THE LOUD AND ANGRY FOLKS continue to shout that rapidly increasing temperatures mean “We’re doomed!” But what do the facts show for the U.S.?
Let’s look at U.S. summer temperatures for the last 119 years, 1895 through 2013.
Why look at the summer temperatures? Well, if it has been getting hotter and hotter over the last 119 years, then we should see hotter and hotter summer temperatures — right? So let’s see what the 1895 to 2013 summer records show.
The U.S. historical record is presented in the accompanying chart (U.S. “lower 48” average summer temperatures, 1895-2013, US Historical Climatology Network, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us).
Hmmm … I don’t see any clear temperature trends for the 1895 to 2013 historical periods — either up or down — do you?
I see cyclical and chaotic warming and cooling — plus random dithering around the average — with the hottest summer in 1936 (remember Grandpa always said the summers were hotter when he was a kid …).
First there is a decrease of about 3 degrees Fahrenheit in the early 1900s, followed by an increase of about 5 degrees from about 1905 through 1936 (the record hot summer), then a decrease of about 5 degrees through about 1950.
Temperatures then dither around the 119-year average (71.5 degrees) until about 1995, then it bounces up about 4 degrees by 2006; then it goes down, up, down to the present time.
Hmm … where’s the warming?
The 119-year U.S. historical summer temperature average is not a clearly increasing upward trend. It looks much more like a “broken record” that is just repeating itself (Grandma will explain to you what a “broken record” is …).
But, realistically, pointing out that “history is repeating itself” and “everything is within the normal variability” doesn’t make an exciting news headline, network soundbite or spin doctor talking point. On the other hand, “if it bleeds, it leads” — so screaming wildly that “we’re doomed” always draws far more attention, more readership and higher ratings.
Next time we’ll look at the 119-year history of summer temperatures in California. Do you think it is the same as the rest of the mainland U.S.? Or was it hotter, colder … unrelated?
Make your bet, stay tuned, and then read my next column for the facts …
Bob Moore is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
There are those that opine that best estimates of global average temperature are derived from satellite data, which provide information of temperature from both the land and ocean surfaces. However, this data is generally limited to the past 30 years or so, and so are insufficient for analysis of longer-term climate patterns and global warming trends. However, the current satellite-based estimates show warming over the past 30 years, primarily at higher latitudes (Arctic, northern Canada, northern Europe, northern Asia, and Antarctica). As such, one could argue that average temperature in California, or even the lower 48, could remain the same, whereas, the global average could still be rising. Therefore, the data that is presented in this and previous articles might be factual; however, based on global data it would seem to be irrelevant when it comes to the big picture. Keep in mind that the continental US makes of about 6.6% of the total land area of the globe.
For comparison sake, take the following table of average temperature trends for North Carolina vs. Global temperature trends.
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/climate_change/nc_global_temps_since1895.jpg
It would be interesting to get a take on minimum temperature trends rather than maximum temperature trends. As the graph presented here seems to indicate that coldest average temperature occurred nearly 100 years ago. Aside, from a few anomalies, the minimum temperatures appear to have been increasing.
No loudness or anger intended, just questioning the reasoning presented.
The graph you cite shows that the upward temperature trend for North Carolina has been zero for the last 119 years; i.e., no warming!
What’s the point?
The point is the comparison to the global trend. If fact, that was my whole point.
Your point is totally irrelevant to my analysis of the 119 year record of US Summer temperatures…!?
How is you analysis relevant ? Better yet, “What’s you point?”
Let’s try that again: How is your analysis relevant? Better yet, “What’s your point?”
Beyond the local climate change perspective —
From the above post:
“Hmm … where’s the warming?’
From the article below more information for the community to consider…
“The speed of global warming is now 10 times faster than at the end of the last ice age, which represents the most rapid period of sustained temperature change on a global scale in history – and there is no end in sight if carbon emissions continue to increase, the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences have warned.’
“Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the highest for at least 800,000 years and 40 per cent higher than they were in the 19th century. They are set to increase even further without a binding global agreement on significant cuts in industrial emissions, the scientists said.”
“Average global surface temperatures have increased by 0.8C since 1900 and the last 30 years have been the warmest in 800 years. On the current carbon dioxide trajectory, global warming could increase further by between 2.6C and 4.8C by 2100, which would be about as big as the temperature difference between now and the last ice age, they said.”
