Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Here’s a blast from the past. Dr. James Hansen’s view in 1989 seemed a lot more temperate than it does today. Back then, he’s ready to accede to a study that says something counter to what his theory predicts, saying “I have no quarrel with it”. Today, he uses labels like “deniers” (see here) when such contradictory essays and facts are made public. What a difference 20 years makes.

And even back then, with no firm evidence in hand, Gore was pushing to cede White House environmental policy to “world policy”.


January 26, 1989

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.

Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.

Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.

But other scientists, while agreeing with this basic theory of a greenhouse effect, say there is no convincing evidence that a pollution-induced warming has already begun.

Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at Oregon State University who studies climate models, said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable. More Droughts Predicted

Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states.

Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.

”We have to be careful about interpreting things like this,” he said. What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.

Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ”no quarrel” with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ”If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random” when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.

”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,” he added. ”It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.”

Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a ”statistical fluke.”

Possibililty of Countereffects

Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.

Dr. Hansen suggested that at some point there could be a jump in temperature readings in the United States if the measurements in the new study were a statistical aberration or the result of atmospheric pollutants reflecting heat away from Earth. He noted that anti-pollution efforts are reducing the amount of these particles and thus reducing the reflection of heat.

Several computer models have projected that the greenhouse effect would cause average global temperatures to rise between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns.

Legislative Action Sought

Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.

The bill would also require a ban on industrial chemicals that not only are depleting the atmosphere’s ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, but are believed to be contributing to the warming trend. It would also require stricter fuel-economy standards for automobiles to reduce the consumption of gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kevin
March 1, 2010 12:16 am

Priceless…
Hansen: ”We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,”…

Mooloo
March 1, 2010 12:24 am

Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.
Has this turned out to be accurate?

GAZ
March 1, 2010 12:29 am

“Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability …”
Which sounds a bit less confident than
“Very high confidence…” in AR4
Are they mellowing?

richard
March 1, 2010 12:39 am

As the American are fond of saying, ‘what a crock!’
No warning trend found so lets blame some ‘unknown’ forcing factor.
If this study had found any warning trends, you can bet your bottom dollar that the story would have been a straight ‘warming found’ piece.

R. de Haan
March 1, 2010 12:49 am

That’s how a hoax in the public domain is started.
What was the name of the newspaper again?

Gareth Phillips
March 1, 2010 1:00 am

I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

March 1, 2010 1:10 am

Mooloo (00:24:39) :
“Has this turned out to be accurate?”
I doubt it.

Tor Hansson
March 1, 2010 2:12 am

The U.S. is the country with the best data set available, and it’s not that small a place. To assume that a global phenomenon somehow “skips” the United States seems far-fetched, and without good reason it is a frivolous contention.
That the United States with its fuel-burning, urbanizing ways should not show a UHI effect gives pause. What happened to that? Is it really aerosols? Or is there really cooling, as seen in many rural stations, neutralized by UHI in others?

JMANON
March 1, 2010 2:29 am

QUOTE:
Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.
END QUOTE
That wording is highly illuminating.
US weathar just a regional variation? Small part of the earths surface?
Yeah, what he is saying is “Please don’t hit me, I just had to get my report published and I’m trying not to say up front that AGW is rubbish.”

Mike Haseler
March 1, 2010 2:52 am

Newsflash: SS Global Warming is sinking
(Off Topic, but still worth it.)
Over the last few years, the average google hits for news on either global warming or climate change has been around 13,667, reaching an all time peak in Dec 2009 with 23,800 news stories in that month.
In Jan 2010 that figure sharply declined from those at the end of 2009 when climategate was fresh to 14,200. But last month (Feb 2010) that figure crashed to 2790. That is a massive drop to 20% of “average”. It’ has not been so low since Feb 2004 in terms of the number of hits, but as many more media have gone on-line in that period the it is more like it was in 1995 in terms of percentage of the news. (Based on the scale used by google, which I assume is a scale with relative percentage of all news story hits)
Moreover, the type of story has also dramatically changed. Before climategate it was common to search 50 or so stories and not find one with a proper scientific scepticism. I would now say as a rough rule of thumb, that there is just a majority of news stories that are sceptical. More importantly, the kind of news story that used to be the cheap fillers between serious news: “the global warming could ..” prefix to any research which the University hoped to get publicity for by linking it with the kudos of global warming, is now a very rare exception.
So at a rough estimate, the percentage “pro” stories has fallen by something like 90%. The percentage of “pro” stories from the general academic research community has probably fallen by another order of magnitude.
Late me state that again: the MSM support for global warming (propaganda) is now at 10%, of the average value in the last few years.
This really is like sitting on the coast in Indonesia and suddenly watching the publicity tide going out from the beach leaving global warming fish flapping in little pools isolated from the sea. What do we do next? Go down onto the beach and pick up the fish and eat them for supper? Lift up our King Canute deck-chairs and go home with a job well done?
See: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22climate+change%22+OR+%22global+warming%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=uk&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2010/02&as_hdate=2010/02&lnav=hist1

toyotawhizguy
March 1, 2010 2:52 am

@Mooloo (00:24:39) :
“Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.
Has this turned out to be accurate?”
Certainly not in 2008.
See: MIDWEST FLOOD RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
Link: http://www.usa.gov/flooding.shtml

