Measured US temperatures show no warming over the past 20 years, while the temperatures published by NCDC show 3.4F/century warming during that period.
The graph below shows the difference between the average final USHCN station temperature, and the average raw USHCN station temperature. All reported warming in the US since 1994 is due to highly subjective adjustments by government scientists who personally benefit from global warming alarmism.
It will be proven to be a very dark period for science… bordering on outright corruption.
Hey Dave! I think they crossed the border years ago.
a few climatologists with an agenda came out with a hypothesis and some bogus, purely speculative models to try to prove their point. People (including the scientific community and the liberal mainstream media) jumped on those models because they sounded so good and reinforced their own agendas. Now it’s big money for the “scientists” so they keep pitching it, sacrificing their own professional integrity. The low-information public keeps eating it up. The facts and the observations will ultimately prevail, but it is going to take years to overcome the big p r movement that has been established.
“Any model, including those predicting climate doom, can be tweaked to yield a desired result”
ROFLMAO…. Of course they can …
I am just astounded. I have been involved in Research, Design and Development of computer software for almost 30 years now, and I am completely floored at how ignorant most people are about technology, and especially computers. One would think people would have learned something by now. Judging by this article (that fact that it was even written) proves this is not the case.
More people are waking up to the fact that global warming is a big con job. We’ll see more of our fellow citizens dismissing the AGW alarmists as flakes as Mother Nature fails to cooperate with their doomsday predictions.
The IPCC climate models have proven to be catastrophic failures — a real-life example of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) science. The fact that there is still a faction of true-believers who take them seriously is testimony to the power of self-deception.
This ruse will finally come to an end as global temperatures continue to decline and we enter a period of long-term cooling, perhaps another Dalton Minimum or, heaven spare us, a Maunder Minimum.
A little warming (and increasing CO2 plant nutrient) would be good for humanity. But an extended period of cold would bring with it famine and death as growing seasons shortened and agricultural yields declined.
Once the politicians twigged to the taxing potential of the AGW train, they made sure it was kept fueled and accelerating.
wow this is crazy
But they have pretty words to explain it.
This is why Steven Goddard has made so many Warmers mad. If there is no sciency graphic image of Warming (and the more extreme the Warming the better) to alarmingly point to, Warmers have NOTHING. All your poley bear stories, sea level rising, ice melting, smokestacks etc, go away as they relate to Warming. The stick to beat us with is *poof* gone.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The premise of 351 straight above normal months has to be maintained at all costs, even if the entire premise is ridiculous to begin with. Nothing with respect to weather is that orderly, a straight line in one direction. You are going to have a large amount of variation, whether you are warming or cooling in the long run. The satellite record clearly shows that.
… 351 straight months … makes one think that ‘Quantitative Easing’ was applied to more than just the financial markets …
And it is entirely conceivable that temperatures will continue to cool, meaning that adjustments to the raw data in the same time span may prove to turn a cooling trend into a warming trend. (Factor in UHI, and that may already be true.)
Factor in Pinatubo temperature depression in 1994, and it is already cooling.
But, aren’t these fools just fooling themselves in the long run? I mean, at some point they won’t be able to jack with the temperatures anymore, and then all they have done is exacerbate an eventual cooling trend in their data, making the slope much more severe than the raw data would have suggested. It is unsustainable (like most things Progressive/Commie). Eventually, it has to come crumbling down. It is no different than the financial bubbles, or any other manufactured bubble. It will burst at some point.
It does not matter.
All they care about is getting the law passed. Once a law is passed It is pure Hades to get rid of the darn thing.
Bureaucracies ALWAYS grow.
Governments ALWAYS grow…Until the overburdened tax paying citizens say ENOUGH!!! And resort to Defenestration or worse.
ALL adults, whether they know it or not are paying 50% to 90% taxes or more and most of those taxes are hidden.
And the wheat in the bread will eventually kill you. Wheat Belly.
