By Steve Goddard
This map below is from the NOAA High Plains Regional Climate Center and shows the continental USA as “departure from normal for Jan1st, 2010 to July 31, 2010:
Source: http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png
We keep hearing from NOAA and in the press about 2010 being the hottest year ever. Apparently, objective and unbiased scientists are rushing this incorrect information to press before La Niña spoils their party, and before the ruling party gets tossed out of Congress. An analysis of the above and below normal portions of the map yields some surprising data that contrasts with recent “official” announcements.
El Niño is now fading, La Niña is coming on strong:
So how are things looking in the US? Despite the second strongest El Niño on record, 62% of the US has had below normal temperatures for the year so far. To make things clearer, I split the lower 48 up into above and below normal regions by combining pixels to a two color map.
Using a pixel counting graphics program, I counted the pixels that were above normal and below normal. To be precise, there are 86,725 pixels below normal, and 53,336 pixels above normal. Total red and blue pixels is 140,061. With 86,725 pixels below normal this yields 61.9%.
As La Niña takes hold, we should see the percentage below normal increase.
Philadelphia finished July with an average temperature of 80F. That is one degree cooler than the years 1793 and 1838, and tied July 1791, 1798, 1822, 1825, 1828, and 1830. July was almost as hot as it was 217 years ago, when CO2 was at 290 ppm.
We live in interesting times.
One of the main cores of scientific thought is to not make assumptions. Yet, the Anti-GW crowd are the worst offenders when it comes to ‘assumptions’ and bad science.
Climate is not easy to gauge, we only have one planet and there’s no method to test out a conclusive ‘yes’. However, to say with certainty that ‘humanity cannot change climate’ is simply wrong. Throughout Earth’s history there is clear evidence that lifeforms on Earth have changed it’s atmosphere – Lifeforms with much less of a destructive kick as us. In fact, we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for photosynthesis-based life emitting large amounts of a certain gas we breath: Oxygen.
Is Global Warming used pawn in politics? Of course it is. Yet, this should not in any way change the body of scientific data that seems to show a trend on planet Earth.
My question is what are we willing to gamble for our future? Wouldn’t it be simply better to think about reducing our energy/carbon footprint intelligently and ahead of time?
Enneagram says:
August 2, 2010 at 9:34 am
In south America many vegetable prices have increased because of the record lower temperatures, so expect the same next NH winter.
BTW.-Next global warmers sinful pleasures jamboree at Cancun will be something to really enjoy watching…:-)
Do you thin we can get Gaia to make it snow at the Cancun jamboree if Al Gore goes? Or at least a very cold miserable rain? ( just on the conference area of course)
I would point out the fine print at the bottom of the page which displays the map:
Normal refers to the 1971-2000 Climate Normal for the selected product.
John C
One million people die each year in automobile accidents around the globe. Are you willing to risk your life getting in a car?
A very high percentage of people born with breasts or prostate glands develop cancer during their life. The best way to prevent this from happening is radical surgery as a teenager. That is the only safe approach for cancer avoidance.
Evidently, 14 countries have experienced their highest temperature in history this year. This evidently ties the highest previous number for the whole year of 2007. Seems to support the idea of more extreme weather. You can read about this on Climate Progress.
Layne Blanchard says:
August 2, 2010 at 9:54 am
Steve,
…A microwave heats by exciting water molecules with wavelengths that cause resonance. What if TSI remained fairly constant, yet the composition of TSI, shifting slightly, sometimes increases the distribution of wavelengths to those that better excite seawater, warming the oceans, and driving the whole climate system up and down?
__________________________________________________________
It does see this NASA article:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/sdo_eve.html
“…Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”
The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths…”
Other Articles of Interest:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
BillD,
14 countries out of 193 countries in the world. Typical cherry-picking by that wacked-out nut, Joe Romm.
That desperately hoped for “extreme weather” has been declining for quite a while now. You will have to find another scare tactic to support climate alarmism. Extreme weather is a non-starter, just like all the other wild-eyed climate scares.
“Philadelphia finished July with an average temperature of 80F. That is one degree cooler than the years 1793 and 1838, and tied July 1791, 1798, 1822, 1825, 1828, and 1830. July was almost as hot as it was 217 years ago, when CO2 was at 290 ppm.”
So how, pray tell, does anyone say the Climate is changing when the average July temp is less than that in 1793?
