKWOOD MO USC00235027 MARBLE HILL MO USC00235253 MEXICO MO USC00235541 MOBERLY MO USC00235671 MTN GROVE 2 N MO USC00235834 NEOSHO MO USC00235976 ROLLA UNI OF MISSOURI MO USC00237263 SPICKARD 7 W MO USC00237963 STEFFENVILLE MO USC00238051 SWEET SPRINGS MO USC00238223 TRUMAN DAM & RSVR MO USC00238466 UNIONVILLE MO USC00238523 WARRENTON 1 N MO USC00238725 ANACONDA MT USC00240199 AUGUSTA MT USC00240364 BIG TIMBER MT USC00240780 BOZEMAN MONTANA ST U MT USC00241044 CASCADE 5 S MT USC00241552 CHINOOK MT USC00241722 CHOTEAU MT USC00241737 DILLION U OF MONTANA WESTERN MT USC00242409 EKALAKA MT USC00242689 ENNIS MT USC00242793 FLATWILLOW 4 ENE MT USC00243013 FORKS 4 NNE MT USC00243089 FT ASSINNIBOINE MT USC00243110 FORTINE 1 N MT USC00243139 GLENDIVE MT USC00243581 HAMILTON MT USC00243885 HEBGEN DAM MT USC00244038 HUNTLEY EXP STN MT USC00244345 HYSHAM 25 SSE MT USC00244364 JORDAN MT USC00244522 KALISPELL GLACIER AP MT USC00244558 LIBBY 1 NE RS MT USC00245015 LIVINGSTON 12 S MT USC00245080 MALTA 7 E MT USC00245338 MEDICINE LAKE 3 SE MT USC00245572 MILDRED 5 N MT USC00245668 MOCCASIN EXP STN MT USC00245761 NORRIS MADISON PH MT USC00246157 PHILIPSBURG RS MT USC00246472 PLEVNA MT USC00246601 RED LODGE MT USC00246918 SAINT IGNATIUS MT USC00247286 SAINT REGIS 1 NE MT USC00247318 SAVAGE MT USC00247382 VALIER MT USC00248501 VIDA 6 NE MT USC00248569 VIRGINIA CITY MT USC00248597 WEST YELLOWSTONE MT USC00248857 WHITE SULPHUR SPRNGS 2 MT USC00248930 ALBION NE USC00250070 ALLIANCE 1WNW NE USC00250130 ASHLAND NO 2 NE USC00250375 ATKINSON 3SW NE USC00250420 AUBURN 5 ESE NE USC00250435 BEATRICE 1N NE USC00250622 BEAVER CITY NE USC00250640 BRIDGEPORT NE USC00251145 BROKEN BOW 2 W NE USC00251200 CRETE NE USC00252020 CURTIS 3NNE NE USC00252100 DAVID CITY NE USC00252205 FAIRBURY 5S NE USC00252820 FAIRMONT NE USC00252840 FRANKLIN NE USC00253035 GENEVA NE USC00253175 GENOA 2 W NE USC00253185 GOTHENBURG NE USC00253365 HARRISON NE USC00253615 HARTINGTON NE USC00253630 HASTINGS 4N NE USC00253660 HAY SPRINGS 12 S NE USC00253715 HEBRON NE USC00253735 HOLDREGE NE USC00253910 IMPERIAL NE USC00254110 KIMBALL 2NE NE USC00254440 LODGEPOLE NE USC00254900 LOUP CITY NE USC00254985 MADISON NE USC00255080 USC00255310 MERRIMAN NE USC00255470 MINDEN NE USC00255565 NORTH LOUP NE USC00256040 OAKDALE NE USC00256135 PAWNEE CITY NE USC00256570 PURDUM NE USC00256970 RED CLOUD NE USC00257070 SAINT PAUL NE USC00257515 SEWARD NE USC00257715 STAPLETON 5W NE USC00258133 SYRACUSE NE USC00258395 TECUMSEH 1S NE USC00258465 TEKAMAH NE USC00258480 WAKEFIELD NE USC00258915 WEEPING WATER NE USC00259090 YORK NE USC00259510 AUSTIN #2 NV USC00260507 BOULDER CITY NV USC00261071 FALLON EXP STN NV USC00262780 GOLCONDA NV USC00263245 LOVELOCK NV USC00264698 MCGILL NV USC00264950 MINA NV USC00265168 SEARCHLIGHT NV USC00267369 WELLS NV USC00268988 BETHLEHEM 2 NH USC00270706 DURHAM NH USC00272174 FIRST CONNECTICUT LAKE NH USC00272999 HANOVER NH USC00273850 KEENE NH USC00274399 BELVIDERE BRG NJ USC00280734 BOONTON 1 SE NJ USC00280907 CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVE NJ USC00281582 FLEMINGTON 5 NNW NJ USC00283029 HIGHTSTOWN 2 W NJ USC00283951 INDIAN MILLS 2 W NJ USC00284229 LONG BRANCH OAKHURST NJ USC00284987 MOORESTOWN NJ USC00285728 NEW BRUNSWICK 3 SE NJ USC00286055 PLAINFIELD NJ USC00287079 TOMS RIVER NJ USC00288816 AZTEC RUINS NM NM USC00290692 BELL RANCH NM USC00290858 CARLSBAD NM USC00291469 CARRIZOZO 1SW NM USC00291515 CHAMA NM USC00291664 CIMARRON 4 SW NM USC00291813 DULCE NM USC00292608 ELEPHANT BUTTE DAM NM USC00292848 FT BAYARD NM USC00293265 FT SUMNER NM USC00293294 GAGE NM USC00293368 JEMEZ SPRINGS NM USC00294369 JORNADA EXP RANGE NM USC00294426 LAS VEGAS WWTP NM USC00294862 LOS LUNAS 3 SSW NM USC00295150 LUNA RS NM USC00295273 MTN PARK NM USC00295960 MOUNTAINAIR NM USC00295965 OROGRANDE NM USC00296435 RED RIVER NM USC00297323 SAN JON NM USC00297867 SANTA ROSA NM USC00298107 SOCORRO NM USC00298387 SPRINGER NM USC00298501 STATE UNIV NM USC00298535 TUCUMCARI 4 NE NM USC00299156 TULAROSA NM USC00299165 ADDISON NY USC00300023 ALFRED NY USC00300085 ALLEGANY SP NY USC00300093 ANGELICA NY USC00300183 AUBURN NY USC00300321 BATAVIA NY USC00300443 BRIDGEHAMPTON NY USC00300889 BROCKPORT NY USC00300937 CHAZY NY USC00301401 COOPERSTOWN NY USC00301752 CORTLAND NY USC00301799 DANNEMORA NY USC00301966 DANSVILLE NY USC00301974 DEPOSIT NY USC00302060 DOBBS FERRY-ARDSLEY NY USC00302129 ELMIRA NY USC00302610 FREDONIA NY USC00303033 GENEVA RSCH FARM NY USC00303184 GLENHAM NY USC00303259 GLOVERSVILLE NY USC00303319 HEMLOCK NY USC00303773 INDIAN LAKE 2SW NY USC00304102 ITHACA CORNELL UNIV NY USC00304174 LAKE PLACID 2 S NY USC00304555 LAWRENCEVILLE 3 SW NY USC00304647 LITTLE FALLS CITY RES NY USC00304791 LITTLE FALLS MILL ST NY USC00304796 LOCKPORT 3 S NY USC00304844 LOWVILLE NY USC00304912 MALONE NY USC00304996 EMMONS NY USC00305113 MOHONK LAKE NY USC00305426 MORRISVILLE 6 SW NY USC00305512 NORWICH NY USC00306085 OGDENSBURG 4 NE NY USC00306164 OSWEGO EAST NY USC00306314 PORT JERVIS NY USC00306774 SARATOGA SPRINGS 4 SW NY USC00307484 SETAUKET STRONG NY USC00307633 STILLWATER RSVR NY USC00308248 TROY L&D NY USC00308600 TUPPER LAKE SUNMOUNT NY USC00308631 WALDEN 1 ESE NY USC00308906 WALES NY USC00308910 WANAKENA RNGR SCHOOL NY USC00308944 WATERTOWN NY USC00309000 WEST POINT NY USC00309292 YORKTOWN HEIGHTS 1W NY USC00309670 ALBEMARLE NC USC00310090 CHAPEL HILL 2 W NC USC00311677 EDENTON NC USC00312635 ELIZABETH CITY NC USC00312719 FAYETTEVILLE PWC NC USC00313017 HENDERSON 2 NNW NC USC00313969 HENDERSONVILLE 1 NE NC USC00313976 HIGHLANDS NC USC00314055 KINSTON 7 SE NC USC00314684 LENOIR NC USC00314938 LOUISBURG NC USC00315123 LUMBERTON NC USC00315177 MARION 2 NW NC USC00315340 MARSHALL NC USC00315356 MONROE 2 SE NC USC00315771 MOREHEAD CITY 2 WNW NC USC00315830 MORGANTON NC USC00315838 MT AIRY 2 W NC USC00315890 REIDSVILLE 2 NW NC USC00317202 SALISBURY NC USC00317615 SMITHFIELD NC USC00317994 SOUTHPORT 5 N NC USC00318113 STATESVILLE 2 NNE NC USC00318292 TARBORO 1 S NC USC00318500 TRANSOU NC USC00318694 WAYNESVILLE 1 E NC USC00319147 WILSON 3 SW NC USC00319476 BOTTINEAU ND USC00320941 CASSELTON AGRONOMY FM ND USC00321408 CROSBY ND USC00321871 DICKINSON EXP STN ND USC00322188 DUNN CENTER 1E ND USC00322365 FT YATES 4 SW ND USC00323207 FULLERTON 1 ESE ND USC00323287 GRAFTON ND USC00323594 GRAND FORKS UNIV NWS ND USC00323621 HETTINGER ND USC00324178 HILLSBORO 3 N ND USC00324203 JAMESTOWN STATE HOSP ND USC00324418 LANGDON EXP FARM ND USC00324958 LISBON ND USC00325220 MANDAN EXP STN ND USC00325479 MOFFIT 3 SE ND USC00326015 MOTT ND USC00326155 NAPOLEON ND USC00326255 NEW ENGLAND ND USC00326315 RICHARDTON ABBEY ND USC00327530 TOWNER 2 NE ND USC00328792 WAHPETON 3 N ND USC00329100 WILLOW CITY ND USC00329445 BUCYRUS OH USC00331072 CADIZ OH USC00331152 CHIPPEWA LAKE OH USC00331541 CIRCLEVILLE OH USC00331592 COSHOCTON WPC PLT OH USC00331890 DEFIANCE OH USC00332098 DELAWARE OH USC00332119 FINDLAY WPCC OH USC00332791 GREENVILLE WTP OH USC00333375 HILLSBORO OH USC00333758 HIRAM OH USC00333780 KENTON OH USC00334189 MC CONNELLSVILLE LK 7 OH USC00335041 MILLERSBURG OH USC00335297 MILLPORT 4 NE OH USC00335315 NORWALK WWTP OH USC00336118 OBERLIN OH USC00336196 PHILO 3 SW OH USC00336600 PORTSMOUTH-SCIOTOVILLE OH USC00336781 TIFFIN OH USC00338313 UPPER SANDUSKY OH USC00338534 URBANA WWTP OH USC00338552 WARREN 3 S OH USC00338769 WAUSEON WTP OH USC00338822 WAVERLY OH USC00338830 WOOSTER EXP STATION OH USC00339312 ADA OK USC00340017 ALTUS IRIG RSCH STN OK USC00340179 ANTLERS OK USC00340256 ARDMORE OK USC00340292 BEAVER OK USC00340593 BOISE CITY 2 E OK USC00340908 BUFFALO 2 SSW OK USC00341243 CARNEGIE 5 NE OK USC00341504 CHEROKEE 4W OK USC00341724 CLAREMORE 2 ENE OK USC00341828 DURANT OK USC00342678 ENID OK USC00342912 ERICK OK USC00342944 GEARY OK USC00343497 GOODWELL RSCH STN OK USC00343628 GUTHRIE 5S OK USC00343821 HAMMON 3 SSW OK USC00343871 HENNESSEY 4 ESE OK USC00344055 HOLDENVILLE 2SSE OK USC00344235 HOOKER OK USC00344298 JEFFERSON OK USC00344573 KENTON OK USC00344766 KINGFISHER OK USC00344861 LAWTON OK USC00345063 MANGUM OK USC00345509 MEEKER 5 W OK USC00345779 MIAMI OK USC00345855 MUSKOGEE OK USC00346130 MUTUAL OK USC00346139 NEWKIRK 1NW OK USC00346278 OKEENE OK USC00346629 OKEMAH OK USC00346638 OKMULGEE WTR WKS OK USC00346670 PAULS VALLEY 4 WSW OK USC00346926 PAWHUSKA OK USC00346935 PERRY OK USC00347012 POTEAU WTR WKS OK USC00347254 STILLWATER 2 W OK USC00348501 TAHLEQUAH OK USC00348677 WAURIKA OK USC00349395 WEATHERFORD OK USC00349422 WEBBERS FALLS 5 WSW OK USC00349445 ASHLAND OR USC00350304 BEND OR USC00350694 BROOKINGS 2 SE OR USC00351055 CASCADIA OR USC00351433 CONDON OR USC00351765 CORVALLIS STATE UNIV OR USC00351862 COTTAGE GROVE 2E OR USC00351897 CRATER LAKE NPS HQ OR USC00351946 DANNER OR USC00352135 DRAIN OR USC00352406 DUFUR OR USC00352440 FOREST GROVE OR USC00352997 FREMONT 5 NW OR USC00353095 GRANTS PASS OR USC00353445 HEADWORKS PORTLAND WTR OR USC00353770 HEPPNER OR USC00353827 HERMISTON 1 SE OR USC00353847 HOOD RIVER EXP STN OR USC00354003 KLAMATH FALLS 2 SSW OR USC00354506 LAKEVIEW 2 NNW OR USC00354670 MALHEUR REFUGE HQ OR USC00355162 MCKENZIE BRG RS OR USC00355362 MC MINNVILLE OR USC00355384 MILTON FREEWATER OR USC00355593 MORO OR USC00355734 PAISLEY OR USC00356426 PILOT ROCK 1 SE OR USC00356634 PRINEVILLE OR USC00356883 PROSPECT 2 SW OR USC00356907 RIDDLE OR USC00357169 ROSEBURG KQEN OR USC00357331 THREE LYNX OR USC00358466 TILLAMOOK OR USC00358494 UNION EXP STN OR USC00358746 VALE OR USC00358797 WALLOWA OR USC00358997 CHAMBERSBURG 1 ESE PA USC00361354 EISENHOWER NHS PA USC00362537 FRANKLIN PA USC00363028 GREENVILLE 2 NE PA USC00363526 JOHNSTOWN PA USC00364385 LEBANON 2 W PA USC00364896 MONTROSE PA USC00365915 NEW CASTLE 1 N PA USC00366233 PALMERTON PA USC00366689 PLEASANT MT 1 W PA USC00367029 READING 4 NNW PA USC00367322 RIDGWAY PA USC00367477 SELINSGROVE 2 S PA USC00367931 STATE COLLEGE PA USC00368449 STROUDSBURG PA USC00368596 TOWANDA 1 S PA USC00368905 UNIONTOWN 1 NE PA USC00369050 WARREN PA USC00369298 WELLSBORO 4 SW PA USC00369408 WEST CHESTER 2 NW PA USC00369464 YORK 3 SSW PUMP STN PA USC00369933 KINGSTON RI USC00374266 AIKEN 5SE SC USC00380074 ANDERSON SC USC00380165 BEAUFORT WWTP SC USC00380559 BLACKVILLE 3 W SC USC00380764 CALHOUN FALLS SC USC00381277 CAMDEN 3 W SC USC00381310 CHERAW SC USC00381588 CLEMSON UNIV SC USC00381770 COLUMBIA UNIV OF SC SC USC00381944 CONWAY SC USC00381997 DARLINGTON SC USC00382260 GEORGETOWN 2 E SC USC00383468 GREENWOOD SC USC00383754 KERSHAW 1SW SC USC00384690 KINGSTREE SC USC00384753 LAURENS SC USC00385017 LITTLE MTN SC USC00385200 NEWBERRY SC USC00386209 ORANGEBURG 2 SC USC00386527 SALUDA SC USC00387631 SANTUCK SC USC00387722 SUMMERVILLE 4W SC USC00388426 SUMTER SC USC00388440 WALHALLA SC USC00388887 WINNSBORO SC USC00389327 WINTHROP UNIV SC USC00389350 YEMASSEE SC USC00389469 ACADEMY 2NE SD USC00390043 ALEXANDRIA SD USC00390128 CANTON SD USC00391392 CLARK SD USC00391739 COTTONWOOD 2 E SD USC00391972 DUPREE SD USC00392429 EUREKA SD USC00392797 FAULKTON 1 NW SD USC00392927 FORESTBURG 4 NNE SD USC00393029 GANN VALLEY 4NW SD USC00393217 HIGHMORE 1 W SD USC00393832 HOT SPRINGS SD USC00394007 HOWARD SD USC00394037 KENNEBEC SD USC00394516 MELLETTE 4 W SD USC00395456 MENNO SD USC00395481 MILBANK 4 NW SD USC00395536 MURDO SD USC00395891 OAHE DAM SD USC00396170 RAPID CITY 4NW SD USC00396947 VERMILLION 2 SE SD USC00398622 WOOD SD USC00399442 CLARKSVILLE WWTP TN USC00401790 COPPERHILL TN USC00402024 COVINGTON 3 SW TN USC00402108 CROSSVILLE ED & RESEARCH TN USC00402202 DICKSON TN USC00402489 DOVER 1 W TN USC00402589 JACKSON EXP STN TN USC00404561 LEWISBURG EXP STN TN USC00405187 MC MINNVILLE TN USC00405882 MURFREESBORO 5 N TN USC00406371 NEWPORT 1 NW TN USC00406534 ROGERSVILLE 1 NE TN USC00407884 TULLAHOMA TN USC00409155 UNION CITY TN USC00409219 WAYNESBORO TN USC00409502 ALBANY TX USC00410120 ALICE TX USC00410144 ALPINE TX USC00410174 BALLINGER 2 NW TX USC00410493 BALMORHEA TX USC00410498 BEEVILLE 5 NE TX USC00410639 BLANCO TX USC00410832 BOERNE TX USC00410902 BOYS RANCH TX USC00411000 BRENHAM TX USC00411048 BROWNWOOD 2ENE TX USC00411138 CATARINA TX USC00411528 CLARKSVILLE 2NE TX USC00411772 CORSICANA TX USC00412019 CROSBYTON TX USC00412121 DANEVANG 1 W TX USC00412266 DUBLIN 2SE TX USC00412598 EAGLE PASS 3N TX USC00412679 ENCINAL TX USC00412906 FALFURRIAS TX USC00413063 FLATONIA 4SE TX USC00413183 FT STOCKTON TX USC00413280 GAINESVILLE 5 ENE TX USC00413420 GREENVILLE KGVL RADIO TX USC00413734 HALLETTSVILLE 2 N TX USC00413873 HASKELL TX USC00413992 LAMPASAS TX USC00415018 LIBERTY TX USC00415196 LLANO TX USC00415272 LULING TX USC00415429 MARSHALL TX USC00415618 MCCAMEY TX USC00415707 MEXIA TX USC00415869 MIAMI TX USC00415875 MULESHOE #1 TX USC00416135 NEW BRAUNFELS TX USC00416276 PARIS TX USC00416794 PECOS TX USC00416892 PLAINVIEW TX USC00417079 QUANAH 2 SW TX USC00417336 RIO GRANDE CITY TX USC00417622 SEMINOLE TX USC00418201 SNYDER TX USC00418433 STRATFORD TX USC00418692 TEMPLE TX USC00418910 WEATHERFORD TX USC00419532 ALTON UT USC00420086 BLANDING UT USC00420738 BLUFF UT USC00420788 CORINNE UT USC00421731 DESERET UT USC00422101 DUCHESNE UT USC00422253 ESCALANTE UT USC00422592 FARMINGTON 3 NW UT USC00422726 FILLMORE UT USC00422828 FT DUCHESNE UT USC00422996 GREEN RIVER AVIATION UT USC00423418 HEBER UT USC00423809 KANAB UT USC00424508 LAKETOWN UT USC00424856 LEVAN UT USC00425065 LOGAN UTAH ST UNIV UT USC00425186 MANTI UT USC00425402 MARYSVALE UT USC00425477 MOAB UT USC00425733 MORGAN POWER & LIGHT UT USC00425826 NEPHI UT USC00426135 OGDEN PIONEER PH UT USC00426404 PANGUITCH UT USC00426601 PAROWAN UT USC00426686 RICHFIELD RADIO KSVC UT USC00427260 ST GEORGE UT USC00427516 SALINA 24 E UT USC00427559 SCIPIO UT USC00427714 SCOFIELD-SKYLINE MINE UT USC00427729 SNAKE CREEK POWERHOUSE UT USC00427909 SPANISH FORK PWR HOUSE UT USC00428119 THOMPSON UT USC00428705 TOOELE UT USC00428771 UTAH LAKE LEHI UT USC00428973 USC00429111 WOODRUFF UT USC00429595 ZION NP UT USC00429717 CAVENDISH VT USC00431243 CHELSEA VT USC00431360 CORNWALL VT USC00431580 ENOSBURG FALLS VT USC00432769 USC00437054 SOUTH HERO VT USC00437607 SOUTH LINCOLN VT USC00437612 BLACKSBURG NWSO VA USC00440766 BREMO BLUFF VA USC00440993 BURKES GARDEN VA USC00441209 CHARLOTTESVILLE 2W VA USC00441593 DALE ENTERPRISE VA USC00442208 DANVILLE VA USC00442245 FARMVILLE 2 N VA USC00442941 FREDERICKSBURG NP VA USC00443192 HOPEWELL VA USC00444101 HOT SPRINGS VA USC00444128 LEXINGTON VA USC00444876 LINCOLN VA USC00444909 PENNINGTON GAP VA USC00446626 PIEDMONT RSCH STN VA USC00446712 ROCKY MT VA USC00447338 STAUNTON WATER TRMTMT PLT VA USC00448062 WILLIAMSBURG 2 N VA USC00449151 WOODSTOCK 2 NE VA USC00449263 ABERDEEN WA USC00450008 BELLINGHAM 3 SSW WA USC00450587 BLAINE WA USC00450729 BUCKLEY 1 NE WA USC00450945 CEDAR LAKE WA USC00451233 CENTRALIA WA USC00451276 CLEARBROOK WA USC00451484 CLE ELUM WA USC00451504 COLVILLE WA USC00451630 CONCONULLY WA USC00451666 CUSHMAN POWERHOUSE 2 WA USC00451939 DAVENPORT WA USC00452007 DAYTON 1 WSW WA USC00452030 ELLENSBURG WA USC00452505 EVERETT WA USC00452675 FORKS 1 E WA USC00452914 GOLDENDALE WA USC00453222 KENNEWICK WA USC00454154 LONG BEACH EXP STN WA USC00454748 LONGMIRE RAINIER NPS WA USC00454764 LONGVIEW WA USC00454769 MC MILLIN RSVR WA USC00455224 NORTHPORT WA USC00455946 ODESSA WA USC00456039 OLGA 2 SE WA USC00456096 POMEROY WA USC00456610 PORT ANGELES WA USC00456624 PORT TOWNSEND WA USC00456678 PULLMAN 2 NW WA USC00456789 RAYMOND 2 S WA USC00456914 RITZVILLE 1 SSE WA USC00457059 ST. JOHN WA USC00457267 SEDRO WOOLLEY WA USC00457507 SNOQUALMIE FALLS WA USC00457773 STEHEKIN 4 NW WA USC00458059 SUNNYSIDE WA USC00458207 VANCOUVER 4 NNE WA USC00458773 WATERVILLE WA USC00459012 WENATCHEE WA USC00459074 WILBUR WA USC00459238 WINTHROP 1 WSW WA USC00459376 BUCKHANNON WV USC00461220 CAIRO WV USC00461330 GLENVILLE WV USC00463544 LEWISBURG 3 N WV USC00465224 MANNINGTON 8 WNW WV USC00465626 PARSONS 1 NE WV USC00466867 PICKENS 2 N WV USC00466989 PINEVILLE WV USC00467029 SPENCER WV USC00468384 WELLSBURG WTR TRMT PL WV USC00469368 WILLIAMSON WV USC00469610 WINFIELD LOCKS WV USC00469683 ASHLAND EXP FARM WI USC00470349 BOWLER WI USC00470991 BRODHEAD WI USC00471078 DARLINGTON WI USC00472001 FOND DU LAC WI USC00472839 HANCOCK EXP FARM WI USC00473405 LANCASTER 4 WSW WI USC00474546 MANITOWOC WI USC00475017 MARSHFIELD EXP FARM WI USC00475120 MEDFORD WI USC00475255 MILWAUKEE MT MARY CLG WI USC00475474 MINOCQUA WI USC00475516 NEILLSVILLE 3 SW WI USC00475808 NEW LONDON WI USC00475932 OCONTO 4 W WI USC00476208 OSHKOSH WI USC00476330 PORTAGE WI USC00476718 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN WI USC00476827 RACINE WI USC00476922 SPOONER AG RES STN WI USC00478027 STANLEY WI USC00478110 VIROQUA WI USC00478827 WATERTOWN WI USC00478919 ALTA 1 NNW WY USC00480140 BASIN WY USC00480540 BATES CREEK #2 WY USC00480552 CHUGWATER WY USC00481730 CODY WY USC00481840 COLONY WY USC00481905 DIVERSION DAM WY USC00482595 DUBOIS WY USC00482715 EVANSTON 1 E WY USC00483100 GREEN RIVER WY USC00484065 LAKE YELLOWSTONE WY USC00485345 LUSK 2 SW WY USC00485830 MIDWEST WY USC00486195 MORAN 5WNW WY USC00486440 NEWCASTLE WY USC00486660 PAVILLION WY USC00487115 PINE BLUFFS 5W WY USC00487240 PINEDALE WY USC00487260 POWELL FLD STN WY USC00487388 RIVERTON WY USC00487760 SARATOGA WY USC00487990 SHERIDAN FLD STA WY USC00488160 TORRINGTON EXP FARM WY USC00488995 WHEATLAND 4 N WY USC00489615 WORLAND WY USC00489770 YELLOWSTONE PK MAMMOTH WY USC00489905