When someone compiles “the Big Book of Amazing Coincidences” they need to include this one:
BELIEVE IT OR NOT! In late 1994, UHCN stations across the US averaged more than 0.3 degrees too hot when they attempted to measure the temperatures at their respective locations. Over the next ten years their efforts each year became more and more accurate until that brief moment in late 2004 when they learned to measure the temperature with accuracy! Sadly the thousands of people involved then once again forgot how to make accurate measurements and began to read local temperatures too low, with increasing error each year. Now, in 2014 they are once again in error by more than 0.3 degrees — but this time too LOW in their readings. This strange aberration of abilities has followed an exact linear trend for two decades now, with no consistent scientific explanation! BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!
Ripley rises from the grave!
I suggest you followup by providing links to the “official” original and corrected data. Then every skeptic, and warmist, who can work Excel can do the exercise themselves. This will surely comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.
Last year, an incredible 35% of the monthly data was “estimated”.
I actually prefer Booker’s definition – “what the computer decides the temperature should be”.
I like the tongue…
I thought it was a nose.
Perhaps American voters will realize the significance of these adjustments when the nation begins to experience rolling brownouts and blackouts. To most Americans who don’t really understand what is at stake, this isn’t just a fight between nerds and eggheads. The EPA’s mandates kick-in late this year, and most power plants fueled by coal will being going offline the next 24-36 months. It won’t just be sky rocketing energy prices, but our power grid will not be able to pick up the slack during peak usage periods. And these mandates are the result of highly dubious surface temperature trends that Steven has more than highlighted.
Even with near record NG and shale oil production, the US’s power grid cannot make the transition that quickly, and our utility companies will have to compete with foreign energy buyers, as well as US consumers for NG.
When Americans realize that the fabricated “climate trends” are the cause of the EPA’s power grab (no pun intended. But, their officials are working outside the jurisdiction of Congress who never said anything about CO2 being a pollutant) this charade might just end.
re: JP July 10, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Perhaps American voters will realize the significance of these adjustments when the nation begins to experience rolling brownouts and blackouts. …
It would help if one could reference something in the way of a ‘white paper’ analyzing where impending generation shorting-coming is expected; each of the regional power transmission/supervision entities (for the West, for Texas and for the East) issue such reports early in the year anticipating peak power demand during the summer months.
For instance, here is the ERCOT webpage of REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS: http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations
And a specifically a “Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region” issued in May 2014:
Click to access CapacityDemandandReserveReport-May2014.pdf
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, coal accounts for 44% of our power generation. In states like Indiana it is much higher. I don’t think you need a white paper to estimate the disruption. Currently there are 600 coal powered plants in the US according to Source watch; not all are distributed equally. And not all utility companies will take their offline immediately. It all depends upon how much pain they are willing to suffer via EPA lawsuits. The new CO2 regulations take effect on 1 Jan 2015. I think what most people fail to understand is that peak power generation can also come in the Winter. Dallas/Fort Worth had rolling brownouts during Jan 2010 when the thermometer went below 15 deg F and the wind farms in Texas failed.
Also, if most utility companies are going to NG, what do you think is going to happen to utility prices during the winter months when residential homes have to compete with power stations for NG?
re: JP July 10, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Dallas/Fort Worth had rolling brownouts during Jan 2010 when the thermometer went below 15 deg F and the wind farms in Texas failed.
I addressed this below; this is a conflation of a natural gas supply problem with an electrical generation capacity problem.
BTW, the wind farms did not ‘fail’; you are falling victim to ‘failing memory syndrome’ which trends to converge on results the individual favors (for whatever reason; politics, more favorable light, etc.) as a memory versus actual ‘reality’.
If pressed on this issue I will post a link to a report detailing the facts as I have summarized them above.
BTW, it was 2011 and in February when this (the ‘big’ event) occurred.
1) The cold front made it’s way through the northern part of the state 2-01-2011 in the AM accompanied by multiple forms of precip
2) The rolling blackouts started somewhere around 2 or 3 AM on 2-02-2011 the next day when overnight temperatures in North Central Texas reached 12 deg F..
Post on this subject at WUWT.
A plot of system demand on the ERCOT ‘grid’ during that period:
re: JP July 10, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Dallas/Fort Worth … when the thermometer went below 15 deg F and the wind farms in Texas failed.