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=8541&Method=Full
Good grief…
You’re countering results from an analysis of the 119 year temperature record of the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) with quotes from the blog of a retired newspaper reporter.
Wasn’t anything available from the “National Inquirer”? I bet that aliens have infiltrated the USHCN and changed all of the data
Beyond the local climate change denial perspective —
How accountable is the USHCN?
Moe information on U.S. Historical Climatology Network for the community to contemplate…
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device–which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-800
Amazing… more circular reasoning!
This criticism of the USHCN temperature data was originally reported on the “climate skeptic” site “What’s Up With That” — as evidence that there was little or no warming trend in the USHCN record!
The point of that WUWT analysis was the contention that the USHCN data had a spurious “warming trend” — primarily due to “Urban Heat Island” effects from poor siting!
So you are now arguing on the “climate skeptic” side; i.e., there is no warming?
Or are you just randomly throwing mud at the wall and hoping that some will stick somewhere?
I think the alien theory is more convincing…
You use too many exclamation points to convince anyone of anything. You might as well screamsplain in all caps. Just a friendly word of advice.
Beyond the local climate change denial perspective —
Yes, it is amazing (facts are now circular reasoning?) that the above author touts an obscure agency (USHCN) overseen by the Department of Commerce as a reliable source on climate change. That would be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic. Then claims that this agency does reliable analysis–When confronted with factual information cited above: “According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records.”
This relevant well sourced information for the community (ignored by the author — instead reverts to personal attacks something he said he was against in a previous article) is considered “throwing mud at the wall.”
Now that is what should be referred to as “alien theory.”
Beyond the local climate change denial perspective —
From the above post:
“Hmm … where’s the warming?’
From the article below: a few key passages i.e. more information for the community to consider…
“Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature that shows our climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.”
“Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Prof. Sherwood.
“Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.
http://www.climatescience.org.au/content/680-solution-cloud-riddle-reveals-hotter-future
My column was a factual analysis of what the historical temperature record of the last 119 years shows “has happened”!
Your quotes are all speculations about “what will happen” in the indefinite future.
Do you see the disconnect?.
Beyond the local climate change denial perspective —
From the above post:
“Hmm … where’s the warming?’
From the article below: a few key passages i.e. more information for the community to contemplate…
“The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.”
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
“The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.”
“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
Hello… is there anybody in there?
What does this comment have to do with my factual analysis of the 119 year historical temperature record of the USHCN?
Beyond the local climate change denial perspective —
From the above post:
“Hmm … where’s the warming?’
From the article below: a few key passages i.e. more information for the community to contemplate…
‘Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record’
‘A new compilation of temperature records etched into ice cores, old corals, and lake sediment layers reveals a pattern of global warming from 1880 to 1995 comparable to the global warming trend recorded by thermometers. This finding, reported by a team of researchers from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the University of South Carolina, the University of Colorado, and the University of Bern in Switzerland, resolves some of the uncertainty associated with thermometer records, which can be affected by land use changes, shifts in station locations, variations in instrumentation, and more.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/independent-evidence-confirms-global-warming-instrument-record
Incredible comment — do you have any idea of what you are saying?
You quote “ice cores, old corals, and lake sediment layers” as being more valid than direct temperature measurements in the 119 year historical record.
Have you considered “pixie dust”? That’s always a winner…
These are all totally speculative “proxies” for temperature, all affected by a variety of unrelated variables — other than temperature!
None of these “proxies” have any validity unless confirmed by direct calibration with actual temperature measurements.
Are you familiar with the concept of “circular reasoning”?
Perhaps you should go back to your experts at the “National Inquirer”. The “aliens in the USHCN” theory was more convincing…
Now we hear from the “punctuation police”.
As Winston Churchill said: “This is the sort of arrogant pedantry up with which I will not put”…
If I were the Punctuation Police I would club you over the head with one of your exclamation points and drag you in handcuffs to Punctuation Prison, if only for the unforgivable crime of putting a period outside a quote mark. However, I was only dispensing friendly advice, in the spirit of courtesy you claim to seek.