I read a post at WUWT and Mosher declared that the raw temperature data was garbage. Fortunately he has created algorithms that will take that rubbish temperature data and turn it into good temperature data.
The raw data matches satellite data very closely. The adjusted data doesn’t.
NOAA announced Wednesday that it was one of four hottest years ever – missed the memo on no-warming-for-15-years
Yeah, and it was also announced this week that global temperatures for November where the warmest ever recorded. And yet the right wing media will just sit and lie to their audience. Sad really.
We’re so lucky. Can you imagine how cold it would be without global warming.
JKuper – what universe do you live in?
I guess they think the raw data is bad because it doesn’t fit the model.
Kinda like what they did with the Envisat data which matched tidal gauges, but didn’t match the other satellites with their systematic errors.
He also said Steven’s analysis is incorrect:
“The fact is global temperatures have been flat for the past 17 years. There is no warminge even using all the fiddled data from hadcrut giss etc.. The BEST project was just an exercize in futility trying to flog a dead horse just like all the adjusments done by GISS etc just look at Steven Goddard endless graphs of manipulated USA data. LOL RSS and Uha show no warming at all for tropics and SH ie no global warming since 1979 either, LOL”
1. yes the temperatures have been flatish for 17 years. people on relying on the accuracy of our method to make the ‘flat’ claim. get it? the whole claim that there is a pause DEPENDS on us doing things correctly.
2. Goddard is wrong. He neglects to mention that
A) the data in his comparisons are two entirely different datasets
B) the results he compares use two differrent algorithms
C) hansens results can be replicated using entirely different data and different methods
3. We agree with UAH . thats the point of this poster. When you trust them you vindicate us
So raw data is now “fiddled data” in Mosher’s world.
Do you have a link?
Steven Mosher says:
December 19, 2013 at 8:04 am
From this story at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/wuwt-video-zeke-hausfather-explains-the-new-best-surface-data-set-at-agu-2013/#comment-1506610
Isn’t that interesting! Kind of like how so many “scientists” created “Algore-ithms” that took cherry picked data and turned it into what they wanted it to say so it supported their theory of glowBULL warming!
Well put.
So have NOAA and NASA. So you can add WUWT and Mosher to those who adjust, er I mean, fudge data
So I wasted my time posting it.
November 2013 was the warmest global temperature on record. Weather Underground told me so. And I full trust them…..NOT.
Every time a rad an article from Weather Udnerground, I have to put on my hip boots. So much unvalidatged and document BS.
Their thermometers are in Fahrenheit, but they record any reading below 25 as Celsius. They call it ‘data normalizing’.
Record cooling is totally consistent with a warming planet. In all seriousness, there has been no warming at all since 1930. When you get away from tampered data and UHI, this has all been much to do about nothing. Nevertheless, the Boston University alumni rag said that by 2100, the Arctic will have the same climate as the southern US!
On the other hand, it is apparent that Henry Ford’s evil Model T caused warming between 1900 and 1930.
I think it was the famed “rumble seat” that helped cause all that warming. Ha!
“Show Trial” Science
“The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial in which there is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than correctional justice and also conducted for propagandistic purposes. The term was first recorded in the 1930s.” – wikidedia
See also “Kangaroo Court”, “Lynching”, “Mock Trial”, “Star Chamber”
Today, the global warming myth is a show trial and kangaroo courtroom. This same method has been employed largely by the medical and pharmaceutical industries to force the idea that natural saturated fat from animals, like butter, cream, eggs, bacon, lard, etc causes heart disease. You can recognize it by its dogmatic approach where the opposing evidence is not presented at all. The end result is usually a product which is needed, such as statin drugs and “low-fat” food products like margarine which do not contain cholesterol. The natural foods are demonized, even though they have been the main source of food for millions of people throughout history. Original margarine was made from lard when butter was sent off to soldiers. This was when people lived on farms and they often lived to 100 years or more, with complete sets of teeth. The fat soluble vitamins are required for human health, and they exist in animal fats. The fat portion of milk contains these nutrients as well, which makes drinking skim or low-fat milk an unhealthy choice and makes cream the best choice when it comes to vitamins, according to real science not mock science.
The global warming debate is one big mock trial. The jury is the public. Only the Prosecution is allowed to present evidence. This is akin to a certain tribunals and Totalitarian regimes. The desired outcome is rigged from the start.
My friends are turning to the Dark Side. It is sad to see. We can confront them on this by reminding them about such kangaroo tactics and ask them if they believe it is honest to completely ignore other variables that other scientists point out, such as the sun, El Nino, Earth’s orbit and the evidence for a coming cooling. When friends or family call someone a denier, remind them that they would have Kepler, Copernicus or Galileo shut down because they were in the 3%? Science can be like Church for some people. I see it as a form of idolatry. We are to bow down to the CO2 God or we’ll go to hell, do not collect $200.
“Science is settled” is simply another way to silence the opposition and kill debate.
I am with you 100% on the pharmaceutical company comments. This is also evident because of ever-falling recommended maximum for blood cholesterol levels. Doctors these days want you on statins or other cholesterol-lowering drugs if your total cholesterol level is 160 or greater.
The Snake Oil is Settled.
This is one of the best explanations I have seen about what is happening in the global warming debate.
Remember that highlighting a cold month or year is “cherry picking”; when you’re an alarmist (preferably with a PhD, because they can’t be wrong) and highlight a warm month or year, it’s called “science”.
How about when highlighting 7 or 8 consecutive years of increasing record cold and snowfall in both northern and southern hemispheres occurs in the face of the doom and gloom predictions of a warming that stopped over 15 years ago?
Many of the PHD scientist that you refer to are not even meteorologists or atmospheric phyicists, etc. They are social scientist, with a left social bent, more commonly referred to as environmental scientist (better known as tree huggers). Also, there is no such thing as settled science, an emotional term used when there is no scientific evidence to prove their point. Climatology in reality is the study of past weather observations/patterns and by definition can not be used to predict the future. Finally, models must be validated based on recored past data before you can use them to remotely attemtyp to predict a future event. The farther out the prediction the greater the degree of uncertainty. I have seen no evidence that any of the GW models ahve ever been vbalidated or the data that was used to validate the models.
This is a great point. I am an energy efficiency consultant and belong to many LinkedIn groups that supposedly cater to energy efficiency professionals. Every single group moderator is a “communications” professional. They allow the AGW posters to rant and rave and make BS arguments, but stifle posts opposing AGW. It is almost as if they want to influence people.
The excuses for the alarmists will be:
1) The U.S. is less than 2% of the global surface area.
2) The melting Arctic ice shifted the pattern of the jet stream and made the U.S. colder than average. Global warming causes cooling.
3) USHCN data bad, adjusted GISS data good.
4) Weather is getting more extreme. Won’t even mention temps. Only mention things that fit the narrative.
5) Ignore the data for the full year, just point to November as the hottest ever (ignore RSS and UAH data sets).
November was well below normal in the US
They will say ignore the U.S., just pay attention to the global data for just one month November. Ignore the data for the full year. Distract and point to something else. Remember their theory is not falsifiable, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olmag5Cu9TI&w=420&h=315]
Reblogged this on CACA.
Scientific method says nothing about consensus but about challenging a theory when predictions prove false. Henrik Svensmark has shown a correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover as well as temperature modification on Earth. This was published in peer reviewed journals. CO2 alarmists, of course, dismiss this information.
“The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[3]
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.”
– wikipedia
Well said – the big debate seems to be more between people who want to believe in the climate change models that predict global warming and the people who let the data tell the story. These plots are not consistent with CO2 global warming theories.
I have been following Henrik’s work for many years and in my personal life I have been educating those around me about his climate mechanism. One of the interesting results of his work, is how the greenhouse gas consensus has become what they despise. When remembering my public and college education it is interesting how often we were instructed about the persecution of Galileo by the parochial consensus. It appears now the tables have turned and the anthropogenic warming believers have become the parochial consensus they so often argued against. Its unfortunate, that main stream climate science has allowed the temptation of political power and control to corrupt the scientific method. As a practicing geologist I’m disappointed to see this and have no doubt that if political influence is not removed from climate science it will eventually affect all of us adversely. Looks like history is repeating itself.
buried on the back page of the Louisville-courier 12/19/2013 was an article stating November 2013 was one of the warmest on record –thank goodness for the drudge report
When are two alarmists willing to step forward to debate
the issue with two knowledgeable and articulate
spokesmen from the skeptics camp, as happened
in New York City in 2007? I think you already
know the answer. Not soon. Because they realized they
will lose the debate. HL Mencken
It’s due to global warming don’t cha know.
Isn’t Global Warming wonderful?
And this is just the USA.. World wide the exclusion of 12.5% of the Earth’s landmass from temperature recording stations over the last 50+ years kind of skews the warming data.
“The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to
12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/
No matter what facts you present to the liberals, they will ALWAYS believe whatever lie the data refutes, especially if it is a pet belief, such as “man-made global warming”.
It’s gotten to the point where all the “scientists” who fell for the man-made global warming hoax (started as a legitimate theory, but has been refuted by data), are just too proud to admit they have been knowingly complicit in it as well. (sort of like hanging on to the notion that electing Obama was not a mistake)
2013 was one of the warmest winters on record in Europe. The conspiracy theorists on this blog seem to be unaware that the Earth includes more than just North America.
“Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record. NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it.”
Is massive tampering a conspiracy charge from the blog theorists here?
And, how did 2013 turn out? 84th coldest? and tied with 1910 at 52.42°F
Must have been a really massive tampering conspiracy, at least in part of North America.
Yes, Steve…others have done the same or similar thing…http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/. No hint of conspiracy or use of the non-scientific word, “tampering”. Back before there was an NCDC to “tamper”, the US Weather Bureau published the data, monthly, for all states. Presumably, there was no tampering, certainly no reason to tamper. How does your “measured” data (which is from NCDC?) compare with theirs?
“My data” (HCN) agrees very closely with Hansen 1999. He must have been in on “my conspiracy” too
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
You come across as an extremely arrogant person. Condescension won’t serve you well here.
Aw Steve,
You might cut the guy a break. After all, it took him 4 1/2 months to think-up a response to this posting. So after all that skull sweat, he’s quite proud.
Have a little pity on your “less-than-quick-witted” posters….
😉
Yes, 4 and ½ months… of dead silence. Not one word about Mr. Goddard’s inaccurate forecast on how cold 2013 was going to be. Had he been even close it would have been noticed somewhere, especially following on 2012’s record high it would have been unprecedented in the US. But, instead of top-ten, 84th? I guess he’s been cut some slack. Complaining about NCDC’s’ tampered’ temperatures while simultaneously comparing them to NCDC “measured” temperatures? This is Real Science? Really?
“is it a conspiracy? I don’t do conspiracies, I just present the data and let you decide.”