What does this have to do with Congress or the Presidency? Wasn’t this crap widely fousted under Bush and Repub Congresses – answer = YES!
Here’s a problem for the warmists to answer: What exactly is the temperature in Philly? My in-laws live to the west of Philly a few miles and I live North of Philly. Sunday while driving home from dinner, I noticed that their house was 72F on the car thermometer. On the highway it was 78F. Off the highway and heading north on a secondary road it was 76F. Arriving at my place it was 68F. This trip took 45 minutes and the weather didn’t change over that time. At Philly International Airport it was 79F. So I ask you, what was the temperature? Comparing back to 1793 which number do you use? There’s an 11 degree spread in the data just sampling around the region and there’s barely a 1 degree difference between now and 1793? And Philly didn’t have an UHI back in 1793. So why do we believe in Globull warming? AS I’ve stated in the past, I guess globull warming is occuring everywhere but Philly.
Gail Combs says:
August 2, 2010 at 10:19 am
I don’t think that snowing but a very,very and unusual cold weather. Check with google-earth, also, volcanoes in the area,, a few may help polishing Al’s private jet engines and give him some strong massages.
Gail Combs says:
August 2, 2010 at 9:57 am
From your link:
The UB team discovered that these additional sulfates cause cosmic rays to have a more pronounced effect on Earth by spurring the formation of small droplets in the atmosphere that, in turn, cause the formation of a type of cloud that does not produce rain.
I will think on this one a while, the altitude of the sulfates while high in the stratosphere coincide with rain. When they dissipate out and drop back down the rain slows down it seems. But its hard to tell what’s really going on because by then the solar output also will have changed. But it clearly remains cloudy without rain for periods of time, and that’s a good possibility that cosmic rays could have that effect.
What they talk about in the 1930’s though… there were a lot of eruptions. But they weren’t blowing high into the stratosphere.
Anthony, do you recall that graph that was posted about volcanic gasses in the stratosphere, measured by the Air Force and compared to solar cycles?
KLIUCHEVSKOI Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1931 Mar 25 4 ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931 May 1 4
ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931 May 11 4?
FUEGO Guatemala 1932 Jan 21 4
AZUL, CERRO Central Chile 1932 Apr 10 5+
KHARIMKOTAN Kuril Islands 1933 Jan 8 5
SUOH Sumatra (Indonesia) 1933 Jul 10 4
KUCHINOERABU-JIMA Ryukyu Islands (Japan) 1933 Dec 24 4?
RABAUL New Britain 1937 May 29 4?
MICHOACAN-GUANAJUATO México 1943 Feb 20 4
You see that after 1933 the larger eruptions began to stretch it out with 4 years or more between eruptions. Note the number near the equator.
But a troposphere loaded with volcanic gasses and particulate, with a clean and clear stratosphere not deflecting solar rays away, seems to me to be the formula for getting hot down low. That’s what I think may have happened in the warm 1930’s.
Blessed will be those who, according to a well known female politician, don’t have “cojones”, because they won’t have those parts frozen during next winter.
John C writes:
“My question is what are we willing to gamble for our future? Wouldn’t it be simply better to think about reducing our energy/carbon footprint intelligently and ahead of time?”
There is a very famous and time honored version of this argument. It was authored by Pascal. It goes like this. If God exists and you make no attempt to submit to God then you will suffer eternally. If God exists and you submit to God then you will be rewarded eternally. If God does not exist and you submit to God then you will perhaps waste your Sunday mornings. If God does not exist and you do not submit to God then you have Sundays mornings free. So, what you gonna do? Given that the downside is eternal suffering, you are going to church right? So, John C, tell me, are you going to church?
Any problems with Pascal’s argument are also problems with your original argument and all versions of the now popular, so-called, “Cautionary Principle.” I am sure that Lisa Jackson will proclaim that the EPA advises that everyone start attending church immediately.
John C says:
August 2, 2010 at 10:19 am
One of the main cores of scientific thought is to not make assumptions. Yet, the Anti-GW crowd are the worst offenders when it comes to ‘assumptions’ and bad science…..
My question is what are we willing to gamble for our future? Wouldn’t it be simply better to think about reducing our energy/carbon footprint intelligently and ahead of time?
______________________________________________________________________
You are asking us are we willing to throw out all technological advances including fire based on data shown to have been “adjusted” homogenized” and politicized.