At the very least we can agree not to use fake quotes or, as the author below puts it, “mutated witticisms” as a surrogate for original thought. Or so I hope.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
“The Chelyabinsk “meteor” was actually a probe from another star system. It was programmed to seek out planets with increasing levels of CO2, and when it found one it was to explode as a message to its home planet. The evidence is right there at Chelyabinsk. The science is settled. The debate is over.”
So the alien theory is right…
“Scientists said Thursday that extraterrestrial environmentalists could become so angry about what we have done to the planet that they may see us a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem — and take action by attacking Earth.
The scenario was devised in a scenario analysis study. The analysis divided projected close encounters into the categories neutral, ones that cause mankind intentional harm, and one in which aliens do us intentional harm.
The study warned that extraterrestrial intelligence could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet.
Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth, the study added.”
Just getting into the spirit of the comments in this string…
“The Earth’s rising levels of greenhouse gases could provoke an alien attack. Using spectrometry, extraterrestrials could detect changes in Earth’s atmosphere and deduce that we’re out of control. It is particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets.
If we did get attacked by aliens, it’s possible that another bunch of ETs might fly in to save us. In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology.”
This is kind of fun. Just post any ridiculous thing from the net and demand that others believe it…
From the 2014 International UFO Congress, the largest UFO conference in the world. Al Gore is using Extraterrestrials to help fight Global Warming!
Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project” handout at the 2014 International UFO Congress and Film Festival highlights the hot conditions on Venus to warn us earthlings of our impending disaster.
Gore may not be aware that there is no life on Venus, at least not indigenous. As far as our probes and Russia’s probes have determined, it hasn’t been colonized by space aliens, either. It’s a hot rock. But not as hot as the “millions of degrees” of the earth’s interior, according to Gore.
So, the “reality” in Gore’s “ClimateRealityProject” may not be appropriate.
This is fun. Just throw it against the wall and walk away…
Al Gore—who is the poster boy for global warming because of his Academy Award winning film on the matter — has turned to fear of alien invasion so to propose a continued belief in the mystical field of global warming. If there was any indication on how weak the green movement’s real position truly was it is seen below with a flyer Gore issued through his group Climate Reality Project.org which was passed out at the 2014 International UFO Congress.
KEEP EARTH COOL, KEEP ALIENS OUT is what the flyer says boldly on one of the two sides. It goes on to say, “Did you ever wonder why aliens haven’t colonized Earth yet? They need earth to warm up first!” Yes—the global warming advocates have turned to alien invasion as their primary reason to advance their “green” agenda. They are advancing the argument of a literal alien invasion if the earth becomes too warm.
What science are they basing any of this on? How many aliens has Al Gore’s group interviewed to determine that they are waiting for the earth to warm up before they invade? Is air conditioning the secret weapon to stop the aliens?
It just goes on and on…
New Report: “Aliens Will Fix Global Warming… Or Kill Us”
The study says that an extraterrestrial civilization might notice our planet by detecting changes in the spectral signature of Earth the light radiated by our planet and atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
From the rate of change of the chemical composition in our atmosphere, the aliens will deduce our rapid expansion and, because of that, possibly view us as a threat, thinking we’ll soon pursue resources on other worlds.
Then they may seek to preemptively destroy our civilization in order to protect other civilizations from us,” the researchers write.
Obviously Al Gore has read this study…
Read my column. Then write a comment about the factual analysis in the column.
Oh, no thanks.
“Scientists estimate that there are perhaps 20,000 prehistoric hunter-gatherers frozen up in those glaciers.
Now, if they simply thaw and wander around, it’s not a problem.
But if they find a leader — a Captain Caveman, if you will — we’ll be facing an even more serious problem.”
“Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming man for global warming. And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That’s so typical. Two cyborgs, ‘Oh, let’s blame the humans.'” –Jay Leno
According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought.
You know what that means?
Climate Alarmists are one-third more annoying than we thought.
And that was already very very annoying!
“The ice caps are melting, Leonard. In the future, swimming won’t be optional.”
— Sheldon, in The Big Bang Theory
It would be great if there was a “point” to the column.
97% of “Climate Scientists” agree that “Climate Science” is accurate and useful. The other 3% are in recovery.
97% or real “Scientists and Engineers” agree that “Climate Science” is totally bogus BS. The other 3% went into Management (that’s an inside joke).
97% of “Tobacco Scientists” agree that inhaling tobacco smoke is good for your health. The other 3% became “Climate Scientists”!