Dr. Don Easterbrook, Prof. Emeritus of Geology, Western WA Univ, to the Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Cmte. Explains why the data shows the Earth is cooling, not warming, over the last 15 years. Look up Piers Corbyn (climate scientist and astrophysicist) to learn his projection for much harsher winters over next 20 years as we return to possible mini ice-age conditions but at least similar to 1970s. The jet stream has changed to the pattern and began in 1999, both of these scientists claim. Let me guess, you want us all to stop eating animals, live in Boulder, wear spandex, eat tofu, drink soy milk, and drive a Prius? That will stop the climate change.
Awaiting moderation? For two hours? Let’s try again.
“Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record. NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it.”
Is massive tampering a conspiracy charge from the blog theorists here?
And, how did 2013 turn out? Not even close. The 84th coldest? and tied with 1910 at 52.42°F
Must have been a really massive tampering conspiracy, at least in part of North America.
The entire US trend is due to tampering.
The ENTIRE US database has been tampered? So, it IS a huge NCDC conspiracy to hide the truth? But, not in Europe I gather, nor over the last 15 years here. If NCDC cannot be trusted, where do you find the untampered truth, the real raw “measured” temperatures, back to 1895? Can you point to your source so others can look at these values to be sure that you are not making all this up?
I don’t know of anyone else who has done it, But you can reproduce my work, Here is the source code.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ghcn-code/
Who’s in denial now?
“But it’s climate CHANGE, not GLOBAL WARMING!”
“JUST GIVE US YOUR MONEY! WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO EXPLAIN!”
Somebody educate “al gore”; he has got to know abou this revelation….
Man-made-global warming is real! I know because Bill Nye the Science Guy said so. Uh, nevermind he’s not an actual scientist.
Don’t worry a tweek here a slight adjustment and you get just the numbers you were looking for all along. Like the people telling us what inflation is the same ones who decide how much you social security benefits go up.
I don’t believe you Steven. I think NASA and NOIA will revise the data to make it one of the warmer years so it goes down as the global warming they know is happening. It will be revised by thermometer correction factors. Then who you going to believe, your lying eyes or them 🙂
Algore said that if the oceans didn’t absorb so much carbon emissions and heat, the earth’s temperature would be 200 degrees higher. Hey, Al, that’s the way the ecosystem works, you fool! If I had wings I would be able to fly but wings aren’t in man’s DNA!
Interesting stuff on Wikipedia about partial pressures, Henry’s Law, and CO2 dissolution in water. Turns out that CO2 converts to carbolic acid in a tiny fraction…. So it’s not causing the oceans to acidify. Much more likely…. Roundup herbicide runoff.
Al Gore could NOT be reached for comment …..
Al Gore could NOT be BEACHED for comment…
Cold, just how Matthew Drudge likes it.
Good luck getting the “scientists” to come around on this. It is religious in nature for the left. It will take 50 years or more to get them to see reality. The way the left is today, they are so intolerant to anyone who says a word out of line, it’s hard to see how they ever come around. Just visit a college campus. It’s like stepping into a Soviet re-education camp. Free thought has been completely stomped out, and the scientists at these places have removed anyone who disagrees at all with their “theory”. It’s a scary time for western civilization.
You are missing the big picture. Wealth Redistribution is the true religion… taking from the producers of wealth (the haves) and giving to the consumers (the have nots) on a global scale. As soon as the developing nations stop allowing themselves to be extorted then the “Global Warming” sect will die out. When the Wealth Redistribution religion already sees the writing on the wall and will drop the Global Warming sect like a hot potato as soon as the last monies have been gotten. I would give this about 2-3 more years. Not the 50 years you predict.
That is exactly why the ‘Desertification’ scare went nowhere, there was no way to blame or tax anyone.
I joined the “Global Warming” religion a few years ago and with the data coming out that we could be entering a mini-ice age I am happy they changed the name to “Climate Change”. This is so cool because it doesn’t matter if its getting hotter or colder since either way we can blame the evil corporations and extort money from the developing nations. Al Gore, our High Preist, has made millions off this new religion and I’m raking in some nice dough as a solar panel installer. Life is good. Just lay back and enjoy it.
We have a name for the true believers of the Truth, as spoken by the High Priest, “Algorians”. Only they will be forgiven of their carbon debt when the planet melts/freezes. (or whatever He tells them is happening). Be still, and know Al Gore is the messenger of our carbon path of salvation.
Silly scientists, your charts and data are only distractions.
Incontrovertible proof that driving SUVs causes global warming.
Thank you.
With a solar Grand Minimum approaching and with the fit of un-“adjusted” temperature history (and the derivative of sea level rise, average cloud cover, & more) to solar/cosmic-ray forcing, as illustrated with references in the following:
http://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg
… We are in for far more cooling later this decade and beyond.
The government cares not what is said here, or anywhere, when the time comes they will transportation away from all but the elite. For our own good.
that should read “…take transportation away….”
* record-breaking droughts
* record-breaking tornadoes
* record-breaking heat
* record-breaking snow
All of these since Japan’s nuclear meltdowns (Fukushima) of March 2011, where nuclear radiation blanketed the Northern Hemisphere with radiation
This radiation absolutely affects the atmosphere and weather; as they’ve known since atomic testing that it does.
See this radioactive plume map that shows the Fukushima radiation blanketing the U.S., etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag
In addition, the highly recommended site http://www.enenews.com has been following Japan’s nuclear crisis daily, and reporting on how it’s affecting the Pacific Ocean and human health.
.
The US just had the quietest year on record for both tornadoes and hurricanes, and the fewest 100 degree readings in a century.
Be careful. You could find yourself in a tax audit for speaking such blasphemy against the Holy Cause!
It’s global climate change. Global warming is so 1997.
Mental health?
Dee, I suppose I shouldn’t ask if you have any idea what the scale on the bottom of the frame represents. Hint: white stands for background, purple stands for the smallest detectable radiation level above background.
As this truly amazing well built pant survived a massive earthquake, and the resultant tsunami, without any direct loss of human life* shows how well this plant was constructed. The engineers, based on sound scientific and engineering principles, built it correctly.
On the other hand the half-wit bureaucrats and politicians, that thought that it was a good idea to site where they did should be (IMO) publicly horse-whipped for such a grave error that still jeopardizes so many lives.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#Fukushima_disaster
The politicization of science has ruined the environment for honest research. Once truth is replaced with the quest for political power, confusion reigns supreme. The idea of man-made global warming is completely man-made and does not reflect the claims made by its proponents. In the sixties, we had the population bomb of Paul Ehrlich, which proclaimed global starvation and chaos by the end of the millennium due to unrestrained breeding among humans. China fell for the ploy, and established the one child law to defuse the population bomb. Their problems were solved by capitalism, not contraceptives. The politicization of the weather is just another scam created to justify more taxes and higher energy costs.
Good analysis. You are starting to connect some of the dots. But be careful. If you connect just a few more dots you could become a danger and an enemy to the Holy State of America. You may find yourself being audited by the IRS and experiencing a few other inconveniences like losing your job unexpectedly if you work for a Union or Government entity (yes, the NSA does know who you are).
“One example of what I mean is the repeated insistence that pacific blue fin tuna have become so irradiated that they dangerous to eat. When actually the Fukushima radiation that would come from a tuna steak taken off a fish caught off the west coast would be around and about one twentieth of the radiation you would ingest from eating a normal banana. Which isn’t something we normally consider to be dangerous really.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/16/fukushima-radiation-in-pacific-tuna-is-equal-to-one-twentieth-of-a-banana/
Gore told us the arctic ice would be gone by 2013, yet it has increased by 50%. Go figure.
Anyone want to mention that we are in the throes of the lowest Sun Spot activity in 100 years??? Low sun sopt activity leads to cooler weather since the sun’s output of energy has somewhat dereased!!! How come the Sun is left out of any kind of real science and investigation, since it is the main cause of all of our cycles of warming and cooling? Again, I said the MAIN cause!!
Remember, how back in the mid-70’s the “Global Warming Alarmists” were pushing “GLOBAL COOLING”?? Which is it?? Arctic Ice is 50 % larger this time this year than last and the ice in Anarctica is thcker than it was last year!!! More proof that global warming is a hoax!
With all the fuss about CO2 being thrown into our atmosphere, doesn’t the oceans and all the greenery worldwide use this to survive and then replace that CO2 with Oxygen for we humans to breathe and also survive??? Is everyone brain dead on the LEFT for believing this garbage of Global Warming???
Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
http://www.zazzle.com/FirstPrinciples?rf=238518351914519699
Al (global warming ) gore is sure quiet.
All I’m hearing are crickets
Comrade Gore spends this time of year in *hibernation*!!
It doesn’t matter. They already ditched “global warming” and have renamed their church “global climate change”. Now they can explain any weather event. Coldest winter? That’s global climate change. Warm winter? Rainy summer? Dry summer? Heavy hurricane season? No hurricanes? First snow in Cairo in 100 years? Who cares how it snowed there 100 years ago, and every time before that? If it snows there NOW, it’s…? Yup. Global climate change. We need more government funded studies to make sense of this, so pointy-headed academics can have careers. We need new sources of “revenue” to fund the daddy state, so let’s regulate and tax toxic carbon dioxide emitters so everybody can have “free” healthcare, food, housing, and education (for those that still wish to bother).
Morons, look at the polar ice sheets over the last 50 years. If the earth is not warming why are they getting smaller?
Global sea ice area is second highest on record for the date.
This little exchange nicely sums up the debate between alarmists and non-alarmists. Somebody should save it for posterity.
1. Local warming (of a polar area) is not the same as global warming (of all land and sea areas).
2. Solar flux may be higher, yet temperatures lower, if the air is clearer. Considering that 2nd Pres. Bush pushed through a law mandating ultra-low-sulfur diesel, it’s not surprising that solar flux would be higher. This may cause more ice melting, without causing temperatures to rise. The ice temps would not rise while the ice is melting; the energy is being used to change the state at 32 deg. F.
3. 50 years is not a long time in Earth’s history. 500 years would give a much better view of trends.
4. Wind and ocean currents may have a greater effect on ice melts, that simple global average temperatures.
5. This year’s ice is well ahead of trend. While one point does not a trend make, it may imply an inflection point in the trend.
If you could do a favor, many would appreciate this. The HCN data is accessible via the FTP (yes), and you give the station list, but that is not enough and the problem is the data is not usable unless you use database software, perhaps MS Access or other choice, to manipulate that “daily” data that comes from the HCN website. A benefit for those wishing to see and use the HCN data from a particular station would be to provide a tool, maybe via a website or downloadable one, for those of us wishing to view individual station data.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/ghcn-code/
Steve, it’s good that you posted the original code, but what it shows a number of problems viewed from software design standpoint. The main problem is that there is no real way of auditing the results without debugging it line by line. A much better approach would be to use an SQL query, which can be easily audited and changed if needed. Looking at the c++ code, you appear to be doing data validation to eliminate outliers, but there’s no explanation of what is being discarded or why.
However, I can see a much more serious problem from the point of view of the data analysis. You have chosen a set of weather stations which are extremely unevenly distributed across the United States. The top states in your list, in terms of stations per square mile are Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland – 43 stations scattered over 32,147 square miles. At the bottom of the list are Nevada, with 9 stations scattered over 110,560 square miles, and Texas with 46 stations over 267,256 square miles. If you are simply averaging the data from all these stations, which is what you appear to doing, then you are implicitly saying that the data from tiny states like DE, NJ, MA and MD are around ten times more significant than the data from Nevada or Texas. In your analysis the 20 largest states in the country, which also just happen to lie in the West, have the lowest number of weather stations per square mile. It’s just possible that you are adjusting the weighting to account for the differences in density, but if so, I can’t see how you are doing it.
I’ve run the code on the fully adjusted NOAA data. and get exactly the same trend they do. Gridding affects the offset, but apparently has no effect on the slope – which is all that I care about.
This is close
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
BEST also shows RAW
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/33141
That is a specific station…just paste a station number from the list above into the search box and you will get that station in the search results.
But remember – weather is NOT climate! Except when it can be used to reinforce the “gullible warming” meme…or theme…or scam. So this cold does not count – but a single “extreme” storm can and does mean the sky is falling! Or anything else for that matter, whether it be a flood or a drought or locusts or hail or damn near anything…
Climatologists -glorified weathermen who know how to put garbage in and get garbage out. The computer modeling has been flawed for over a decade… so what to do??? Cherry pick the empirical data that fits your flawed model and deny there is anything wrong with the modeling…
ohhh yea and definitely provide government funding only to like minded “scientists” with a similar agenda.
NOAA and EPA two peas in a pod – accountable to no one except the alliance of the far left socialists and the wacko Soylent Green wackos. Hey maybe they can ask their #1 Global Warming expert what he thinks on which data is correct.. .you know .. the one who got all that money from the EPA who claimed he was on assignment from the CIA so he couldn’t be bothered to show up to work….
“warmers” … what to do… ??? You “chicken littles” have been predicting the end of the world for almost 20 years now…. and low and behold… no one has drowned, the polar bears are making a comeback, the arctic polar ice is near record in the south and coming back strong in the north, the glaciers haven’t retreated, empirical data doesn’t support the modeling…..uh oohh…..
Hey – here is an idea – quietly move the focus from MMGW to “Climate Change” and hope no one with a brain notices. Then declare victory using the low information/science challenged “journalists” as they make an equivalency between the two… it might work… all you need are few Hurricanes and you are on your way.
Yeah, but that’s how global warming starts! First it’s hot, then it gets really cold, then there’s hardly any hurricanes… then REVOLUUUUTION!!!
Since communism/fascism is now our friend the elite needed a new boogie man to make us tremble into submission and give them the fruits of our labor. The two pronged boogie man that can go on forever is climate change and the war on terror. It’s always about money and control of the masses.
Dread and Circuses.
What is the “normal” temperature of planet earth in December?
For the greennuts out there, what is the “desired” temperature of planet Earth in December? Since they want dibs on the thermostat settings. 8*>
If melting icecaps cause sea levels to rise, why doesn’t record icecap growth cause sea levels to fall? Because…. melting sea ice does not affect ocean levels, since melted ice (water) occupies the same amount of space in the ocean, as floating ice does.
“it’s bush’s fault” – BHO et al
Gives new meaning to the “hockey stick” graph.
There are still some who will deny that global warming is a hoax.
Reddit has banned all anti warming comments. They delete them
For sure. There’s a flat earth society…
It is located in the Oval Office.
Yes, but the funny part is that the actual Flat Earth Society supports global warming.
At least they’re consistent.
Why stop at one wrong theory when they are on a roll?
Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%
Well, a 50% increase is relative to the starting point. The facts are that the ice pack sunk so much in 2012 that a 50% increase put it back to below average but, within 2 standard deviations of mean (which mean, that, it’s still way down).
Look at it this way, if arctic ice pack had shrunk to the size of a nickle, a 100% increase would put it short of a quarter. But, a 100% increase still sounds good.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It’s gettin’ warmer outside. It’s just at a very slow rate, on a human scale.
A carbon tax could give us exactly the right amount of sea ice, hurricanes, heat waves and floods.
Blah, blah, blah. All very true, but it ignores entirely the fact that the prediction said NO ICE this year. That’s a zero followed by nothing. Gore and the alarmists were (as predicted by “deniers”), and continue to be, wrong.
No, it’s not getting warmer. You have an incredibly steep drop in ice from 2010-2013. In one year 2013-2014, it’s returned to 80% of the 1981-2010 average. That is not indicative of a continuing trend. It shows a three year anomaly. Christ, you people can’t even read a graph.
Why is it that all alarmists are hysterical?
It’s a mental disorder.
If global warming explains the ice shrinkage at the North Pole, what explains ice expansion at the South Pole?
Arctic ice extent is very close to the 30 year mean
Doesn’t matter. Gorbull warming guru predicted ZERO ice. He was and is 100% WRONG, as are all the other BS warmistas.
Can we call them “Global Warming Hoax Deniers?
It’s a mental disorder, called Carbon Phobia. It’s contagious — it spreads by watching MafiaSoftNBC.
What kills me is even after this came out, all week long CBS radio has been putting it out there, in their little news segments between Rush and Hannity; that NOAA just released some new data that “showed? that November 2013 was thee warmest month on record in the whole history of recoded weather tracking.
How is it that the warmers have not joined forces with the gays to have this evil site shut down?
How dare you present this data to the public before it can be scrutinized and approved.
They are waiting for Uncle Si from Duck Dynasty to weigh in.
Hey, Mike Mann! I got yer hockey sticks for ya. Right HERE!
Cooling? see Sunspots, we worry about this cliamte stuff like the world is ending, when in reality we ignore that we are going bankrupt and headed for a depression, but we in the govt ignore that.
The Obamapocalypse is upon us.
Better leave this as a sticky for a few days – you’ve been Drudged.
You imbeciles just hate it when truth invades your echo chamber, don’t you?
The echo chamber you are experiencing is in your head.
Perhaps you intended to visit Reddit where that is the new normal?
Perhaps you intended to visit Reddit where that is the new normal?
….the new normal?
….new normal?
….ew normal?
….normal?
….mal?
🙂
A strange new version of truth of which I was previous to this unaware.
Tell me oh great one, what is this ‘truth’ of which you speak?
I suspect this is all mankind’s fault due to solar depletion from overuse of solar energy.
I was wondering what that giant sucking sound was. I thought it was the NSA sucking up e-mails, but I think you may be right!
You mean you never noticed that the sun gets bigger every evening? I mean, look at all the daylight it has to suck up!
Yeah, the overuse of solar panels are causing us to experience “Peak Sol.’ Solar panels are sucking the sun dry!
Notice, how last summer the sun was up and bright almost to 9 PM and now here in Dec its barely able to light the sky at 4 PM. That’s proof right there I tell ya.
Note: I am just using Mann/Gore logic
Absolutely!
The Greenies say it’s a sustainable source of energy but where are we going to find another when we’ve suck all the energy out of this one?
Please don’t confuse these people with facts, they can’t handle it.
Gore-Bull Warming?
Forget the gays, poster Jakebutt. Why hasn’t anyone shut down the born out of wedlock Kenyan mulatto in the WH. That is the genuine issue facing the American ppl, not gays.
You know Barry is gay too, right?
Dork people..it finishes the year cold
colder than it has in many years, Warmonger. If they were having barbecues and water skiing in Boise due to record high temperatures, you would be screaming it from the rooftops.
The real deniers are those like you. The reality, your AGW fairy tale has been thoroughly discredited.
Global Warming is just another scam by money manipulating elites to steal billions more from the productive working classes while they consume 50 times the energy as the Average American.