Stephan
March 1, 2010 2:54 am

Gareth Phillips (01:00:09) :
JAXA
I note the Arctic ice has stopped expanding, maybe to show we sceptics are objective and even handed this should be highlighted.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
I don’t agree with that graph from NSDC, it being fabricated for the AGW agenda,,, have a look at DMI, NORSEX , JAXA. Cryosphere today has been known to constantly change the NH picture to suit the AGW agenda as well
Im sick and tired of these people, no longer time to be nice to them… refer toclimategate and IPCC LOL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Slabadang
March 1, 2010 2:56 am

Well….. the truth was out there!
Watts, EM Smith,DÀleo,satellites, Willy Eisenbach,Monckton,Long ,Spencer,Lindzen,Pielke JR & Sr,McIntyre,Carter,Plimer,Karlèn and numerous other created an unorginazed pack of woodpeckers.Finnaly bringing this big rutten awful dangerous tree down!Mainstream media has made on an for trust and reability long slow harakiri! We will never forget whos to trust and whòs not!

Dirk
March 1, 2010 3:03 am

Depicting USA as 1,5% of the world is not true !!, it’s more than 2%
USA occupies 6% of worlds total land mass, so then it looks different with a stable temerature.

RichieP
March 1, 2010 3:13 am

OT
Credit Agricole have been reading their Mencken (“the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary”) but not their WUWT:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypjKxGCgO8E&hl=en_GB&fs=1&]

barbarausa
March 1, 2010 3:42 am

“Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.”
What coincidence?
That is how a political PR campaign works.

Geoff Sherrington
March 1, 2010 3:43 am

Mike Haseler (02:52:23) : “Over the last few years, the average google hits for news on either global warming or climate change has been around 13,667, reaching an all time peak in Dec 2009 with 23,800 news stories in that month.”
It must be the way you do your search. Just now I did “climate change news” for 31.3 million hits and “global warming news” for 24 million hits. These come from Australia, using the button from Australia rather than Global. Can you be more explicit how you search?

Peter of Sydney
March 1, 2010 4:06 am

Let’s see. The climate scientists are panicking for detecting a rise of about 0.6 C over 100 or so years. Has anyone stopped to think such a rise is not even measurable over that time? It’s less than the noise level and the amount one would expect from natural variability. So why the panic? Where’s the catastrophic warming? Obviously there isn’t any. As for predicting the future using computer models of climate change – we all know they are just wild guesses and are useless. I can already see in the decades to come how all the AGW alarmists will be considered to be fraudsters and hoaxes at best, and corrupt and grimy individuals at worst who deserve to be behind bars.

toyotawhizguy
March 1, 2010 4:07 am

jbrodhead (01:45:13) :
“Here’s an article a FB friend just posted…
http://www.alternet.org/environment/145838/how_the_mountain_of_climate_change_evidence_is_being_used_to_und
That article is written by Bill McKibben. Obviously the author takes that “Mountain of Climate Change Evidence” as gospel, and is unwilling to recognize how the science has been corrupted by politics, as well as the skewing and cherry picking of data, the uncertainty of the AGW hypothesis, the complexity of the Climate, the unreliability of proxy data, the gross exaggerations and unproven claims regarding how much increased CO2 will affect the climate, the infancy of Climatology, that correlation is not proof of causation, the fallibility of climate computer models (can’t even reliably predict last week’s weather), the reliance of Climate researchers on “one sided” grant funding, the rigging of the peer review process, the motivations of the UN /IPCC (just Google “Maurice Strong”), the lies and distortions contained in “An inconvenient Truth”, the history of natural climate change going back millions of years, AND the mountain of counter evidence. Did I miss anything? McKibben’s article is hardly fair and balanced. Rather than we AGW skeptics having an “OJ Moment” as suggested by McKibben, the warmists have been having a 20 year “Cardiff Giant” moment.

Editor
March 1, 2010 4:24 am

Uh, the commenters here do realize that the article is from 1989, right?

Robinson
March 1, 2010 4:52 am

In other news, child survives bullet in the chest after parents kill themselves over Global Warming fears.
I’m sure someone has pointed this out before: it’s a kind-of mental disorder, isn’t it?

richard
March 1, 2010 5:00 am

completely o/t but over the road from me is a “zero-emission” electric van on charge, plugged into a mains outlet.
Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this kind of mindless greenwash? Yes, the vehicle doesn’t emit but I’ll bet the coal-fired power station it’s plugged into does.

Mark
March 1, 2010 5:01 am

I wonder if there was no warming trend because they hadn’t yet ‘added value’ (massaged) to the data…

Jeff Kooistra
March 1, 2010 5:03 am

Hmmm — no warming up until 1989 or so. No warming from 1995 to the present as admitted by Jones. Must be one hell of a spike there between 89 and 95 then — anyone see it?

1 2 3 4