In truth, we find that wasn’t actually the case. Below is an excerpt from here and it goes like this:
So, we found that the actual wind output varied between 400 to 1000 MW below forecast values, and those forecast values ran from a high of 5200 MW (of 9317 “nameplate” MW or over 50%) down to 3500 MW which was not exactly a ‘fail’ but in line with expectations, and since wind is not included in the calculation of available resources for purposes of meeting the responsive reserve requirement[s] anyway, nothing was lost by having wind on-line and contributing to the “grid’.
If I understand it correctly, the price of natural gas paid by gas-powered generating plants in the northeast spiked to $35/mcf. this past winter.
When Enron and other companies spiked natural gas to $50/mcf, if bankrupted one of the largest utilities in America.
But it’s okay: “We are doing it for our grandchildren: and
Our President: ‘But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.’
With his Executive Orders, one, single man is going to destroy our economy for a generation.
Obama EPA. No more. Bye. End. The Russian people decided that the end of the KGB was long overdue, and this is the same thing. This EPA reached its limit a long time ago. It needs to be stopped by a revolution if need be.
Let’s just end EPA as we know it. Here is a concrete plan to do just that.
And now the KGB (Putin) rules Russia. So much for “revolution”.
The EPA, a monster created under the Nixon administration, needs to abolished. It was an unconstitutional creation from the very beginning in contravention of the founding document.
The U.S. Constitution does not give congress or the president the power to create such an agency. Its creation required an amendment to the constitution. But rather than drafting an amendment and submitting it to the state legislatures for their approval, congress created the agency via legislative fiat in defiance of the clearly delinated amendment process.
If the states want to create their own mini-versions of the EPA (the 10th amendment gives them such power), let them do it. At least the authority of such agencies would be regionally confined and the harm from any of their regulatory excesses contained.
The EPA has done much more harm than good. It has carved out an empire unto itself, without any legislative or judicial restraints. Like a rabid dog, it needs to be put down before it can do any more harm to our modern industrial economy. If we do not defang it soon, the U.S. is destined to become another impoverished third-world country.
In a mere 20 years, the difference in adjustments is 0.7º C. That’s the total amount of warming claimed from the entire period we’ve had thermometers!
And how much of that warming was simply the product of poorly sited thermometers? The USHCN and GHCN are a disaster, plagued by station drop-out, poor thermometer siting, and finger-in-the-wind adjustments via interpolation, homogenization and TOBS tweaking).
To make matters worse, NASA and NOAA continue to minimize and underestimate the impact of the urban heat island (UHI) effect. For all we know, the 0.7C warming that has AGW alarmists panicked has nothing to do with the climate.
Moreover, there hasn’t been any warming in more than 17 years (see RSS and UAH temperature data). The entire global warming scare will one day be seen as an elaborately devised scheme to defraud the public, gin up a huge new source of grant money for a few greedy scientists, and enrich a cartel of insider bankers, commodities traders and renewable energy companies, while providing governments with a pseudo-scientific excuse for enacting “carbon” taxes.
We need to expose the criminal elements behind the “climate change” fraud before they can do any more harm to the human race.
Thermometers show no warming. The important issue is the data tampering.
The closing of power plants will not effect all states equally. The middle east coast will be the hardest hit. Here is looking at the region Steve G. and I live in and Texas where _Jim lives:
……………………..Mid East Coast vs Texas
Lost Capacity .. 17569 MW ……….. 1903
% Lost ………….. 7.75% …………….. 1.74%
Capacity ………. 226,692MW…….. 109,568
Population …….. 87,290,362 …….. 20,851,820
Area …………….. 306,967sq.Mi. …. 266,874
Notice that Texas has less than one-fourth the population and half the capacity so Texas has TWICE the amount of Electric generating capacity compared to the Mid East Coast. Yet ERCOT (Texas) ran into trouble a few years ago and again this winter.