You hit the nail on the head. We can’t drive our SUV’s without the Pres. and Al Gore trying to make us feel guilty all the while they are flying in private jets on a daily basis. Anywhere there’s money to be made off of the sweaty backs of american working people, be sure they will be there demanding it.
And rob the future from your children and grandchildren.
omfg its global warming aaaahhhh
The trouble is that you are dealing with a gullible public who only listen to sound bites from charlatans like Al. Gore and his Democratic henchmen. Any REAL climatologist will tell you that this so called warming cycle is a natural phenomena and has been going on for thousands of years. We maybe getting warmer, although some signs say to the contrary, but my understanding is that we are in one of the 500 year cycles where the climate gets warmer because of other forces outside our orbit e.g. the Sun !!
Actually, 97% of Climatologists will tell you the warming is real and largely man-made.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Actually, that article and statistic is complete bullshit.
“Actually”, that article is 5 years old………back when the warmists and their sheep were still in full denial that their “science” was bull caca.
you do realize that article is 4 years old any information from that must sound of the faults
Seems many of the warming believers are filled with hot air.
These true believers see a fiery apocalyptic ending to mankind unless we repent and believe the gospel of warming. I guess brother Gore is the pope of their faith. If you fall short and doubt even for a minute he can pardon your sin through the sale of indulgences, opps I mean carbon credits.
There I go being critical of brother Al G.
All while his snake oil, opps, I mean carbon credits have successfully done one thing, ……………………….made him rich…………………………..
The Snake Oil is Settled.
Why don’t you quote MSNBC and Huff and Puff too, other arms of the Obama admin.
Actually, 97% of Climatologists –
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That old fake theory! Get real.
Oh, I see you still don’t understand that reaching a “consensus” is not scientific.
It’s also a fallacy and cheap debate tactic most often employed by the Left.
You have obviously never spoken with a climatologist. 97% think you are crazy and dangerous to humanity.
I speak with climatologists almost every day, and they think that uneducated catastrophists like you are a crazy and dangerous to humanity.
God leftists are gullible! 😆
“An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists…. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
And here were the questions asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Significant can be 10%. Note that there was no opportunity in the survey (which was not subject to peer, or any other review, which explains its blatant flaws) to quantify or even discuss what part natural variability had to play. They sent out 10,257 surveys, received 3146 replies (seems that most Earth scientists were not even concerned enough to reply), and used only 79 to come up with a 97% consensus that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, and man may have been a minor contributor. By their ‘figuring’ that means that 2.5% of those who responded to the survey agree the Earth has warmed. EARTH SHATTERING!!! 😆
This is the sort of manipulation that warmists use to fool the public into thinking we have a problem. Truth be told, I would answer ‘yes’ to question 1, and ‘maybe’ to question 2.
If you do not understand that you have been duped by the grantologists, have a very nice bridge for sale, and 97% of bridge experts say you should buy it.
Now they call it Climate Change. What a revelation! The climate always changes from hot house to ice age. It’s been going on for millions of years! The biggest hoax is believing government can do anything about it. In the end, they will probably get their carbon tax approved and further restrictions and control of our economy and the climate will continue to cycle between hot and cold periods.
It does not matter what the actual figures are, the UN and global warming advocates will still claim it is one of the hottest years on record.
Let’s all assume that some post on a personal blog is the last word in science and then make a bunch of hateful comments!
Evil blogs.
Well, the one thing we can’t assume is those who developed the climate models can predict warming accurately – that didn’t happen…
Have a happy Christmas and a preposterous New Year too. 🙂
Global warming and cooling (climate change) has been going on since the beginning of time. If climate change is caused by humans then it has to be caused by human POPULATION GROWTH. If that’s the case, then the cause of the problem (overpopulation) should be addressed rather than the symptoms (climate change).
On a related note, no one has answered my question after 10 years of asking, “What cause the global warming that melted off the great Ice Age when man was hardly present on the planet?” Answer: The global warming that ended the ice age was part of the NATURAL CYCLING of climate that has gone on since the beginning of time and always will.
The only people that don’t understand this are idiots, liars, or people like liberals who have mental disorders and are incapable of common sense reasoning or rational thought.
*******
“What cause the global warming that melted off the great Ice Age when man was hardly present on the planet?” Answer: The global warming that ended the ice age was part of the NATURAL CYCLING of climate that has gone on since the beginning of time and always will.
********
I have repeatedly asked this very question myself and all I hear are crickets….
Exactly right! Warming and cooling are caused by NATURAL CYCLING as noted above. It can’t be explained any better!!!!!
Atlanteans built too many windmills near the glacial walls. The combined noise of all those turbines developed a resonant response in the crystalline structure of the ice sheet that built up energy slowly at first, then faster and faster(if you graphed the buildup, the line would probably resemble a hockey stick), until finally the entire Laurentide sheet shattered violently, setting off a chain reaction of quakes, vulcanism, tsunamis, torrential rains, large boats filled with animals, dead megafauna, and lost civilizations.
I saw a nature/archaeology show on PBS a few months ago about a thriving society in what is now the middle of the Sahara Desert, complete with crop land and plentiful water. PBS neglected to mention what kind of SUVs those people drove to heat up the planet and expand the desert…
Here’s the real lie. Now think about it.
Issued back in early November:
“WARSAW, Nov 13 (Reuters) –
“This year is the seventh warmest since records began in 1850 with a trend to weather extremes and the impact of storms such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines aggravated by rising sea levels, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Wednesday.”
Get that? With the coldest months of the year yet to come?
The “science” was already “settled”, apparently, why wait for confirmation data?
But the teachers who pin this to the wall in classroom, know no kid would dare to question the world’s authority.
The “coldest” month of the year is irrelevant. If a “normal” December temperature in a certain city is 22 degrees…and it ends up being 29 degrees, that’s MUCH warmer than normal. Its all relative.
Hey Lea! Where my house sits, there was once an ice sheet a mile thick, and now there isn’t. What is the ‘normal’ December temperature for my backyard?
The scientifically illiterate do not know that there is no ‘normal’ when it comes to climate and weather. All we have for temperatures are averages over an insignificant period of time. Climate change is indeed real, but it is also perfectly ‘normal’.
“The only normal people are the ones you don’t know very well.” – GC
So what really is relevant is the averaged, homogenized, temperatures from a few sites spread over 100 of square kilometers?
The temperature you actually measure where you live is not correct because….?
Just think how cold it would be if we didn’t have global warming to counterbalance it!
It would have been warmer, had it not been colder…so my global warming neighbors tell me. LOL
As an old Irish lady would say to me on cold days –
“If it was twice as warm as it is half as cold you’d feel twice as hot as you are now!”
Damn that Global Warming! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa f-ing idiots.
The environmentalist want to use the global warming lie to choke off the use of carbon based fuels that all this is about.
Hey NOAA, just give us the raw data…we’ll draw our own conclusions, thank you!!!!
Got it???
Global Warming alarmist (liars or ignorant) will pee down your back, and tell you it’s raining. By the way, I stocked up on a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs so I never have to use those ugly, poisonous, over priced BS bulbs they try to shove down everyone’s throat. Still living the way I want to! Have a nice day commies!
Congrats Steve on the Drudge link, may it bring up riches and fame or, something.
I’m actually on Drudge about once every couple of weeks, but usually indirectly via Climate Depot.
Main problem here is that the US only makes up less than 2% of the Earths surface. So this article has nothing to do with any GLOBAL Warming trend, although it tries to mislead people to that perception. When the other 98% of the Earths temperatures come in, it is likely to be much warmer. Wonder if Drudge will publish those findings when they come in? Answer is, only if it fits their denial agenda. OTW don’t expect to hear too much about it, or they’ll claim its some vast conspiracy by scientists (lol).
That evil cold in the US is just messing with your head.
Hey dude that is a good point. I am a skeptic but let’s see the rest of the data for the world. Could you oblige us?
It is a harder problem, but I am thinking about doing it.
Let’s see the raw data then for the entire year for the world. Stevengoddard you know where to find it I bet
Do your own work and provide a link.
I can provide a few m4gw.com and http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a good start.
What kind of dumbass would believe a website over NASA? This information is not backed by anyone who even claims to be scientific. And nope, science is not about a bunch or people reacting to information they don’t like. Science is something which posits a theory, creates a methodology and presents a conclusion which can be verified by others. Do you people believe in Santa Clause too?
Those websites are evil.
“Science is something which posits a theory, creates a methodology and presents a conclusion which can be verified by others.”
What an excellent idea maybe the IPCC team can get around to doing things this way one day, then we could all go back to a quiet and peaceful live safe in the knowledge that the climate scam is over.
Have a festering Christmas and a preposterous New Year.
😉
SO, the wildly inaccurate predictions of climate models regarding temps, suggests, what, exactly? Lack of verification, perhaps. Please name ONE conclusion that has been verified please.
My point entirely!
What kind of fool would believe a vacuous theory which is unsupported by all the observations and data?
Simple: a class of citizenry well-trained to subscribe to an ideology via public education, corporate owned media, Bain Capital controlled talk radio, institutions of lower living (aka, “academia”), and all control by private offshore banksters who are running the whole con.
This is a segment of the populace who would rather plunge their heads into the sands of nonstop entertainment, TV, sports, video games, alcohol, drugs, consumerism, gossip, etc., all funded by the taxpayer and those foolish enough to support the Fortune 500 companies who lie to us, poison us, steal from us and hypnotize with the aforementioned items … anything to distract from the theft of our wealth and esp. our liberty.
What is this social class called? “Sheeple”
Well, NASA, as you certainly are aware, is an organization that has a goal to make believers in Islam feel comfortable. Has noting to do with climate research. And lately, not much to do with maned space exploration. That is the job of the Chinese.
SO, what, exactly, would it take to disprove global warming? As you must be aware, a theory must be falsafiable to be a scientific theory.
Lol. Global cooling
There is a prior theory to the global warming theory that has not been falsified –
it’s a natural cycle.
This has not been discredited.
Obviously, you’ve never worked for NASA. I have many friends who are devastated at what NASA and NOAA has become. They should be called PropagaNASA.
Look into “Climategate.” Here’s a primer: http://tinyurl.com/lpvtron
(Try to use your scientific rational mind on this and remove all emotion from the source please.)
Yes, there are dedicated scientists and engineers (though just a fraction of what there used to be) but the bureau-rats who have climbed the ladder are the ones who will say and do anything they are instructed to, and that includes lying about data to serve a political agenda.
Anyone who thinks NASA is still just about science, then they need to slap themselves hard, wake-up and smell the coffee.
Good post. I have a friend who is retired from EPA. She too is sick of what her agency has become.
You mean like the theory of Co2 going up and taking temps along for the ride ?
..whoops, that theory has been disproven !
It was not disproven as it was never validated.
The prior theory of global temperatures varying due to natural cycles was never falsified, therefore the AGW theory was just a distraction. It stopped real scientist from looking for at the true science of climate.
AGW never reached the level of theory, it barely attained hypothesis, before it was falsified both by man and nature.
So true.
“Science is something which posits a theory, creates a methodology and presents a conclusion which can be verified by others. ”
Not Climate science! Neither Penn States Professor Mann or the liars at East Anglica in London had any of their research peer reviewed, or saved their research for others to recreate. You don’t have top believe in Santa Clause to know corruption when you see it, and Professor Hanson at NASA is as much a liar and fraud as the others.
“What kind of dumbass would believe a website over NASA?”
Uhhm most posters here? Anyone who listens to Hush Bimbo and 700 Club nut-job Pat Robertson? Also all Tea Party members? And those who believe Columbus had it wrong and that the world is really flat.
It isn’t clear to me how USHCN temperature data ties in with Pat Robertson. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Lea,
Since you claim to believe in ‘science’ and are disregarding ‘websites’ instead of NASA, could you possibly explain to me what data you would need to see to start questioning ‘climate change’ as they describe it now? It seems to me that the following is true:
1) The Climate Change lobby (i.e. – scientists invested in this theory) have a real, credible incentive to make you believe this theory is real. All of their scientific research is invested in this, all future grants and money is tied to more ‘studies’ of it, and if they are wrong after all of the abuse they have heaped onto people questioning their theory, they are completely finished as credible scientists.
2) As global temperatures have not risen overall in the last 15 years, I think that it is alarming how the vaunted models that forecasted increases have been wrong in every case. How on earth are we supposed to trust climate model projections 100 years out when they can’t accurately forecast even short term temperature trends?
3) I truly don’t think the global warming supporters realize how much money and resources it would take to even attempt to do what the global warming lobby wants on a global scale. It would consume trillions upon trillions of dollars to even begin to make a dent, IF (and only IF) this theory is true. Even IF it is true, adapting to it would cost far less than doing what they are proposing.
4) The climate change lobby, if they are truly honest, should be 100% honest with the public about the effects of their proposals. Similarly to ObamaCare, they are lying about it. They lied about Obamacare and its impact on the average family (if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period). If they institute a carbon tax and do all the things they are proposing relative to ‘renewable energy’, the average family’s energy bill would triple or quadruple, easily. They are not telling people that because they know people would be instantly against it, so they have to LIE in order to get these radical bills passed before those people understand the details.
Do you think retiring all coal plants is good for the country? Coal usage is down and still accounts for 40%+ of all electricity – where is that going to come from when Obama shuts down coal plants?
And forget just your ‘electric’ bill – every product and every service will rise dramatically in price since their costs are going to triple, too. And so people can’t afford those products and will cut back – this increases poverty (as people get less goods and services for their money), and craters the economy (as businesses go under b/c their sales plummet). Oh – but wait – we got rid of that nasty coal energy!! We can breathe clean air while we starve!!!
What science did you take in school, pseudo?
You would be surprised at the depth of study most climate realists, like myself, have undertaken, certainly far more than George Clooney, Mark Ruffalo, and the rest of the acting scientists polluting this world.
Learn the scientific method, then maybe one day you will realize that Mann, and his henchmen are pure frauds
Careful your projecting again, or are you to busy listening to the babblings of Sierra Club? That rich mans club.
Or do you feel it’s bad of me to point this out?
Columbus did have it wrong. Who you callin’ dumbass now?
Boy, push the right button and all the free associations come pouring out!
Truly the nut-jobs are within you. As I’m sure you are aware most people believe in some deranged theory or other. Yours is obviously AGW, well know that you are in good company –
Yes the flat earth society, from the backward nation of England, is with you there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/flat-earth-society-to-obama-climate-change-speech-georgetown-2013-6
Peer Review has become Peer Pressure in a white lab coat.
“PhysOrg.com) — Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades. The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news203746768.html#jCp
Best post on this site!!!
Reblogged this on pdx transport.
Considering the US is under 300 years old, how can such a short record be indicative of anything?
You can check out the science on http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11/
Liberals are having a lot of trouble with their credibility. Everything they say is proven wrong.
Not proven wrong, whatever you have, wherever you got it, it’s from big oil or a conservative zillionaire. No warming 15yrs? Oh we only use 30 year cycles. Everything has a rebuttal however ridiculous. We might be screwed, no matter what, they twist it around
I’ve come to the conclusion that this may be some kind of occult principle. That’s one reason I’m concerned about their continued insistence on catastrophic warming – especially if the principle is quantitative (intensive) rather than just binary.
Just sitting here waiting for the Coronal Mass Ejection. The great equalizer.
Maybe the model outputs would match that better.
I love it someone finally posted the weather station sites ,go find them in your town. Rolla mo. site sits in the middle of a parking lot surrounded by buildings and roads. It should not be used in any average . It will always be warmer . What were stations surrounded by in !920 Probably cows and grass, yet the data is averaged like there is no difference. Over 50% of stations in the usa are compromised in this way. Buildings, roads, airports have surrounded these stations and have driven up the averages yet noaa and govt. scientist refuse to recognize this in their data Why? Because It would erase 20 years of the biggest lie ever told to the world. There is no warming and carbon can’t cause something that is not happening. Unless we trully live in la la land.
My, my… now this really is an “Inconvenient Truth”. Don’t ya’ think Al?
What did someone say 1,000’s of years ago when the ice that gouged out the great lakes melted and left us with the Great Lakes?
Yes. ice been melting for long time. But I do prefer it warmer!
In parts of Canada they imposed a .11 cent a gallon global warming tax on gasoline!
What a scam!
LOL! Wouldn’t global warming in Canada be a good thing?
More libtard delusions exposed as lies.
Grats on the Drudge link, glad more people are seeing your work.
More proof of global warming.
How many years does a trend have to continue before it is not considered an anomaly?
Seems many of the global warming faith are filled with the hot air they warn us about. If they would just keep their mouths closed the problem goes away.
But instead……………
These true believers see a fiery apocalyptic ending to mankind unless we repent and believe the gospel of warming. With brother Albert presiding as Pope and high priest of the true believers. Who if you doubt and fall short, can pardon your sin of unbelief, through the sale of indulgences, opps I mean carbon credits.
Seriously though, his snake oil, opps, I mean carbon credits have successfully done one thing, …..….……………………….made him rich…………………………..
So he can fly all over the world creating a huge carbon footprint warning all the heathen unbelieving masses of the impending doom if they fail to repent and believe his gospel.
Its Man/bear/pig all over again (See South Park episode for details of Al Gore vs man/bear/big)
Who btw is half man, half bear, and half pig!
Really, I’m serial ( :
Nice.
Here’s the perfect question (and follow-up) to pose to an AGW believer:
Me: So, tell me, WHAT is the ideal temperature of the planet? Please pick a number of degrees warmer or cooler than our present temperature.
AGWman: Well, it’s not just one number, it’s a range.
Me: OK, what range?
I’ve posed this question a dozen times, and have yet to hear an intelligent answer. Follow-up questions to AGWman ask whether the last Ice Age temp, the temp during Roman times (hotter than our present), the Medieval Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age represented the “ideal” temperature of the planet. After that, AGWman is usually just left with epithets, invective, ad hominem attacks, or appeal to “authority” such as the UN documents.
I’ve had a very smart guy (a good software developer) explain to me patiently that the degrees of warming today are worse than the degrees back when Greenland got its name. Apparently current degrees are motivated by evil humans, back in the day, they weren’t. I walked away from the discussion at that point.
Here’s another great question for AGWman. What % of the variation in global temperature is accounted for by CO2? You will never get an answer to this question. They don’t report these kinds of statistics. Why? Their models don’t fit the data. Take a look at the temperature plot in this article and you will get a pretty good idea of the global temperature variation. Most of the variation in temperature couldn’t possibly be accounted for by CO2 which has been showing a DC increase with a cyclical sinusoidal pattern for years.
This is a rebuttal to NASA claimed evidence of man made global warming:
NASA Posting Found here.
Evidence:
Climate change: How do we know?