“Al Gore said global warming is happening much quicker than he thought, and then his staff pulled him aside and said ‘It’s just springtime.'”
“Al Gore has a plan to combat Global Warming.
He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically.
We just switch from Fahrenheit to Celsius.”
On 97% consensus of “Climate Scientists”:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
BTW – Who is “angry” now?
An Alien, a Fortune Teller and a Global Warming Alarmist walk into a Bar.
The Bartender says: “I don’t serve anyone who makes up stories about the future to take advantage of people”.
The Fortune Teller protests: “I’m a Certified Psychic”.
The Bartender says: “I was talking to the Global Warming Alarmist”!
“Unfortunately most of this debate consists of folks calling each other names — without any recourse to facts.”
– Bob Moore, February 27, 2014
Your level of integrity is astonishing. No need to reply.
“According to the new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted.
Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”
One very dramatic scene in the new Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore Florida ballots from the election.
“The latest IPCC Summary says this global warming is so serious that they are now predicting that by the year 2050 they will be out of party ice. for the Climate Change Meeting cocktail reception.”
“Don’t kid yourself. Global warming is no joke.
Here’s how serious global warming has gotten to be in the United States. In this country global warming is so bad, we are now actually starting to warm up to Richard Nixon.”
Al Gore said over the weekend that global warming is more serious than terrorism.
Unless the terrorist is on your plane, then that extra half a degree doesn’t bother you so much.
Barbra Streisand told Diane Sawyer that we’re in a global warming crisis, and we can expect more and more intense storms, droughts and dust bowls.
But before they act, Climate Scientists say they’re still waiting to hear from Celine Dion.
Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke about the dangers of global warming. Schwarzenegger’s exact words were: fire, hot, bad!
UN scientists just released their new report on global warming or, as mid-westerners call it — Spring.
They keep saying that sea levels are rising an’ all this.
It’s nowt to do with the icebergs melting, it’s because there’s too many fish in it.
Get rid of some of the fish and the water will drop.
Simple. Basic science.
“There is no way that we can predict the weather six months ahead beyond giving the seasonal average”
― Stephen Hawking
“Climate experts say we should tell villagers in developing countries to reduce the amount of cooking smoke they generate to help fix global warming.
You know, it’s as if these people don’t hate us enough already. I mean, they live in mud huts, they have thatch roofs, their clothes are made of straw.
We pull up in a bunch of Humvees and SUVs going, ‘Hey, you want to cut the smoke out of here?'” –Jay Leno
Priceless.. it’s interesting when the headlines scream things based on opinions.. not facts.
The latest headlines are that US citizens are noticing that summers are hotter and longer.. also that rain is heavier than in the past. It’s really weird since neither of those are facts.. merely perceptions. (from a population with questionable reasoning skills).
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/precipitation.html
In this graph.. you see deviation average rainfalls.. the rainfall has deviated downward more than 10% 9 times.. only gone up more than 10% 6 times. It seems that the rainfall goes up and down.. with no huge trend.
So it “feels” like more rain? Did they ask this in the spring maybe during April when typically “April showers bring May flowers?”
Regarding temps. Do they take into account that maybe today’s population spends more time in climate controlled environments? Kids don’t go out to play as much. People are locked into their Ipods and whatnot and we are getting heavier due in part to lack of oudoors physical activity? Of COURSE they feel hotter, they are out of shape and not acclimated to the heat!
No, it’s all about how we feel and percieve, forget about the reality and facts. Forget about the other factors that go into people drawing assumptions from their experiences.
Oh.. and what the hell kind of statistic is Climate Change is X% worse than we thought? That doesn’t mean that it is X% worse right? It might be 5% worse or 5% better depending upon the starting point of view of the person you are polling.
I am not saying that pollution is good. I am not advocating that we dump mercury in the seas. I am all about doing a better job at managing runoff from industrial, farming and urban centers that negatively impact water quality.
I am not even saying that we may not experience warming (or cooling) trends.. or cycles of severe weather (hurricane seasons have been relatively mild lately btw). However, in the lifespan of earth, trying to draw trends from small periods of time and even 25-50 years is pretty darn small.. is a crap shoot at best. I am not denying that the climate changes.. but I am not 100% convinced that humans are driving all the changes. (well..maybe it IS aliens?).