Jan. 6, 2014 ERCOT: Texas narrowly avoided rolling power blackout
State.. Cap….%lost….. Cap …… Pop. …..Area sq.mi
MD…..110.. 0.900%….12,215 ….4,781,000..10,455
DE…..zero ……0.0%……3,357 ……666,000….2,026
NC….. 802….2.64% ….30,391 ..34,283,564 …2,672
TN…1236……5.80%….21,322 ….5,689,283 ..42,146
VA…2239……9.01%….24,849 ….7,078,515 ..40,598
States were told to come up with “action plans” to cut 30%. I expect a number of states will demonstrate their “action plans” with a middle finger.
IN the red ones, it will be held upright. In the blue ones, it will be in the butts of the citizens.
Gail, you can make actual fixed-font tables with the <pre<> tag. Much more readable.
Perhaps the Global Warming Gang can borrow Disneyland’s Esmeralda to make more-accurate climate predictions–or at least more acceptable to most Americans:
Prettier than Al Gore!
Prettier, more intelligent and at least as compassionate.
I prefer Zoltar:
It’d have to be more accurate than the temps algorithm
The question I have always had is why _Jim acts the troll.
Here is an example from WUWT:
Steve Will get a good laugh at this one. This is a comment that A.W. allowed through on WUWT:
Note I AM NOT a Bircher although _Jim keeps calling me that.
So have you started that blog yet _Jim? And if you have why don’t you be a good little boy and stay there while the adults talk?
So Why is _Jim a troll who has targeted me for years? (Aside for the fact he is a contractor and works(?) for a bank according to one comment at WUWT)
Maybe because I dragged WUWT from looking at just the science to seeing the politics involved? Heck Jimmy-Boy even challenged me on Agenda 21 saying I was crazy….
If you recall, at the time I challenged you to support your assertions WRT Agenda 21. Up to that point a casual observer would have simply observed wild rantings and accusations against an unidentified ‘them’.
I finally stumbled across a possible answer:
The Texas gov says
So Texas has lots of Natural Gas to sell. No wonder Jimmy-Boy is down playing the closing of the Coal plants. Replacement of coal with natural gas will be a real boom for Texas. Of course we all will end up paying through the nose for the higher cost energy.
Not a darn word about the actual costs to the consumers… GRRRRrrrrr.
I wonder when we will see stories like this in the USA?
By the way: have your popcorn ready. The pseudo-polar vortex coming next week is going to be fun. 😀
As usual, Gail pins the majority of her “prosecutor’s case” on old articles, old press releases and ‘facts’ as they stood a couple years back, failing to realize the dynamic nature of this ‘business’ and how planning for the future actually works in some cases.
And that’s why I asked JP if he had anything substantive to cite to support his assertions.
The rolling blackouts which occurred in the winter a couple of years back were the result of natural gas supply problems, due in part to ‘freeze ups’ occurring in the natural gas pipeline and supply system itself and also as a result of high domestic use as well as commercial generation use.
At any time rolling blackouts are a possibility IF the proper unfortunate set of conditions are met, such as if 2 or three large base-load plants were to trip off-line OR if critical transmission facilities were to trip or become unavailable.
To place major blame on the EPA without full knowledge of the situation for any given ‘rolling blackout’ event is to cry ‘the sky is falling’ prematurely.
OT Another big ‘peer review scandal’. Of course the biggest is in the field of climate no doubt.
_Jim you want up to date? You want it straight from the horses mouth?
Then read Testimony of
Nicholas K. Akins
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
American Electric Power
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Hearing on the Impact of Generation Retirements on Electric Reliability
April 10, 2014
He says the exact same thing I have been saying for a couple of years but goes into some of the nastier details like the Nuclear Plants closing and the problem of not enough natural gas last winter and having to choose between home heating and electric. Also instead of the 2012 estimate of 34 GW of Electricity Generation going Offline, Akins says: “62,800 megawatts by 2023… But the timing of many of the retirements will be driven by the MATS compliance deadline. So guess what that estimate was CONSERVATIVE!
READ that again _Jim – While 8,750 megawatts of new generation that cleared in the PJM capacity auction is supposed to go online in 2015 and 2016, only approximately 4,500 megawatts currently is reported as under construction.
Then ADD IN:
So All I have to say to you, Jim is, Gå tilbake under brua din.