Seratom:
So what if the co2 level is the highest that it has ever been it is still less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and only 0.4% of the total greenhouse gases of which 95% is made up of water vapors. Humans only contribute about 3%-4% of that .04%. Do you know what part of .4 is of .04 is? .016 of .4, not of the atmustmphear, but of the co2 going into it.
Go here to read the rest of the post: http://carolinacowboy.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/rebuttal-to-nasa-claimed-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/
Ten years ago USA temperature records pre-1880 were available on the net….why have they disappeared?
North Pole Ice now at 1923 levels. Seldom mentioned, Why.
Many scientific warming advocates question relationship to CO2, but such questions cut off the availability of grant money. Some science.
The raw data is still there, but annual averages were meaningless because the data was too sparse.
1880’s data is still useful…. It proves that slaughtering 55 million buffalo and nearly making them extinct, does NOT cool off the Earth. Unlike the greennuts and their anti-meat crusade claims….
Steve…. If this December in the US 48 states is just average (~33.0°F), the full year will average 52.6°F. That is not even in the top 50 coldest. However, the winter trend since 1998 (like the annual trend) is still down.
What are you using as the data source? I’m using the measured, untampered GHCN HCN data.
US temps are running far below normal in December.
Steve… I’m using the NCDC’s database which anyone can access at their “Climate at a Glance” page. December is running colder than average, but even if one uses the coldest US December on record (1993), 2013 will not be among the coldest. You need to show us your untampered full annual data. I think you’ve made a mistake here.
Did you actually read my article before commenting? NCDC data is massively tampered with. The link to the raw data is in the article.
Steve, Show us the actual NCDC December data, please. The tampered versus untampered. The use of the word “tamper” implies some sort of deliberate conspiracy. And what leads you to believe that untampered data are the “truth” and are better anyhow? Where does one go to find the raw, untampered data?
You apparently are not comprehending anything I am saying. The link to the raw temperature data is posted in the article above.
Why doesn’t NOAA mention their massive alterations (two degrees relative shift) in their press releases? What they are doing is obscene
The NCDC data, JAN-DEC are immediately available to anyone at drd964x.tmpst. Here are the December averages since the year 2000… Where are “untampered” values for comparison? What is normal for December, untampered of course?
2000 28.2
2001 36.25
2002 35.24
2003 35.47
2004 35.07
2005 32.56
2006 36.47
2007 33.38
2008 31.88
2009 29.55
2010 32.47
2011 35.3
2012 36.27
2013 -99.9
27.356
37.184
34.988
35.258
34.772
31.748
37.004
33.116
31.496
29.93
31.118
35.69
36.5
Steve… What is your source for these untampered temperatures? And, how do you know they are untampered? This is certainly important, if true. NCDC has adjusted older US Weather Bureau values, but those go back before ~1983 and the reasons have been explained. No conspiracy.
As I have told you several times, the link is in the article
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
They are the raw daily data for all GHCN HCN stations
The actual NCDC “adjustments” don’t even vaguely match their documentation, and are much (4x) larger
Regardless of their motivations, they are ethically obligated to release the same graphs unadjusted.
Here are links to full explanations for the NCDC data…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/about-ncdc
In January we will find out if 2013 was one of the top 10 coldest or whether it was even in the top 30. If true, I’m sure that the media will be all over it.
In the US-48 no individual state has experienced a record low year since Nebraska did in 1993… a decade without a single record year. Record high years? In 2012 there were 19 states, unprecedented? Winters are getting colder… the trend since 1998 has been down.
The actual adjustments they make are much larger than their documentation
Should I repeat that a few more times, or just wait until you don’t bother to read it again?
No need to repeat yourself, Steve. If what you say is indeed true it will be reported elsewhere…for sure. BTW, Have you ever asked anyone up at NCDC’s center in North Carolina to explain why don’t just give us the “real” data?
I’ve got the real data – it is available on the NOAA website. As far as I know, awareness of this tampering is just starting to become publicly known.
Steve… So when you spoke to someone at NCDC’s Asheville, NC center about your findings, what did they say? I’ve spoken to several of them in the past about data inconsistencies. They usually have pretty good explanations, even if I didn’t necessarily agree.
Glad you like their adjustments
Steve…You’re lack of a direct response to my question about contacting NCDC is very telling. You apparently have no real scientific interest in finding out why the NCDC data have been, in your repeated words, tampered with. If your tempering assertions and conclusions about them are indeed accurate the fact that you tried to make a serious effort to learn would certainly help your case. As it is, your avoidance makes you look weak… all of your charts, “bells-and-whistles” notwithstanding. In this respect, you seem to be a “paper tiger”.
Steve… going back to your nifty charts (12/21 7:10 PM) showing the trend differences between the 2009 and 2013 temperatures, I just noticed that none of them is your GHCN HCN data. It is all GISS data…Jim Hansen’s data. Bad form to tell us one thing about your data, but slip in somebody else’s rendition. I don’t doubt that the data, everyone’s, has been changed, for good reasons, but you need to explain why you haven’t contacted either GISS or NCDC for their explanation.
Why are older temperature adjusted downward? I would expect most temperature errors to be due to siting issues which would cause temperatures to be higher not lower.
TRG… A good question. The older temperatures have been adjusted downward by about 0.7-0.8°F. The so-called urban heat effect, which is real, irrespective of siting issues, would seem to be more intense with time and the newer values would intuitively be higher, especially near high population areas.
Older temperatures have been adjusted downwards by 1.0 to 1.7F. Look at the graph in the article.
That has nothing to do with answering TRG’s question. But, please provide a source for your 1921, 1934 monthly temperatures, all 48 states, to document that assertion. Is it the old US Weather Bureau? They published their values every month, for every state.
What did it for me years ago was visiting the glacier fields of Alberta Canada. Seeing that the decade markers showed a receding glacier before 1910, which was before the industrial revolution, convinced me that the natural earth cycles far swamp the human contributions.
I know what you mean, but check your terminology. The industrial revolution was late 18th century to mid-nineteenth century.
The true smokestack industrials were in their infancy (dirty but low total quantitative output based on relatively small populations) as we entered the 20th century, and the automobile was just being invented — both prime targets of the global warming crowd.
Some of our sustained coldest weather occurred before 1920, yet glaciers were receding. Unless someone can prove to me that the latency of industrial output effects in our atmosphere takes 75-100 years to be noticed (i.e., post 1920), I remain a skeptic. BTW, the effects of a single large volcanic eruption is felt within a year.
As a people, we need to be better at remediating our waste so it does not have a negative impact on our soil, oceans, animals, plants, etc – we all live in one, giant biosphere that is highly interconnected.
If this ‘global warming’ / ‘climate change’ debate accomplishes anything, it should get folks on both the political right AND left to see that humanity makes a HUGE impact on everything around us. We all need to be more responsible. Period.
Brrr…
Surely is cold these days.
Here’s some science for all y’all…
Step One: Place drink carefully on solid, stable, flat surface away from all electronic devices and outlets.
Step Two: Google “Al Gore adductors release second chakra”
Step Three: View first few results returned from search engine.
Step Four: Click one of the top two or three links.
Step Five: Allow merriment to ensue.
Step Six: Thank me for Step One.
Thank-you, it made I laugh! 🙂
Glad that the “sex-crazed poodle”, one Albert Gore, Junior, could be of service.
All these freezing temperatures are simply proof of global warming. There is no longer any condition that doesn’t confirm anthropogenic global warming.
Too hot? Global warming.
Too cold? Global warming
Too wet? Global warming
Too dry? Global warming
It’s no wonder they’ve started referring to it as “climate change” since people were no longer believing their nonsense. Talk about overplaying your hand.
What amazes me, is the fact that when Phil Jones at East Anglia University was forced by British courts to release the raw temp data used to make their computer models, it was noted by a well known statiscian, McKitrick or McEntyre I believe was the name, noted that when comparing the raw data with the adjusted data, i.e. those used for the climate models, every temperature adjustment was in an upward direction. Other statiscians whom have looked at this claim that these adjustments all being in the same direction are a statistical impossibility and likely are the result of scientific fraud.
How many times does a ranting Dumbofuc Party member have to rant at you about Global “Warming” before you agree to give over all means of production to the Dumbofuc Party????
How many times????
We can’t have an environmental dictatorship without global warming. Wake up people the earth is about to burst into flames if you do not bend knee to the Dumbo’s
youtube: The IPCC Exposed
By the Corbett report
http://youtu.be/LOyBfihjQvI
Many so called IPCC ‘top’ scientists are “still 10 years away from a PHD”.
With now all the exposed fraudulent papers, illegally withholding data, admitted manipulated studies and admissions of scientists lying, perhaps the ‘Warmists’ are the real ‘Deniers’.
Who are the hysteric alarmists?
youtube:
The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie ” The club of Rome…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CnIGlQ83K8&feature=share&list=UUAABFArxKuy_-xa7TaFmziw
Now Rothschilds bought a weather broadcasting network (gee, I wonder why??? DUH), Google it:
EL Rothschild buys stake in Weather Central – FT.com
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67ee5828-2d8d-11e0-8f53-00144feab49a.html –
Related:
The ideological basis for ‘environmentalism’
Exposed -WWF & Prince Philip – The World Wildlife Fund
Published on Nov 23, 2013
Your second and third YouTube links are not working.
My typical arguments go something like this…Them: “Well, where is all of the CO2 going then?”…Me: “The same place it went the last time the CO2 levels were high”…Them: “If it’s going into the ocean then we’ll have acidification and we’ll have no more seafood”…Me: “Why did the ocean recover from the last time CO2 levels were high?”…*grunting and groaning sounds*…Them: “You just love the Koch brothers and fossil fuel and…”…Me: “I just love everyone having a chance at a decent life, and cheap energy helps to provide that chance”…Them: “What happens when we run out then?”…Me: “That’s why you guys have about 200-300 years to figure that out, not trying to force something on us now that’s not ready”…and on, and on…
There are ways to add chemicals to de-acidify the ocean, and cutting trees down near the N. Pole would lower the temps. But, the lefties don’t want to “solve” the problem, they want to control people’s behavior.
I wish global warming were true. We could all live in the tropics and never shovel snow again! Yeah! Too bad it’s not true though.
What about the world climate?
Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun’s rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect. With its noxious carbon dioxide gas, its roaring temperatures and its fierce winds that storm across its surface, Venus is understandably known as one of the most inhospitable planets.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet
Venus is hot because of its extremely high atmospheric pressure and its proximity to the Sun.
Proximity to the sun does not have much of a direct effect on temperatures, because a thick cloud layer in the upper atmosphere reflects most of the sunlight back into space. The only important factor affecting Venus temperature is the atmospheric pressure.
Does anyone know Al Gore’s email address? I have an article I’d like to forward to him.
The earth is billions of years old, and the climate data we have is at best is accurate for 150 years. So the information used to determine “manmade global warming” is about the same as going to a street corner and asking 10 people if they feel hot, then basing your study on the world climate on the opinion of those 10 people. It’s a shame that this was ever considered “science”.
The demoRAT-COMMUNIST party will ignore hard data…. full steam ahead. What is important is taking our money and our freedoms in the name of Progress.
Hey. Mikey Mann! I got yer hockey sticks fer ya, right HERE!
Enough with the sensationalist headlines! It reads one of the coldest years in US History, yet the first paragraph of the article says since 1895. SO, are you stupid or something? The US has been here since 1776, dimwits.
Dashmooz, stevengoddard,, and others. I hear many theories that are built on false assumptions.
1) “Global warming stopped 15 years ago”: This is a laughable claim. 1998 had the warmest “El Nino in 100 yrs, and that vast ocean warming shot temps so high, that the next few years might have been slightly lower, but still warmer than any year pre mid 1990’s. And 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998. Another thing you have to look at are the “cold year (trough) trends as even the cooler years post 2000 are warmer than the 120 years before. Thats why the decade of 2000-2010 was the warmest on record, blowing away and bugus claim that warming ended in 1998. See chart on this link and get back to me,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hottest_on_record.gif
I thought you had an issue with bloggers. 😆
So glad that you admit natural fluctuations like El Niño are responsible for climate changes.
Class dismissed!
You got it wrong. Its the natural fluctuation of Warm (El Nino) followed the next year by Cold (La Nina) created a brief 2-3 year downtrend which many denialists, thirsting for a nugget, latched onto in order to say “warming ended”. But then 10 more years of the warmest temps on record blew that bogus claim away, but some blindly continue to repeat it. Now class is dismissed. 🙂
Your proof that any of this is not due to natural variation is ….
Silence ensued….:-)
Lea, where is the paper refuting natural variability? Does John Cook not have one?
Class dismissed missy!
Sunspots create an El Nino right?
There is correlation of El Niño and sunspots, but unlike the warmists, we know that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Anyone who has made sun tea, or been to the pool on a cloudy day knows that the Sun, and not CO2, warms water.
And what in any of these variations is not natural, where’s the proof that these are not natural.
Woodfortrees.org, hosted by a practical environmentalist Brit, has all of the pertinent climate related datasets and an interactive feature with many tools to plot data. The two satillite datasets clearly indicate that the temperature, globally, have been flat for the past 14 years. I recommend this site because I’m cynical and like to see the raw data, unadjusted, for myself. Warning, this site is extremely addictive.
Al Gore and Jesse Jackson are both people that if they advocate anything I am 180 opposed. They are both frauds and posers.
Another common “claim” by denialists is that the observed temperature data is artificially manipulated to show warming. One famous “skeptic” Dr Mueller, felt this way and did a lengthy investigation of past weather station data to prove his point. When Dr. Mueller finished, he instead concluded that the past data was indeed valid, and that the recent warming was indeed largely mane-made. Check out your “former” PhD skeptic turned believer:
One famous “nonskeptic” Dr Mueller. There I fixed your mistake!
Another common “claim” by warmists is that the observed temperature rise is artificially (mann-made) and now is warming. It’s actually just a natural cycle.
fixed that one too.
There is no natural cycle in the past 150 years of modern climate data that mimics what is ongoing today. This might help explain it better:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
Ah yes, that blogger again.
“The Truth about Skeptical Science
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censoredwhile Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted andsmeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
“I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science
A link from the Skeptical Science “About” page originally went to his cartoonist page,
“John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia” – SEV
It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume. As opposed to the highly credentialed climate scientists his staff harassed and censored;
Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)
Roger A. Pielke Sr., B.A. Mathematics, Towson State College (1968); M.S. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1969); Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1973); Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University (1968); National Science Foundation Trainee, Pennsylvania State University (1968-1971); Research Meteorologist, Experimental Meteorology Laboratory, NOAA (1971-1974); Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1974-1977); Distinguished Authorship Award, NOAA (1974); Leroy Meisinger Award, American Meteorological Society (1977); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1978-1981); Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review (1981-1985); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (1982); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1982-1985); Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award (1984); Deputy Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (1985-1988); Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1985-2000), Abell Research Faculty Award (1987/1988); Researcher of the Year, Colorado State University Research Foundation (1993), Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow (1996); Alumni of the Year, Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (1999); Colorado State Climatologist (1999-2006); Engineering Dean’s Council Award, Colorado State University (2000); Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University (2003-2006); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (2004); Visiting Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona (2004); Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (2007-Present)
References:
Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science(PDF) (28pgs) (Lubos Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, March 29, 2010)
Skepticalscience – Rewriting History (Shub Niggurath Climate, October 10, 2011)
Roger Pielke Sr at the SS.com: A dark day in the climate science debate (Shub Niggurath Climate, September 18, 2011)
Skepticalscience.com quote surgery on Pat Michaels(Shub Niggurath Climate, January 18, 2012)
My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 17, 2011)
Final Comments On My Interaction With Skeptical Science (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 21, 2011)
Response To Skeptical Science On A Series Of Weblog Posts (Roger A. Pielke Sr., October 25, 2011)
A Response to Skeptical Science’s “Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data” (Patrick J. Michaels, January 17, 2012)
Update: In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked”and the contents posted online. What was revealed is simply astonishing,
Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech
“The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him.” – [Skeptical Science]
Skeptical Science: “Ding dong, the witch is dead”
“Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43” “Ding dong, the witch is dead…” – John Hartz [Skeptical Science], March 2, 2012
Skeptical Science: “[W]e’re all a bunch of leftists”
“It’s official, we’re all a bunch of leftists” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], August 26, 2011
Skeptical Science: The Partnership with Al Gore
“This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. […] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. […] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we’re doing” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011
Skeptical Science: From Al Gore to Al Jazeera
“Al Jazeera want[s] to feature SkS as the Site of the Week… Am sending them some info and pics now.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 28, 2011
Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm
“Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011
Skeptical Science: “Drown Them Out”
“Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1
I’m sorry have I missed some earth shattering research, oh, no, just someone referencing a blog.
So where’s your proof, proof that manifestly shows with no doubt or error that mankind has to change its ways. That proof that will mean that all of our modern ways must be changed.
Come on where?
You want all to change their way of life, you better come up with more than a dumb blog site reference.
One can clearly see a 60 year cyclicity in the data.
Cooling from 1880-1910, from 1940-1970 alternating with warming from 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 makes for an obvious cycle.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
Lastly –
When Dr. Mueller finished, he concluded that the past data was indeed valid, and that the recent warming was indeed largely mane-made. And this confirmed what he had aways thought.
Fixed.
Wong again: Damn you can’t hit the side of a barn with your come backs. Maybe you should stop throwing and re-calibrate.
Dr. Mueller quote in NY Times July 2012:
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Richard Muller’s admission has gained additional attention because some of his research has been funded by Charles Koch of the Koch brothers, the right-wing billionaires known for funding climate skeptic groups like the Heartland Institute.
Anything else I can help clarify for you?
Math is hard! 2012-3=2009. 2003 is older than 2009.
Class dismissed!
Why have these people lied to you? And why have you accepted these lies?
The Koch brothers didn’t fund climate skeptics at the Heartland Institute. They funded some work on health care. Get your facts straight before you criticize others. Or are you unable to do anything other than glide with the currents of warmist mythology?
Ah yes, as Tom pointed out, the same Dr Mueller who lied about being a skeptic. Great source! What did the forger and document thief Peter Glieck have to say?
Lea, please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes. That should be easy. Right?
Gator,
What “proof” do you have that Mueller lied about anything? That’s a strong assertion, Unless you have a CREDIBLE link, its just a baseless accusation, typical of denialists community.
Back to your info you posted earlier, Skeptical Science is actually made up of a team of DOZENS of scientists who have degrees ranging from B.S. M.S or PhD’s, who in turn often gather quotes from other climatologists and use OFFICIAL temperature and other scientific data in their blogs. Nice try though trying to claim a cartoonist writes all that.(lol)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
Anything else I can help correct for you?
