Weather Forecast & Reports – Long Range & Local | Wunderground | Weather Underground
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,961 other subscribers
From the link…
“Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog
December 2013 was the globe’s 3rd warmest December since records began in 1880, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and 4th warmest, according to NASA. December 2013 was the eighth consecutive month (since May 2013) with a global monthly temperature ranking among the top 10 highest for its respective month, and the year 2013 was the 4th warmest year on record. December 2013 global land temperatures were the 5th warmest on record, and global ocean temperatures were the 7th warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures in December 2013 for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were 11th or 2nd warmest in the 35-year record, according to Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), respectively. Wunderground’s weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, has a comprehensive post on the notable weather events of December 2013 in his December 2013 Global Weather Extremes Summary.”
Lots of info there! But not a single footnote regarding data tampering. How odd.
He who controls the thermometers controls the world.
Minister of Truth
Nor the fact that these ‘records’ are measured in hundredths of a degree, which no one can conceivably feel or notice, let alone accurately measure. They are pure statistcal constructs, assuming the underlying data hasn’t been ‘adjusted’.
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
This world is in such a delicate state of balance that over the thousands of years man has been on it, we’re finally in a position where we’re able to change climates. What about all of thousands of years before?
He is talking about global temperatures. Local temps may be lower, but if you look at the big picture… Just because my electrical usage was about 30% higher in Dec 2013 than Dec 2012 and the AC wasn’t on, is just a local variation. It’s the big picture. The pres can’t be worried about the niggling details like most of the US is freezing, when he has the world climate and ocean water content to control.
I wonder if Gore will be around for the address.
Snow proves global warming for the brain dead.
How can a trace amount of gas like CO2 have much affect on weather ? Air contains only a fraction of 1 percent CO2.
Kjonaas – are you serious? If so, please excuse the simple remedial. The classic greenhouse model is that CO2 has absorption lines in the infrared. The earth absorbs solar radiation (broad spectrum, peaking in the visible), but re-emits as a “blackbody” mostly in the infrared. This re-emission would go out into space, except that some of it is absorbed in the atmosphere. That which is absorbed either heats the gas (hot spot) or re-emits. If it re-emits, the re-emission is random over any angle, so some goes back toward earth. On average, this amounts to a trapping of radiation. Greenhouses work this way (but not from gas, but from the glass roofs). It is basic physics to calculate how much heat should be retained this way…very little contention here. The trouble is that the atmosphere, although containing very little CO2, contains enough to pretty much absorb nearly all the radiation **at the wavelengths where it is spectroscopically active***. This was true long before industrialization added more CO2. When you are in this regime, the relationship between the CO2 concentration and the additional retained heat is not linear, but logarithmic. If it were linear, than 10% more CO2 would give 10% more heat from this effect, and the effect of 20% more CO2 would be twice that of 10% more CO2. Instead, we are in the regime where the effect is very small….and increasing CO2 further has diminishing effect. If you double the CO2, you get a certain added retained heat….but you need to double it again (4x the original) to get the same added effect, then double it again (8x the original) to get the same added effect yet again, and so on. This is not in contention either…it is basic physics. In the ’90s, when CO2 and temperature were both rising, the assumption was made that CO2 was the cause, and models were written to try to extrapolate from this. In order to get the linear effect they thought they were observing, they made ad hoc ties to other effects, particularly to the water cycle (water is a stronger greenhouse gas, and present in much greater quantities.) There was no basic underlying theory for this, it just made their models work out. Since the temperatures stopped rising and CO2 continued to rise, they keep adjusting the size of these ad hoc ties downwards, and it is really what all the modeling folks argue about — what the gain in the system is. If you revert to known physics, absent any unknown gains to other parts of the atmosphere, most folks agree that each doubling of CO2 should add a little less than one degree to the global temperature average. This is pretty far below all the IPCC projections, and much less worrisome.