Not a white paper; do you have a white paper you would like to cite? Something the planning engineers would produce, not the PR department for AEP’s president and CEO.
A white paper, like MBH98 or something? Maybe a EPA “white paper”? Yeah, we can trust what EPA says.
Are you that daft?
Doof, I said something written by ENGINEERING not sloughing-off uni profs on the AGW gravy-train or the make-work government bureau known as the EPA …
Are _you_ really that daft? Engineers work for a living; I’m not sure what the rest of you do …
Jim, you are moving the goal posts. The quotes from Gail are both cogent and current.
Irrelevant; a few minorly-relevant facts stated BUT a larger point was raised in the AEP CEO’s presentation which she missed and no one else bothered to examine.
Gail, useless effort. Jim is apparently just a KKK member, he does not believe I papers unless they are of the right color.
Unable to address the issue substantively so impugn the witness. Uh huh. I see what you do … did you just drag Gail down to your level or are you trying to ‘hoist’ yourself up to hers? See, two can play that game. Be careful you do not succumb to playing the ‘easy’ game of ad homs and baseless charges flung b/c they are easy to fling.
I’ll be the judge of that; most of you, including Gail, miss a larger point presented in the, ah, ‘paper’ she ‘cited’.
And I’ll bet none of you can specify that point.
Many posters are still in substantial need of edification on this subject, including Gail, as evidenced by the projection of ‘expertise’ in a field which they have not endeavored, but rather only read a few brief stories or accounts and thereby extrapolate to far beyond reality. The other aspect of this subject was only briefly touched on by Gail, but that discussion was sidetracked by the piling-on of a few who seem to make it their point to stand up for Gail’s ‘honor’; how many of you will return when Gail begins to expound on how ‘the fed’ was founded by quoting excerpts from G. Edward Griffin’s fanciful and only remotely-factual work titled: The Creature from Jekyll Island?
Back to factual issues. How many of you can define, within the field of power generation and transmission ‘reliability’? No, … it does not have the ‘standard’ grade-school definition you learned years ago .. how about the term ‘security’ as it relates to power generation and transmission? No, it … does not have the same grade-school definition you learned years ago either.
And that is just the beginning. The field of ‘power engineering’ evolved a number of their own terns that are used to describe the ‘dynamic’ aspect of system stability and ‘response’ to step loads and the like which affect the dynamic, rotating machinery comprising any number of generators present in a system (which lay people thru the popular press call ‘the grid’) and that’s not considering the ‘dynamic’ load response on the demand (user) side of the system due to ‘step’ changes (such as the response induction motors present to a large, interconnected system of such dynamic loads as motors and the rotating generation systems on the other end).
Coursework in this area is dry and not very interesting. It also doesn’t ‘advance’ as fast as the field of ‘data processing’ -sorry- “IT”. Also the concepts are more akin to those found in ‘radio’ than anything else, including mechanics (unless you have studied resonant structures/resonance and have some concept of ‘stored’ energy outside of batteries).
Getting started – Lecture 1 – Introduction to Power system analysis
Assigning homework now?
“If you wanna play in the big leagues …”
bj has lost all control.
I don’t know what metrics you’re looking at to make that assessment; to the rational in the world your comment takes on the appearance of being unwarranted, spurious and incoherent (literally: having no coherency with what appears previously or just above).
Maybe the thread at this point is just a little beyond geran’s ability to ‘take it all in’.
see what I mean….
A better paper getting at the core of the issue with the EPA coming down hard on coal plants –
“Recent Electricity Price Increases and Reliability Issues
Due to Coal Plant Retirements”
Click to access Electricity-price-spikes_Feb_2014.pdf
Unfortunately, getting you ppl to ‘think’ and research the subject of America’s power system is a little like herding cats … so continuing in the educational vein kicked off above here is the next installment in this ‘enlightenment’ series. The following is the the opening excerpt from:
2014 Summer Reliability Assessment
Click to access 2014SRA.pdf
Executive Summary and Key Findings
The 2014 Summer Reliability Assessment includes a high‐level perspective on the adequacy of the generation resources and transmission systems necessary to meet projected summer peak demands. NERC also independently identifies reliability issues of interest and assessment area-specific challenges. The primary objective of the report is to identify areas of concern regarding the reliability of the North American BPS and to make recommendations as needed. The assessment process enables BPS users, owners, and operators to systematically document their operational preparations for the coming season and to exchange vital system reliability information.