Reading John Cook is bad for your mental health
December 17, 2003
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” –
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419
Mullet said man made CO2 was causing global warming ten years ago, then last year he claimed to be a recently converted skeptic. Are you thick?
You can produce at least ONE peer reviewed paper that refuted natural variability, can’t you. I mean with all the climate experts at your disposal this should not be an issue. Right? So where is it?
Class dismissed until you find proof of your ridiculous claims, missy.
Muller lied about being a skeptic. He said this 10 years ago
December 17, 2003
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” –
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/
Wrong.
Read his NY Times article, His skepticism was just a little later mid 2000’s thru about 2009, which is why far right wing groups like Koch Industries and Heartland began funding him.
Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre’s debunking of Mann’s Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, “This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming”. Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, “the greatest pollutant in human history” and likely to have, “severe and detrimental effects on global climate”. The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, “it’s going to get much, much worse” and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, “it’ll be too late”. No wonder he endorsed “The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic”, Steven Chu as “perfect” for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore’s hypocritical alarmism,
“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003
References:
Medieval Global Warming (MIT Technology Review, December 17, 2003)
Global Warming Bombshell (MIT Technology Review, October 15, 2004)
Author and physicist Richard A. Muller chats with Grist about getting science back in the White House (Grist, October 7, 2008)
Physics the Next President Needs to Know (Wired, November 2, 2008)
Steven Chu named U.S. Energy Secretary (KGO-TV, December 15, 2008)
Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines (Richard Muller, 2009)
‘In the Great Ship Titanic’ (The Daily Beast, April 10, 2009)
Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism (The Huffington Post, November 3, 2011)
Update:
Clarification on Koch Funding for Muller’s BEST project,
“The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed” – Tonya Mullins, Director of Communications, Charles Koch Foundation
You should read the rest of the article. In most of it Mueller is criticizing the “hockey stick” research. From the same article just above that quote:
“It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important. ”
Next fly I can swat down for you?
Paper please. You believe natural variability has been ruled out, I require proof.
PS – Muller only threw Mann under the bus to get more attention, attention whores are like that.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/comment-page-3/#comment-302439
“I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.”
“I was never a skeptic”
““Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” -“
Do you have anything to disprove –
Lea writes…”Another common “claim” by denialists is that the observed temperature data is artificially manipulated to show warming.”
Indeed… and isn’t that what Mr. Goddard is just trying to do here on his blog? Or have I missed something? More significantly, Steve hasn’t contacted either NCDC or GISS to confirm his “thesis” that HIS analysis of THEIR data shows that it has been massively “tampered” = “manipulated” to show warming. Right or wrong, they have been convicted without a trial. How fair is that, regardless of your view on “climate change”?
The data speaks for itself.
The data do speak for themselves, very clearly. 2013 will not be one of the coldest years, not even close, regardless of how cold December turns out to be.
Spoken like a true “believer”.
We will find out in a month about the full year. Gatorland’s coldest winter (DJF) was in 1958 (53.5°F). And in 2013 it was 62.8°F. Gamecock’s coldest winter was in 1976 (40.4°F) but this year “only” 49.3°F… Brrrrr.
Just where is ‘Gatorland’? Are you making assumptions again?
I find it amusing that warmists always think they know it all.
Good for you Gator…that’s a very good point. Mr. Goddard doesn’t include the UHI either. Look at his long list of the USHCN stations above. Try to find a major city…. one where, of course, the data have been massively tampered with. Those “true believers” have tried to eliminate or reduce the UHI effect by “throwing out” high population center values. Of course, that “trick” doesn’t make the UHI go away. Why don’t you see if you can find some of that “lost” data?
Kent, I was a climatology student before data fraud was cool. If you have anything worth adding to the conversation please do so, if not, then quit wasting our time.
This is how they warmed the globe, by eliminating stations at highs altitudes, higher latitudes, and rural locations, in favor of lower latitudes with higher population densities in marine influenced locations. Then they started cooling the past and warming the present. Even a fifth grader understands this.
“…in favor of lower latitudes with higher population densities in marine influenced locations.” Back in 1987 Hansen and Lebedeff wrote: “we also test the importance of urban heat island effects by selectively eliminating city stations from the analysis… A contradiction?
Do any of the USCHN stations listed above fall into the category of higher population densities at lower latitude with marine influence? Miami, FL? Not there. Nor is New Orleans or Houston. Must be one somewhere.
Can’t see the forest for the trees? Maybe a geography course would help you.
Why did Pulitzer prized physicist resign because of the Global Warming scam?
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2011/09/15/007250-nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-premier-society-over-false.html
it’s obvious.. lea just needs layed
As usual these claims of Mueller were taken totally out of contest. Lets fill in the blanks,shall we?
” I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium. Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution.”
He’s sarcastically saying he would love to believe Mann…BUT then writes why that would be wrong.
Only someone being disingenuous, trying to spin things from the truth, would take that initial sarcasm from Mueller and twist it into him not being skeptical of Manns results.
Heros dies hard, don’t they Lea? It sucks finding out that someone you trusted lied to you. But don’t worry, when you mature a bit you will realize that it is better to question, than to simply accept.
BTW, found that paper yet? Class will resume once you have
So when he said “I was never a skeptic” he meant he was always a skeptic.
Regarding Matt Selby, here is a rebuttal (with graphics and reference links) that shows how incorrect Salby is regarding the Carbon Cycle.
Murry Salby – Confused About The Carbon Cycle
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
Otherwise, Salby is a moot point. He was recently fired from his university for misconduct.(lol)
“Our investigation revealed that the subject (Dr Salby), consistently and over a period of many years, violated or disregarded various federal and NSF award administration requirements, violated university policies related to conflicts and outside compensation, and repeatedly misled both NSF and the university as to material facts about his outside companies and other matters relating to NSF awards”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university–banned-national-science-foundation
Anything else?
Yep!
“First and foremost, there is nothing in any of the NSF claims that questions Murry Salby’s scientific research. This is about paperwork and whether bureaucratic procedures have been properly followed, not about his science.
There is another side to the story and a long and complex history regarding Murry Salby’s work at Colorado University (CU). It started way back in 1997 when he noticed funds were going missing from his NSF-funded research group. After requests for their return were ignored, he reported it to the NSF. By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Salby was unable to find out where half those missing funds had been placed during the time they had been missing. Possibly this did not make him friends at CU.
Later after Salby left CU in 2008 to come to Australia, Colorado University withheld his computer files and work. After requests for those were also ignored, he launched a case from Australia, and won access to everything — CU paid legal costs as well. Curiously, soon after Salby launched that case, the NSF revived a dormant scientific investigation against Murry which went on to make some extremely serious claims — claims that Salby completely disputes (see his full letter).
Salby had already moved to Australia when the NSF investigation was revived, so he could not apply for any more NSF grants. He explains that given the expense and distance, there was little point in launching a major legal protest to a debarment from funding that he was no longer eligible for in any case.
Hyperbole and tenuous reasoning?
At a glance, anyone reading the NSF report might come away thinking Salby “fabricated” time-sheets, a rather serious accusation. Yet on page 30 of the NSF document, even the Acting Deputy Director of the NSF admitted there was “insufficient evidence to support this allegation”.
NSF Report, Deputy Director Cora B. Marrett, p 30
The time and effort reports were a key point, mentioned more than 20 times, and referred to in dramatic language with words like “inaccurate”, “fabricated” and “fraudulent”. The allegation over the time sheets were described as “The most egregious act…” in the report. Other points also hinged on this point for which evidence was “insufficient”.
The report even goes so far as to declare they were “separately created years after the fact”. How did such a serious and unsupported claim become written all through the final report?
For the record, Salby notes that timesheets were filed years earlier by his administrative staff, who kept them on file and later invoiced his hours (see his Fig 2a and Fig 3). Salby wonders why the NSF did not pursue those records more diligently, and if the cumulative hours were so unbelievable why they found no fault when they were originally submitted.
As for evidence, apparently the NSF report authors thought that Salby’s hours were “highly implausible”, saying that scientists would not work 14 -16 hours stretches for three months at a time. This may be true for administrators, but it is not necessarily so for scientists. Those hours are unusual, but not implausible for a dedicated researcher.
One other major claim by the NSF was that Salby had submitted two proposals that overlapped. Apparently 53% of one proposal was identical to an earlier one (which didn’t get funding, so this was not about “extra income” or double dipping). I wouldn’t have thought it was that out-of-the-ordinary for submissions to reuse the reviews and references in similar research. Salby certainly feels the submissions were very different projects, and explains one concentrated on dynamics in the troposphere with meteorological data whereas the other concentrated on chemistry in the stratosphere with satellite data. Salby’s documentation shows that NSF officials had even been notified of the other proposal, which was to be considered for co-sponsorship (see Fig 1a and Fig 1b) Note in Fig 1a, the reviewers were very impressed with the proposal, which was knocked back on a technicality. Later, when it was resubmitted, the reviewers were critical of the NSF for wasting their time by not approving it the first time around. The NSF investigation began a couple of weeks after those criticisms).
Some of the other claims with drastic terms include allegations of overcharging and compensation in excess of approved amounts. I gather this is because at one point a member of Salby’s team left. When no one else could be found, Salby filled in for the more junior staff member (and at lower pay rates) during leave from his CU employment (Fig 5 shows reduced CU employment during one such year). Salby evidently displeased the NSF by getting onto the job, and not seeking pre-approval. The NSF claim it was a reason for debarring him and say he was obligated to inform them. Salby replies that this was no different than the re-assignment of duties to other research staff, performed routinely to meet grant obligations. He notes also that NSF had in fact been informed every quarter, in regular expense reports (see Fig 6). Salby notes that the grant charges were unchanged from what had been budgeted. And, curiously, NASA operated under the same arrangements, yet had no such issues.
This is not a bun-fight I want to get into, I’m more interested in the scientific research he is doing. But unskeptical activists are spinning what appears to be an unbalanced, inconsistent report to do what they do — attack the man, to distract us from his research. (If only DeSmog had scientific evidence they wouldn’t need to run the smear campaigns, would they?)
Note that the NSF report, as “authoritative” as it appears on the surface, made a serious allegation that couldn’t even be supported. This was not a criminal investigation. There were no financial repercussions in the sense that there were no repayments involved, no changes to the grants being investigated, and no question that his scientific work did not measure up. Ultimately it boils down to paperwork and bureaucratese. That doesn’t mean Salby was a Saint, but I am surprized at the hyperbole used in the NSF investigation. To make repeated claims without evidence seems most untoward. It would appear that the author(s) were not approaching this calmly and dispassionately.
Now, can we please get on with the science'”
Now where is that paper missy? Why do you avoid the central question? Because you must.
Gator, you’re amazing. You know exactly how to handle these ATT’s (that’s airheads with talking points – unisex designation, of course). Notice how she never answers these detailed rebuttals, but just goes on to the next comment as if they were never made. That seems to be part of their MO – I recall that TowerOfCheese did the same thing when he was flitting around this site some time ago. It’s almost as if as long as they can keep up their palaver they see them selves as winning the debate.
Thanks for the kind words rw. I simply stand on the shoulders of giants.
I have always been fascinated by this planet, and am especially enthralled with the massive forces that have altered its surface and climate, I would rather study the latest arguments and science regarding these processes than just about anything else. I do not spend time on sports, video games, American Idol or much of the other pastimes of my peers. I read alot, and always have. I have to give credit to the scientists whose work I have been fortunate enough to review, they are the really amazing folks.
It has been noted that skeptics are generally more knowledgable about climate science, and this is because we are more receptive to alternate theories and more likely to ask questions and seek answers. Warmists just have nothing new to offer, it is always the same old tired story. The grantologists and puppeteers know this and this is why they either refuse to debate, or when they do, lose badly. The cheerleaders simply do not know that there is no science backing the wild rhetoric and foolishly stick their necks out. My only desire would be to see them ask honest questions, instead of taking every alarmist claim on blind faith.
I ran across this quote later in life, not knowing I had already adopted as a child.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Words we should all live by, no matter our backgrounds or personal opinions. This credo has caused me to change core beliefs in the past, and made debate a cake walk. The truth WILL set you free.
Tomomoson, Don’t get too hung up on Mueller not being as much of a redmeat skeptic as you would like. Reason is, there are very very few true climate scientists who are anymore…namely 3% (many of whom take Energy Industry $$ funneled from various sources).compared to 97% on the other side of the fence. For every legit Climatologist (not geologist or dentist) that you can name as a skeptic or more to the point, denialist, there are 30 who disagree. Thats about as one sided as it gets in scientific debate.
The debate itself is over.
You also need to get over it and stop reading just one side of the issue.
God leftists are gullible! 😆
“An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists…. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
And here were the questions asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Significant can be 10%. Note that there was no opportunity in the survey (which was not subject to peer, or any other review, which explains its blatant flaws) to quantify or even discuss what part natural variability had to play. They sent out 10,257 surveys, received 3146 replies (seems that most Earth scientists were not even concerned enough to reply), and used only 79 to come up with a 97% consensus that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, and man may have been a minor contributor. By their ‘figuring’ that means that 2.5% of those who responded to the survey agree the Earth has warmed. EARTH SHATTERING!!! 😆
This is the sort of manipulation that warmists use to fool the public into thinking we have a problem. Truth be told, I would answer ‘yes’ to question 1, and ‘maybe’ to question 2.
If you do not understand that you have been duped by the grantologists, I have a very nice bridge for sale, and 97% of bridge experts say you should buy it.
Uhm, I think the reason so many did not respond back was simply that they thought the debate was over, and weren’t going to answer an absurd question as to whether there is still a debate over AGW..
Otherwise, the survey seems valid
No Lea, you don’t think. You ‘believe’.
Found that paper yet? Or do you wish to further illustrate your religion?
“I think the reason so many did not respond back was …” That’s called unwarranted speculation. Always a reply, no matter how weak. Have to keep up the pretense that you know what you’re talking about.
What they did with that survey was to whittle the group down until it only included the kool-aid drinkers. Then, surprise!, they got their 97%. And this allowed all the ATT’s to run with it. Unfortunately for the latter, bringing up that 97% figure demonstrates that one has no real ability to distinguish fact from fancy – and probably no real interest in doing so. Plato called it sophistry – which shows among other things that it’s been a burden on this “patient world” (H/T H. James) for a long, long time.
That proves it. The Arctic really is ice-free after all.
Here you go Gator,
From NOAA, via the National Ocean Service.
“It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.”
More Here:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf
Gullible Lea strikes again! Upon what peer reviewed papers are these ridiculous claims based? I can claim that you are retarded, but without proper peer reviewed evidence, it would only be conjecture. Found that paper yet? Come on! You have 97% of the world’s greatest climate scientists as your resource. 😆
wait…late 1800s didnt a little ice age end? Wouldnt that logically suggest a warming period? Now everything is cyclical in nature wouldn’t it suggest that since we have been at a perpetual uptick since 1880 that there will be a downturn? What goes up must come down….every action has an equal and opposite reaction….lol seems like all natural law is indicating its time for a downturn. ..remember now its cyclical meaning there is no up without a down…..and vice versa
No no no! Mother Nature was run over by an evil oil executive’s brand new 1978 Ford Bronco!
The denier in nature and it’s variability is back then.
Have you managed to find a scientific paper yet that proves the global temperature and/or the CO2 level is outside natural bounds yet?
No?
Its an official gov’t publication from NOAA, chock-ful of PhD’s who specialize in Atmospheric research. But I’m sure you are more qualified than they are (lol) They seem to combine a lot of information from an IPCC report (Oh, that’s right, they’re all corrupt and you’re more knowledgeable than the IPCC as well). LMAO).
They cited references from the bottom of their condensed product.
IPCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
I can claim that Tom and I (et al) have found you mentally incompetent. Would you not want to review our findings? You still have not proffered a single paper to refute the most obvious cause of climate change. Are you mentally incompetent? It is looking like ‘yes’, and so far we have 97% consensus.
Yep, I am more qualified, more qualified at spotting a scam that you are.
Have you found a scientific paper yet?
That’s still a no I see.
“Its an official gov’t publication from NOAA”
OOOOOOOOOOO . . . an official government publication !!!
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
“Just 19% say that they trust the government in Washington to do what is right just about always or most of the time”
Being a government publication means it has LITTLE credibility.
Wrong link.
Correct link:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/18/trust-in-government-nears-record-low-but-most-federal-agencies-are-viewed-favorably/
The other link was for characteristics of cults. I was looking to see how many Lea has. Quite a few.
Regarding that 4th IPCC report:
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which took 6 years to produce,included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.
“Robust findings” of the Synthesis report include:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is “very likely” (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[ due to human activities.
Basically NOT due to natural variation. And looking at either the NASA-GISS, NCDC or HADCRUT temps, its obvious something totally out of the norm has been going on for the past 30 years. Given that so many “skeptics”…I won’t even honor them with that term…lets just say “denialists” try to push tat warming ended in 1998 when the data and running mean trendlines clearly show otherwise, maes me wonder why anyone would want to listen to anything else they have to say. From what I’ve seen, most on the denialist side are either getting funded by Heartland, Koch Bros or any other front $$ launderer organization from the energy industry, or just perhaps a few disgruntled scientists who didn’t quite make the cut to get a University position and are relegated to the blogosphere.
FYI…Before you go off on another IPCC attsck…the IPCC does NOT pay its scientists. They are a voluntary group, thousands of researchers who participate separate from their “day job”.. It does not get anymore “peer reviewed” than that.
So we’re all going to fry eh? Because the IPCC says so. You are so gullible.
Please could you find a a scientific paper yet?
That’s still a no I see.
BS talking points.
Where is the evidence?
FYI – here is what real scientists say about the IPCC…
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,”Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
[Of the IPCC panel] “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton
Former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate EPW committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center
“The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,…We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.” Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
“The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe.” UK Botanist and ex-BBC broadcaster Dr. David Bellamy (who used to believe in man-made climate fears.)
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Found even ONE paper that refutes NV?
Those who degenerates to name calling basically admit defeat in an argument and are not worthy of serious debate.
The IPCC report qualifies as a peer reviewed document. You might not like what they have to say, but I challenge you to find someone MORE QUALIFIED than those thousands of scientists on the IPCC who has a more compelling argument.
Best you might come up with was a rouge doctor who got fired for misconduct or perhaps chain smoking skeptic Lindzen who also believes that there is no discernible link between smoking and lung cancer.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
Name calling? Who has been throwing around ‘denier’ and ‘denialist’?
Please list the ‘thousands’ of scientists. Another BS talking point. Read and learn.
“IPCC Criticism
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) officially released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. This document is often regarded as the definitive word on the science behind global warming. However, AR4 gives a distorted, misleading, biased and often erroneous picture. Examples of these distortions are listed here, with attention focused on the Working Group 1 Report “The Physical Science Basis” (WG1), and in particular its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Curiously, the SPM was released in February 2007, several months before the main report. Confusingly, a “Synthesis Report” was issued in November 2007, with its own SPM. More background to the structure of the IPCC report is given here.
Errors, Distortions and Exaggerations in the WGI Report
How the IPCC invented a new calculus. The IPCC authors invented a new way of measuring the slope of a graph, in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.
The table that didn’t add up. The WG1 SPM was approved by the IPCC even though it contained a table with arithmetic errors. The table was quietly corrected with no admission of the error.
False statement about Antarctic sea ice. The IPCC claims that there is no significant trends in Antarctic sea ice. In fact several papers (ignored by the IPCC) show a significant positive trend.
Misleading claims about sea level rise. AR4 gives the misleading impression that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, using the trick of switching from one measurement system (tide gauges) to another (satellites).
Incorrect calculation of an average. An arithmetic error was made in the calculation of an average of a contribution to radiative forcing. Hence four diagrams in AR4 are wrong and misleading.
False claims about Antarctic ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting and that this is contributing to sea level rise, but recent research papers show that in fact the ice sheet is thickening.
Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise – ignoring or misrepresenting research that shows the opposite.
Erroneous claims about snow cover. The IPCC makes the false claim that snow cover is decreasing in both hemispheres.
Exaggerated claims about water vapour. The IPCC summary claims that water vapour has increased. In fact studies show no significant trend or in some cases a decrease.
Misleading claims on increased tropical cyclone activity. The IPCC states that tropical cyclones have increased, by cherry-picking start dates, but their own data shows no evidence of this.
The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval warm period. The IPCC’s own data shows clear evidence that the medieval warm period was as warm as the late 20th century, but the text states the opposite.
False statement about paleoclimate studies. The IPCC claims that there is increased confidence in proxy temperature reconstructions, but in fact the opposite is the case.
Proxies that aren’t proxies. The IPCC makes use of ‘proxy’ data such as tree rings to justify their claim that current temperatures are unusual – but this data doesn’t match measured temperature.
Downplaying the urban heat island effect. The IPCC significantly underestimates the influence of the fact that many temperature measurement sites are located in cities.
The UN misquotes its own report. A UN press release coinciding with the release of AR4 blatantly misquoted the report, incorrectly claiming that man-made global warming was unequivocal.
Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide. The IPCC claims that variation of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere was very low, ignoring published research that shows much greater variation.
Biased reporting of the literature. One of many examples where the IPCC ignores or disparages research that does not support its agenda, in the area of past solar activity.
Where’s the beef? The crucial step of the argument for global warming – how carbon dioxide causes heating – is barely mentioned and the numbers not justified by the IPCC.
Hypothetical positive feedback. The alarming predictions of the IPCC rely on the assumption of a strong positive feedback, for which there is no evidence.
The lost continent of Antarctica. A world map of ‘global warming’ in the SPM omits Antarctica, where there has been cooling.
Misleading claims about increased greenhouse effect. The IPCC claims that observations show an increase in the greenhouse effect, referring to one paper but ignoring more recent ones.
Misleading statement about ocean heat. The IPCC SPM says that ocean heat content is increasing, without mentioning a paper that shows recent ocean cooling.
Ignoring research that does not fit the agenda. Work of a Finnish research team with 34 publications in the field of tree ring temperature reconstructions is completely ignored by the IPCC.
Inconsistent statement about wind strength. The IPCC SPM claims that the strength of westerly winds has increased – but if true this would be evidence for cooling of the atmosphere.
Error regarding total radiative forcing. The ‘total net anthropogenic radiative forcing’ given by the IPCC is incorrect, according to climate scientist Roger Pielke.
Unfair citation of criticism. IPCC author Kevin Trenberth cites his own criticism of the work of other authors, but does not mention those authors’ response to his criticism.
Ignoring criticism of the surface temperature record. Many papers have been written raising questions about the accuracy and bias of surface temperature measurements, but these are ignored by the IPCC.
No explanation for mid-century cooling. The IPCC has no consistent or valid explanation for a period of cooling from 1940-1970.
False statements about tropospheric warming. The IPCC claims that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) has warmed more than the surface, but the IPCC’s own graphs show that this is not true.
Unsubstantiated claims of human influence. The IPCC makes confident claims about man’s influence on the climate but has no evidence to support these claims.
Misleading temperature trends (1). The IPCC claims that the trend from 1906-2005 is larger than that from 1901-2000 due to recent warm years, but in fact this is due to a sharp drop in temperatures from 1901-1906.
Misleading temperature trends (2). The IPCC compares chalk with cheese in order to convey the false impression that temperature trends are increasing.
False claim of warming since the TAR. The IPCC’s claim that temperatures have increased since its 2001 Third Assessment Report is demonstrably false.
More false statements on temperature trends. The IPCC significantly underestimates temperature trends in the early part of the 20th century.
False claims about hurricanes. The IPCC makes unsustainable claims about increasing hurricane activity and a link with global warming, ignoring key papers that find no link; this lead to one expert resigning from the IPCC.
If you don’t like it, resign. Some scientists who do not support the IPCC agenda find they have no alternative but to resign from the IPCC process.
Reviewer comments ignored. The IPCC reports undergo a process of review by scientists and goverments. But many valid comments and criticisms of the IPCC view are simply ignored.
Exaggerated claims of increased precipitation. The IPCC summary greatly exaggerates the claims from its main report about an alleged very slight increase in heavy rainfall events.
Trying to suppress work that doesn’t support the agenda. IPCC authors try to keep a paper by McKitrick and Michaels out of AR4, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”.
Hiding the decline – in the number of storms. IPCC authors insert a line about increasing wind strength into the final version of the SPM. They discuss evidence for declining number of storms but decide not to mention this.
Hiding inconvenient proxy data. The IPCC refused to show proxy ice core data showing a warm medieval period in the Southern hemisphere, despite acknowledging a lack of such data and despite reviewer comments.
False confidence in man-made warming. The IPCC SPM claims “very high confidence” regarding the quantification of man-mad global warming, but the main body of the report is much more cautious.
Spinning the literature on cloud feedback. IPCC authors regurgitate chunks of their own papers on clouds, but cut back sections that refer to negative cloud feedback.
Cherry-picking solar irradiance reconstructions. The IPCC selects outdated estimates of past solar radiance (to try to ‘explain’ early 20th century warming) while ignoring more recent research that shows very little variation.
False confidence in long-term climate predictions. The IPCC makes the ridiculous claim that predicting the climate 50 years ahead is much easier than predicting the weather a few weeks ahead.
Errors, Distortions and Exaggerations in the WGII Report
Incorrect claim about Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC incorrectly said that Himalayan glaciers could melt to one fifth of their current area by 2035. This is probably a misreading of 2350.
False claims about disaster losses. The IPCC claims a link between disaster losses and climate, by relying on a single cherry-picked non-peer-reviewed paper.
Unsubstantiated claim about loss of Amazon rainforest. Chapter 13 of WGII claimed that 40% of the Amazon rainforest could ‘react drastically’ to a change in climate. The source for this was a WWF report that does not even support the claim. See also BBC report and The Telegraph.
Error about the Netherlands and sea level. Chapter 12 of WGII claims that 55% of The Netherlands is below sea level. In fact the figure is about 26%. See also reports here and here.
Unsubstantiated claims about Africa. A claim repeatedly made by the IPCC that agricultural yields in some African countries could fall by 50% as soon as 2020 has no basis.
False claims about wildfires and climate. The IPCC claims that wildfires influence tourism, relying on newspaper reports and ignoring three expert reviewers who identify problems with this claim.
Errors, Distortions and Exaggerations in the WGIII Report
The report of Working Group III of the IPCC is concerned with “Mitigation of Climate Change”.
Richard Tol, Professor of Economics, has investigated WGIII and reported his results at Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog. In his overall summary, he writes that the IPCC “substantially and knowingly misrepresents the state of the art in our understanding of the costs of emission reduction. It leads the reader to the conclusion that emission reduction is much cheaper and easier than it will be in real life.” He also writes that “all errors point in one direction: alarmism about climate change”, and refers to the “inability of the IPCC to constructively engage with valid criticism”. His specific criticisms are as follows:
Part I. Claims by the IPCC in WGIII chapter 11 that climate policy would stimulate growth and create jobs are biased and not based on peer-reviewed literature.
Part II. Again in Chapter 11, the IPCC highlights work that supports the view that costs of emission reduction are low, while ignoring or misquoting studies that find such costs are high.
Part III. In the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in WGIII, the IPCC underestimates the costs of emissions reduction, failing to correct its estimates for selection bias.
Part IV. In Chapter 3, the IPCC misrepresents a paper (Fisher et al 2006), ignoring complaints about this by reviewers.
Part V. In Chapter 3 and in the SPM, the IPCC incorrectly claims that exchange rates are immaterial, and misrepresents the literature. Several reviewer comments on this are ignored.
Part VI. In the SPM, Table SPM1 underestimates the cost of reducing emissions, by a misleading process of “double counting”. The errors were pointed out by reviewers, but ignored by the IPCC.
Acknowledgements: These examples come from many different sources. Many of them arise simply from a careful reading of AR4. Many originated from a thread at climate audit (which no longer exists) so thanks are due to those who contributed to that – especially Max. Several examples come from Roger Pielke’s Climate Science blog.
A note on timings: Most of the items on WGI were written in the second half of 2008. The WGII and WGIII articles were written in early 2010, when the mainstream media started to note these errors.
Now where is even ONE peer reviewed paper refuting nature. You keep giving me the same old lies, with no proof. Are you your ‘experts’ failing you?
LOL, cut and paste psycho babble. One claim that had me laughing, that I know is 100% false and stuck out at me right away was this:
“False claims about wildfires and climate. The IPCC claims that wildfires influence tourism, relying on newspaper reports and ignoring three expert reviewers who identify problems with this claim.” Errors, Distortions and Exaggerations in the WGIII Report
I live in the west. I have worked with fire fighting teams. I know for a fact that wildfires influence tourism SIGNIFICANTLY. Rim Fire in Yosemite this year cost local businesses hundreds of millions in lost tourism dollars (final numbers will be in the billions), plus had huge effect on air quality, cancelled many outdoor concerts, basically killed of many small businesses in the Sierra foothills who make most of their money during tourism/summer season.
Also, big reason for massive increases in wildfires across CA and much of the west, is due to beetle infestation killing off many pines. Those bark beetles appeared in disproportionate numbers in the past 30 years, due DIRECTLY to increased warming, which has been confirmed thru numerous peer reviewed articles.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2193
http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach7forests650.pdf
So basically, while you two clowns continue to spew nonsense,of there being no significant warming trend, sometimes wavering back to “well there might be warming after all but its due to something else” Climate Change, and its consequences, are already being felt by many. Which is why most have tuned the skeptic side out.
Oh look! The natural variability denier tried to take a swing at 1 out of 57 points and struck out! 😆
Yes Lea, pine beetles and fires never occurred before man drove SUV’s!
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about recent wildfires or beetle infestations.
Found that paper yet?
ROFLMAO (And not because I am ignorant of the facts like you)
There is no debate when you can not supply the required scientific paper (or reference to), all you have is bluster. I see you have pulled out that other old faithful about smoking. How about the 97% idea, that was another good joke! Just like the corrupt effort of the IPCC.
Should I dig out some emails from CRU/ Hadley etc., for you?
No you are not worth the effort.
P.S.
Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium.
Figure 18.
🙂
Funny that when I mention emails they head for the hills. That’s happened twice before, I wonder why?
I just listed 57 separate and valid points of criticism of the IPCC and got nothing in return. The religious care not for facts, for them it is all about the faith. Lea et al have been brainwashed, and willingly so, because it fits their world view and agenda. My only agenda is seeking the truth, and this never compromises my ethics or principles.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Why is it so hard for them to offer proof of their claims? It makes one wonder, would they actually sentence a man to death without certainty, based upon the hearsay of those who stand to profit from his death? It is a frightening question. Let’s hope our lives are never held in the balance, at the mercy of such fools.
So true, but then again they want to believe – it saves on thinking.
While denialists continue to spew psycho-babble about warming ending 15 years ago and clamoring about the cold spell of a few weeks ago…NASA confirms that 2013 is on track to be among the 10 warmest years on record.
2013 Already Among 10 Warmest Years On Record: Report
http://www.wunderground.com/news/2013-already-among-10-warmest-years-record-report-20131113
And November 2013 was the warmest November…Ever!
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x352_12161950_screen-shot-2013-12-16-at-9.48.09-am.png
Yet more stupid weather report from the denier of natural climate.
You must be feeling the noose closing in the warmist camp, when you have to cite one months weather as proof. One month!
Pathetic!
OK I will bother with the leaked emails and how they reveal that the report’s authors knew all along that the evidence doesn’t support what the IPCC were saying.
In October 2009 Kevin Trenberth, a major architect in the IPCC deceptions, wrote,
Notice his explanation in the last sentence. He acknowledged this paucity in 1995 following the Release of a study on weather data by the National research Council. He said,
The amount of data has decreased since that time Despite this he worked with the IPCC building computer models that are totally dependent on the amount and accuracy of the data. Even so, and with full knowledge of these failings, he signed the Bali Declaration that said in part,
Isn’t it nice to know that people like this have a major input to your ‘oh, so respected’ IPCC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now there’s proof it’s a scam, they knew it was not real then, just as it is not now.
You are propagandizing so that elites can impoverish the wealthy west and ensure that the poor of the world are locked into a system of dependence. A truly evil idea that will put freedoms in peril. But you and your kind think nothing of that.
I like alarmist Lea Numchuck. He’s a funny guy!
Reminds me of Reggie Blowtorch and Harold Camping.
Since Harold died in unforeseen circumstances, he could only be Reggie!
Lea, are you as stupid as you pretend you are? Or as evil? Where is your proof that man is warming the planet? All you have provided is cherry picked warming and hearsay.
What you are doing is exactly what brought us Nazi death camps and witch burnings. In our modern western society, we demand a fair trial before sentencing, and that means we review the facts and ignore opinion. Where are your facts?
I have shown you repeatedly that those whose opinions you value cannot be trusted, and yet you continue with this kangaroo court. Are you crazy? Finding a corpse is not the same as finding the killer.
Our wonderful planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, and the only constant has been change. Darwin said that climate change was the driver of species. Every change in climate since climate began has been through natural processes, and using logic, one must first rule out natural variability before one can blame man.
Why is it that you cannot produce even ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV? You keep telling us that the vast majority of climate experts say it is man, and assuming they are scientists they MUST have ruled out NV at the beginning of this search for the truth. Right?
You are participating in a type of mob rule that dictates that the ends justify the means. I refuse to burn witches and gas Jews based upon hearsay, I refuse to convict an innocent man without proof.
God help us if the Lea’s of this world ever get any real power.
Lea numbnuttikins believes in Aliens too!
http://youtu.be/fUHk9FLZMf4
“psycho-babble” ??? You seem to be losing the thread.
(I realize that for some people trying to organize their thoughts properly is a little like herding cats.)
Of course, I have to admit to having just done something similar – it should be ATP’s not ATT’s. Oh well.
Unfortunately, Steve Goddard doesn’t really provide enough information on how he derived the graph that he presented, but if we assume that he simply averaged all the data from the 1000-odd stations in this list, then he has a built-in bias arising from the fact that the geographic distribution is far from equal. For example, there a 15 stations listed in Texas, but 50 in New York state. There are around twice as many stations in the NCDC database east of the 100th meridian as west of the meridian. It is a known fact that western states are registering higher temperature rises than eastern states. In addition, there is the problem of the temporal distribution, with many stations starting operation mid 20th century and others closing down since 2000.
When I do comparisons vs. gridded data, the trends are identical. Northesatern US has warmed faster than the rest of the country, so your argument is backwards.
You don’t say how you get your results. All you are telling us is that your results are different from NOAA, therefore NOAA is lying. But why should anyone believe your results if they can’t be verified?
I don’t believe anyone anymore 🙁
This is all about “Political Science”. After 16 years without an increase in temperatures the IPCC is even more certain that we have to stamp out CO2. Want something less serious? Pay me a visit for some entertaining photography.
The government of the United States says you can’t keep driving your SUV, eat what you want, and keep your house warm. Subsequently, government reports says we are destroying the planet.
How dumb would you have to be to not connect those dots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETX1E__iVsE
Herr Obama doesn’t like the West, and he’s doing what he can to sabotage it.
2013 Already Among 10 Warmest Years On Record: Report
Wow, so that makes 2013 just like 62.9% of ALL years in the historical record.
http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/268/
And when you consider UHI, which in reality GIStemp does not, 2013 is not warm at all.
10-4. I consider the COLUMBIA UNIV OF SC station to be useless. I investigated it after SC declared a new state record temperature from that station in the summer of 2012. It is at best a CRN Class 3 station, lying between a parking lot and a railroad bed, and in the asphalt jungle of Columbia.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/07/03/standards-for-weather-station-siting-using-the-new-crn/
I complained to the Governor’s office, but got no reply. Which I consider significant, because earlier I complained about a high ranking state official and got a thank you call, and the official was forced to retire soon afterwards.
I encourage all to investigate the stations in their area.
I have one near me that is on the roof of a museum, situated between air conditioning units. By definition it would not considered to be urban because it is not in a city. I sent a photo of it to Watts. Another station in my area is in a parking lot, up against a south facing limestone bluff.
It doesn’t take a village to raise a temperature. 😉
Watts? You mean that clown who has no meteorological, and actually no science degree whatsoever…who did some “radio weathercasts” in Nrn CA. That Watts? The one who claimed that urbanization around weather sites is what caused warming, only to have more detailed studies totally refute that. He’s a laughingstock…except of course on Fox News where they have the audacity to call that non educated dimwit a “climate specialist”.
This Watt?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
“Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.”
ROFLMAO!!!
The climate religion is strong within Lea Appell. Take your rant to Septic Science as your blind followers are waiting for you their.
http://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg
Oh look! The natural variability denier with no credentials is making an ad hominem attack!
John Muir was also I credentialed yet he turned the geology experts of his day on their heads.
Watts takes no money from oil companies, but the alarmists make billions off of their scam. Are you stupid?
ROFLMAO (Because I love watching glass home owners throwing stones)
PS – Found that paper yet natural variability denier?
WATT takes no money from oil companies??? ROFLMAO.
How naive are you? Of course Oil companies do not DIRECTLY give money. They fund front groups with nebulous names, who in turn, fund denialist pseado-sceince, . One of the many of these is Heartland.