As highlighted in numerous recent long-term reliability assessments, the BPS in North America is changing in many ways. Each summer, NERC has observed incremental changes in the resource mix, which has trended toward a generation base that is now predominately (i.e., almost 40 percent) gas-fired generation, an increase of 28 percent five years ago. The continued
wide-scale retirement of coal, petroleum, nuclear, and other baseload generation is largely being addressed by the addition of gas-fired and variable (e.g., wind, solar) resources.
From a resource adequacy perspective, all of the assessment areas that NERC evaluates appear to have sufficient resources to meet peak demand. Previous summer assessments highlighted potential resource adequacy concerns in ERCOT. New resources, expected to be in service in early August, will increase ERCOT’s planning reserve margin above the NERC Reference
Margin Level. However, if extreme system peaks occur before these new resources are available, ERCOT may need to take progressive steps to protect system integrity depending on the severity of the capacity shortage.
The 2014 Summer Reliability Assessment shows that peak demand forecasts are flat compared to last year, which also results in sufficient reserve margins needed to maintain BPS reliability. However, NERC continues to monitor the overall changes to the BPS’s resource mix and the operating characteristics of different types of resources. For example, in New England,
a large natural gas-fired generation portfolio has created challenges in ensuring that natural gas can be supplied and transported to all generators that are needed to maintain electric reliability. Much of the focus on electric and gas interdependencies targets conditions during the winter season when the availability of natural gas for electric generators competes with the high demands of residential heating. However, the summer season presents a separate set of concerns regarding gas availability. Specifically, natural gas storage facilities are refilled during the summer season while several pipelines and pipeline compressor stations are also undergoing maintenance.
NERC has identified three key findings for the upcoming summer:
NERC-wide, Assessment Areas Meet Summer Reference Margin Levels
In ERCOT, adequate planning margins are contingent on pending capacity expected in August. Additionally, the implementation of a new load forecasting methodology has resulted in a lower annual growth rate. ERCOT may face operational challenges due to insufficient reserves if the summer peak occurs prior to the availability of planned capacity, or if actual peak demand is substantially higher than the load forecast.
In MISO, [this is in the Midwest basically] unit retirements, derates, and mothballs contribute to reduced margins.
Continued Impacts of Baseload Retirements
Since 2011, there have been almost 43 GW of baseload (coal, nuclear, petroleum, and natural gas) retirements, contributing to reduced margins in some assessment areas, as well as a reduction in the availability of essential reliability services, such as frequency response and inertia.
Ontario retired the area’s last coal plant (Thunder Bay Generating Station) in April. The Anticipated Margin has fallen by 10 percent since last summer but remains well above the NERC Reference Margin Level.
Localized reliability issues are not expected to impact this summer, though some Regions have noted the need for transmission upgrades over the next two years.
Summer Gas-Electric Transportation Considerations
Meeting summer peaks requires increasing dependence on gas-fired capacity.
Summer pipeline maintenance and increased demand for natural gas storage injections can contribute to constraints for interruptible gas-fired generation.
– – – – – –
“You people” ???????
lol … a euphemism meaning ‘a herd of cats’ …
BTW, if we continue to get ‘polar vortexes’ in the middle of summer we won’t need all that extra, auxiliary, ‘peaker’ generation …
But it will help sales. I will have to buy long summer pants!
Calling this little blip “polar vortex” is a sales job. It’s already helping!
Attempting to stay OT – When one sits back and contemplates the headline of this post, it is quite amazing. Basically, if the government had done their job, ALL scientists had done theirs and the media were not in a fetal position in the corner of the oval office, we could have saved trillions of dollars wasted on the global warming fantasy world-wide over the past 20 years. How many pairs of slightly soiled underwear would that have provided to our southern invaders over the same period of time?