And Heartland DOES FUND many of college dropout Anthony Watts right wing propaganda projects.
Anything else boys? Your BS is too easy to swat down.
Please send me the contact info for my denier money. I could use some Christmas cash. TIA
In 2002, ExxonMobil made a long-term research commitment by becoming a founding sponsor of the Global Climate and Energy Project1 (GCEP) at Stanford University in California. We have since contributed more than half of our $100 million commitment to the program. This pioneering research program is focused on identifying breakthrough energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions2 and that could be developed on a large scale within a 10- to 50-year time frame. GCEP has sponsored more than 66 research programs at 27 institutions in Australia, Europe, Japan, and the United States.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/safety_climate_gcep-research.aspx
ROFLMAO!!!
And Gator, Tom,
If you want to criticize sensationalized climate reports, your first task is to write a letter of criticism to this article at the top. Using US data…2% of the earths surface, to make a claim for the entire planet? However, as we near the end of the year, the numbers are coming in, and making both of you look like total quacks, as 2013 is one month away from being confirmed as one of the top 10 warmest on record.
– 2013 on track to be one of the top 10 warmest years on record –
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/2013-track-one-top-10-warmest-years-record-200559401.html
So since both of you are so “concerned” about scientific integrity, could you perhaps post a rough draft of the critical letter you will write to the author of:
“2013 Will Finish One Of The Ten Coldest Years In US History, With The Largest Drop In Temperature” and tell them how trying to connect that to the remainder 98% of the earths surface is utterly ridiculous.
Also mention to them that November 2013 was likely the WARMEST NOVEMBER ON RECORD.
I’ll be waiting for that letter…
You mean coldest on record. Fixed your typo there David.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Antarctic sea ice extent is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. Will you lose your carbon tax income if you don’t defend your wacky climate religion, David? Media losing interest are they?. Oh too bad.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Religion? No. It’s a cult.
Oh look! The natural variability denier is using adjusted(fraudulent) GIStemp data to make a claim, instead of more accurate satellite data which shows 2013 is not a top ten lister.
Instead of waiting on a meaningless letter, why not find EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global warming. I have given toy ample time denier.
ROFLMAO (Because the natural variability denier cannot produce proof)
Gator, whether its GISS, NCDC, or HADCRUT4 they all show basically the same thing, with only very minor differences.
Go take a look at all 3 and get back to me.
And RSSS?
BTW, found that paper yet?
ROFLMAO!!!
They all (including RSS) show the same thing).
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/12/global-Temperature-change.jpg
BTW,
The reason you don’t see many recent individual papers on separating variability from anthropogenic forcing is because its already accepted scientific fact. The papers on these were mainly in the 80’s and 90’s, and when the IPCC was set up afterwards, they continued to answer those questions in their periodical reports. I understand you don’t believe them because you think the want to wrest away control from the oil companies and do a “Dr Evil” and take over the world, but the fact remains that when a panel of thousands of IPCC researchers, from various countries, for no extra pay, conclude that there is a 90-95% chance that the warming is anthropogenic, then there is no impetus to publish another article to confirm it. Kind of like someone tying to publish something saying “smoking has a correlation to lung cancer”. This is all long term accepted scientific fact and is no longer “journal worthy”. Journals publish new finds, not confirm older ones already confirmed as fact beyond 90% significance.
So the burden of proof is now on someone to publish a peer reviewed article (not a blog) in one of the major Climate Journals that discounts this. The best I’ve seen is that there might be some similarity between today’s temperatures and those of 1300 years ago, but the big unknown being whether its a cycle, since you need several events to identify a cycle. Warming from 1300 years ago could have been from increased solar radiation at the earths surface, not from added greenhouse gasses trapping long wave radiation (heat) from the earths surface. Got some of those, and we can look them over, perhaps agreeing on some of it, or shredding apart any bogus claims within it.
The graph is of adjusted data.
And hand waving is not a paper!
Epic fail.
Still ROFLMAO!
Andy,
SEA ICE?
WTF does SEA ice have to do in relation to GLACIAL ICE MASS over the land mass of Antarctica?
Antarctic ICE MASS has decreased significantly in past 10 years, similar to the rate of the Greenland ice sheet. (see chart below)
http://www.poletopolecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Figure-2.4-land-ice-sheets.jpg
Ironically, the added freshwater from the melted Antarctic glacial ice adds extra fresh water to the surrounding ocean area. Since everyone (except propagandist sheep clamoring of sea ice) knows that fresh water freezes quicker than salt water, THAT is why you see a few more ice cubes floating around on the surrounding open southern oceans…in addition to the ADDED GLACIAL ICE DEBRIS from the rapidly eroding Antarctic ice sheet.
Jeeze guys…take a science class.
So sea ice (which has a lower freezing point and forms at lower latitudes and altitudes) is expanding in Antarctica, but glacial ice (which resides in colder places at higher latitudes and altitudes) is melting at -30C.
You are qualified to write for Kook and Nutter at SKS.
Lol, this discussion is a lttle above your head I see.
OK, lets break it down so that even graduates from the Limbaugh institute can keep up.
Sea ice can be 90 percent open water, and only 10 percent ice. It forms and disappears very quickly…thus does NOT have a lasting effect on CLIMATE.
Glacial ice takes hundreds and thousands of years to form. It is continuous (no open water in between) and DOES have a significant impact on climate by reflecting incoming short wave solar radiation, basically a cooling effect for the Earths surface. Its shrinking area results in overall warming.
As large glacial ice mass breaks off into the ocean (as is happening now), it does not melt right away. Something the size of Rhode Island when it breaks off becomes a thousand pieces, each the size of a city block…then each the size of an automobile, Very little of “sea ice” is actually ice…its mostly open water. In addition the added fresh water melt-off from that ice can freeze at a higher temperature, thus a few more “ice cubes” floating around..
There…do we understand now? Anything else I can clear up for you and the readers of this thread?
Yea, it breaks down really fast. Antarctica just passed the summer solstice and is surrounded by hundreds of miles of record sea ice area which are reflecting huge amounts of SW radiation back into space, cooling the planet.
Kook and Nutter await you!
Glacial ice sheets generally melt at the bottom where the bedrock contacts.
Sneaky heat sinks to the bottom of the ocean and ice sheets.
Steve, what is the highest level science class you’ve taken? In college (if you actually went to college)..
The open water with a few ice cubes foating around does NOT have an effect on climate. Ironically, to really slam this shut…the surrounding sea suface temperatures around the Antarctic have “warmed” slightly over the past several years. How could this be and still have added sea ice? Simple, less salinity on the surface (more freshwater) from the DECREASING GLACIAL ICE MASS of Antarctica melting into the salt ocean…thus that fresh water can freeze AT A HIGHER TEMPERATURE.
Do you (and anyone else reading this) now see how ridiculous it is to cling to this “sea ice” claim as something related to cooling in the Antarctic or an expansion of ice cover.
CheckMate on this one my friend….time for you to find a different game to play. Right now you’re just playing with yourself (lol) hoping to suck in a gullible reader or two.
So the 8.6 million km^2 of summer sea ice around Antarctica today is “a few ice cubes?”
Kook and Nutter await your talents.
Steve I love it when you’re active in the comments section. Drop the hammer on this girl.
Lol…ever time Steve drops the hammer, he hits his own foot.
And is Steven Goddard even his real name? And does he really have a science degree?
Do a search on “Who Steven Goddard Really Is”
You might find this:
Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard’s articles:
“My apologies to readers. I’ll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar…
John Cook rebutted another of Goddard’s idiotic WUWT posts here as well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up…
Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it’s not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.
Wow. You turned out to be a typical progressive. You get your butt kicked and then go full McCarthy turd.
I did kick your butt in a little too harshly…I will give you kudo’s for not censoring it and leaving it on your blog….you’re a good sport Steven (or whatever your real name is). 🙂
Do go on, it’s truly fascinating to watch a leftist melt down.
I think she is easily upset because Steve applies the scientific method to his work where she applies government funding.
Also, who cares if he has a pseudonym? He presents logical arguments to a very hot topic. I would want to avoid an IRS audit to debate you goose stepping left wing morons too.
Uhhm, because there is someone by a similar name who has a degree in engineering, who claims he is not the “Steven Goddard” of climate change denial.
I don’t do belief or denial. Those are words used by religious people.
My interest is climate data and history.
Steve.. I just noticed that you didn’t list the top 10 coldest US years. Here they are: coldest to warmest are: 1917, 1912, 1895, 1924,1903, 1916, 1929,1899, and 1905 or 1978 (tied). There hasn’t been a record cold year in 35 years. So, if you are right it should make big news. Only a few days left before we find out.
If Ken likes his tampered NOAA numbers, he can keep his tampered NOAA numbers.
Well, Steve… if NOAA’s top-10 are tampered by deliberately (or even inadvertently) lowering them, as you claim, that makes matters even worse. Regardless of whether they are tampered by lowering or untampered 1978 and/or 1905 will still be the warmest of the coldest top-10 years. But, if NOAA’s are no good, then whose top-10 coldest should we use, and what years are they? Only a few days left. Should be exciting to break a 35 year-old record.
I have a radical idea. How about using the actual recorded temperatures, like I do?
My point is that CO2 has NOTHING to do with the temperature of Venus.
NOTHING (in all caps) to do with the temperature of Venus may be a bit strong. You probably mean by itself, which of course it isn’t. Like the Earth water vapor is involved.
“The large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere together with water vapour and sulfur dioxide create a strong greenhouse effect, trapping solar energy and raising the surface temperature to around 740 K (467°C)” http://www.imcce.fr/vt2004/en/fiches/fiche_n13_eng.html
Won’t make any difference Steve. If you are right about 2013 it will break a 35 year old record, if not an even older one. What is the warmest of the top-10 coldest years using the actual measured temperatures? No US state has even had a record cold year in the last decade, tampered or untampered. Only a few days left, so maybe some state will break that record too?
What solar energy is it trapping? The surface of Venus receives very little solar energy, and temperatures do not drop during the months long Venusian night.
I suspect that if this “Lea” person had any real argument, it’d make it, rather than trying to question the academic credentials of people who know more than it does.
As a cultist, Lea/it over emphasizes the value of advanced degrees. Lea/it shows a lack of real world experience. Hence, I place Lea/it as a sophomore in college.
My father was forced to end pursuit of his PhD 6 months before getting it. That did not make him any less smart. He was a pioneer in the computer industry.
I have 3 doctors in my near family (cousin, niece, and nephew), all of whom have national acclaim. They are not smarter than me, but all worked a great deal harder in school than I did.
In my decades in industry, I knew many smart people. Few had PhDs. I knew engineers that were smart. I knew engineers that were dumb. I knew technicians who were brilliant. I knew some PhDs who were good in their field, but otherwise not too bright. The world is made up of many kinds of people, each of whom is entitled to make their own decisions.
The idea that a central elite can make everyone’s decisions is inherently evil.
I have been saying, ALL ALONG, FOR YEARS, that one of the big reasons they can get away with the Global Warm HOAX is because of air conditioning cities are being built in hot deserts where a few decades ago no one would consider building or living in. And now here you have a charts of RAW station data which should be corrected down, not up, to take out all those additional hot places where the new homes and the new temp stations are.
This means that 2013 is VERY COLD, probably the COLDEST year EVER!
MACY… Only a few days to go and we’ll find out. In the meantime, what is/was the coldest year ever in the US? How cold was it…before, of course, it was lowered by “tampering”?
And, since the average US temperature is derived from all 48 states, how many states do you think will have new record cold years? There has only been one in the last decade. Should be a “blizzard” of new ones this year.
Steven Goddard.. What solar energy is it trapping? The surface of Venus receives very little solar energy, and temperatures do not drop during the months long Venusian night. Venus surface insolation estimates range from 17W/m2 (Tomasko et al 1980) to 50W/m2 (Lee, Richardson 2011), comparable to a gloomy overcast day on earth. The thermal mass of the atmosphere together with the high altitude winds of around 300km/h are sufficient to ensure a uniform surface temperature.
gator69 says: December 24, 2013 at 4:22 pm My point is that CO2 has NOTHING to do with the temperature of Venus.
Unfortunately, not one single planetary physicist studying the planet Venus agrees with you.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=isbn:1461450640
Chris Langan, the man with the highest IQ ever tested once said ‘Academia is a breeding house for parrots.’ So no surprise that the parrots are all singing the same tune, a tune that gets Polly crackers. All scientists also once believed in ether. Galileo was a heretic.
As we have seen here on Earth, CO2 does not drive climates. Time for a new hypothesis.
You guys are a hoot. Tell us again, what do you think drives the “climate” on Venus? Air pressure? At 760kelvin, the surface of the planet Venus should be radiating several thousand watts/m2 into space, while it only gets less than 50w/m2 from the sun. Do you notice a trace of a discrepancy there? Come on, try a little brain power.
I’m not the moron clinging to a failed hypothesis, or denying natural variability.
Why do you think it is hot at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but cold at the top? Is there more CO2 down there?
stevengoddard says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:58 pm Why do you think it is hot at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but cold at the top? Is there more CO2 down there?
Ha ha, snigger snigger.. Steven, I’m sure you know perfectly well how the greenhouse effect works so I won’t bother waste more electrons explaining it for the nth time.. but tell us, as you raised the subject of Venus, how do you explain the slight discrepancy between the incoming and outgoing radiation at the surface? Air pressure?
The lapse rate on Venus is about the same as Earth. If Earth’s troposphere was as tall as Venus, temperatures would be similar.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?
Yes – absolutely correct, on both planets, most of the radiation escapes into space from high up the atmosphere. The reason is that their atmospheres contain greenhouse gases. The lapse rate then determines the surface temperature from the top down. Now explain that to Gator69.
It isn’t the CO2, it is the pressure and density. What happens to air bottles when they are charged with compressed air? If CO2 could cause runaway warming, it would have happened here too.
The reason that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is that they’re greenhouse gases. The thing that makes them greenhouse gases is that they’re greenhouse gases. We know that they have this effect because they’re called greenhouse gases. QED.
While we wait to find out if 2013 will be colder than one of the top-10 years since 1895 an article written in 1919 about the current coldest US year on record, 1917, has remarkably complete information, all presumably untampered. Title: “The cold winter of 1917-18”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/046/mwr-046-12-0570.pdf
What made that year so cold was the fact that there were 17 states that had record cold years. All of them still stand….and should remain so, especially if their temperatures have all been lowered by “tampering” since then.
Thermometer data shows 1917 as the coldest year.
Steve…Is that 1917 thermometer data now available at NCDC untampered, or have they lowered it? Will 2013 be colder than 1917? If not, which of the top 10 coldest will 2013 beat? Any idea which states will participate?
They have lowered 1917 by about one degree, but 2013 won’t be colder than 1917 with measured data.
So, which year will it be? 1978 or 1905….they are currently tied, but one could have been lowered more than the other. And, which states will be the coldest?
Steve… NCDC just released their “tampered” US data for 2013. Doesn’t look like your assertion about 2013 and the top-ten coldest years had any validity. Not even close.
Will you explain how you went wrong?
So you are using NCDC tampered data as evidence that they are not tampering with data? ROFLMAO
Yes, I’m using their massively “tampered” data. I am waiting for you to reveal the real raw untampered higher measured data. You haven’t even indicated what your top ten coldest years are, other than to say that 1917 would stay the coldest. Can you even find one state that contributed to the top ten coldest 2013? There must be at least one. In 1917 there were 17 record cold states contributing to the record coldest year.
Maximum temperatures came in 4th coldest
Average temperatures dead heat for 10th coldest with several other years.
So… what are those RAW temperatures (JAN-DEC), and what years do they represent?
Which coldest states contributed to those raw averages?
A low-resolution chart of the raw data? No direct comparison with the “tampered” data? No list of the new top-10 coldest years? If one draws a level thin red line from the middle of your 2013 square through all the yearly data back to to 1895 one finds that there are seven squares before 1940 that are equal to or below the line and eight squares below the line after 1975. How does that compare with the “tampered” years? Where does one go to find measured and untampered temperature data for the early years, say 1917, coldest year on record or 1921 warmest year on record four years later? Where did you get those raw values? It is well known that raw temperature data are often and commonly corrected, but that’s not tampering.
“It is well known that raw temperature data are often and commonly corrected, but that’s not tampering.”
Translation: “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
Al Gore is a GENIUS, look at all the people he has FOOLED into believing that a trace only 0.04%, no special attributes what-so-ever, of the atmosphere can change worldwide temps MASSIVELY! AND to top it off, somehow, he has become fabulously wealthy off of this scam. CAN YOU BEAT THAT?
THE GREATEST CON MAN THAT EVER LIVED, HANDS DOWN!
AND he was VP of the USA, a halfwit by all accounts, yet has the BALLS to sell this most ridiculous lie ever. Better yet, he has done all this after writing books about how much he HATES people and wants them ALL TO DIE?
It is WAY beyond me how STUPID Americans have become and what a BRILLIANT con man can do with that, Al Gore is a genius, you MUST believe everything he says.
AL GORE IS A GENIUS CON MAN, I would not believe ANYTHING that he says.
This plot shows the (TMIN+TMAX)/2 averaged for each state, then averaged across the country using the area of the states as a weighting factor.
[IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/2udx3fc.png[/IMG]
This avoids the bias caused by the uneven distribution of weather stations across the country.
The result shows that while 2012 was probably the hottest on record, 2013 was not so exceptional.
Not on the list,\, but a climate station since the 1890s, is 351765 (aka CONO3), Condon, OR. I mention it because the temperatures it reports are often significantly different from another station within ~ 300 ft (the latter is a newer Davis w/ solar sensor, CW7581). The difference between the two is frequently 5 °F. The Climate station tends to report higher and lower temperatures. The climate station is less favorably sited, being bounded on 3 sides by streets, and on the 4th by a state highway (which would all have been dirt when observations 1st began there).
Oops, my comment should have been written:
351765 (aka CONO3), Condon, OR has been a climate station since the 1890s. I mention it because the temperatures it reports are often significantly different from another station within ~ 300 ft (the latter is a newer Davis w/ solar sensor, CW7581). The difference between the two is frequently 5 °F. The Climate station tends to report higher highs and lower lows. The climate station is less favorably sited, being bounded on 3 sides by streets, and on the 4th by a state highway (which would all have been dirt when observations 1st began there).
Maley… Isn’t Condon, Oregon a COOP station…one where volunteers help report the data? Looking back, the annual average, both RAW and fully-adjusted annual average temperature, in 2008 was 47.78*F. What was it in 2012? But, how does any of that address Steve’s assertion that 2013 will be colder than the current top-ten coldest years on record, tampered or otherwise?