Meanwhile the technology tossed aside is gleefully embraced by Red China with Maurice Strong, Father of Global Warming and the Environmental Movement as Adviser. (Note that Maurice Strong has been president and CEO of oil companies, World Bank, Rockefeller Foundation and UN adviser and is now working for a Construction Company in China.)
I suggest you look into the Politics as well as the “science” before you fall for the trap of accepting serfdom to the oil and banking elite. Because THESE are the type of people you want us to accept as masters:
“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund .. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. “
1973 book coauthored by Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern:
“A massive campaign [Global Warming] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy[ Agenda 21 ] in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
Notice what John Holdern’s definition of human being is “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being….” Sounds like only those that are suitably brainwashed (and therefore docile) will be considered “human”
Source: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t
Further reading:
WARNING: What happens to the Intelligentsia AFTER the “revolution”
Climategate email: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=54&filename=889554019.txt
Here is the (B1) scenario IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)
Maurice Strong’s: UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance
Agenda 21
leaked draft agreement at Copenhagen hands control to World Bank
World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programs (SAPs)
Still looks like the most heating is where the thermometers are fewest
David L. writes:
“Here’s a problem for the warmists to answer: What exactly is the temperature in Philly? My in-laws live to the west of Philly a few miles and I live North of Philly.”
I am so glad someone asked this question. You can go to wunderground.com and create a “favorites” list of cities that you specify by name or zip code. Once you select a favorite, you are given lots of weather information about it AND, if you scroll to the bottom, you have a list of all weather stations in your area that choose to share their info with wunderground.com. My area is a rectangle of about 10 x 5 miles. In that area, twenty stations show temperatures that vary in a range of 9 degrees and, if I kill the outliers, a range of 6 degrees. If I select just those that I really trust, I can get down to a range of 4 degrees. If there is anything that climate scientists and government policy makers (Lisa) should agree on, it is that we must have some new technology, a comprehensive plan, and a new start for temperature measurements.
The bills are starting to come in for this buffoonery. The Scottish Government’s “ambitious” climate change act is expected to cost £8 billion pounds (Sterling) over the next decade, whilst lowering CO2 emissions by 42% (as if). This on top of existing charges which are starting to filter through to gas and electricity bills, though they’re not highlighted on the bills of course.
This from a country of approximately 5 million people…
Another answer to 14 countries with new records, high temperature records are notoriously infected with UHIE. When global warming alarmists like to prove the global is warming, they take great pains to point out how wonderfully they adjust for UHIE (although I question their methods). But when it comes time for new record highs, UHIE gets tossed out the window, conveniently forgotten.
Layne Blanchard writes:
‘“If it truly were “the hottest ever” globally, it ought to also be “the hottest ever” in a very large number of individual places. And it isn’t.”’
The “global temperature number,” the “global temperature average,” or whatever they want to call it has always been a pure fiction with no reasoned jusfitication whatsoever. It is a tool for propaganda and nothing more.
John C writes:
“My question is what are we willing to gamble for our future? Wouldn’t it be simply better to think about reducing our energy/carbon footprint intelligently and ahead of time?”
Post above covered the precautionary principal, so I will just ask this: What does our energy use have to do with anything. You put that in there with carbon footprint like it matters…so I kind of wonder, does it?
Energy use can mean just about anything, and by saying it like that, you want us to reduce all energy use…for what? Efficiency like efficient windows: Good idea, we use less energy, spend less money, and makes us feel better about ourselves.
Using less energy just because? That is stupid. Carbon footpring is one thing. Energy is another. Although your carbon footprint is probably higher the more energy you use, that is not always the case.
As a precautionary principal: I would put money into research and development of alternate sources of power. If we can provide clean power that actually works versus what is out ther now, that would be by far the best thing for the environment. People could use as much energy as they wanted, and this CO2 scare can be stopped.
Heck, where do you get this money? That is easy, just stop funding global warming research, and put that money straight into R&D. Lots of bad scientists would get fired, and good engineers and scientists (hopefully) get jobs. Win-win….who is with me?
Note that a significant portion of the above normal should be expected to be increasing in temperature over time due to continuous addition of roof tops, black top, heat expelled from buildings due to more airconditioners, etc. in the more populated and growing population centers of the country….like the Northeast. All weather and climate held constant, these areas will get warmer.
Pascvaks says: August 2, 2010 at 4:54 am
Has anyone else noticed that the AGW Story is very similar to the classic book and movie “Catch 22″? ‘When the majors is in, he’s out; when the major’s out, he’s in‘. — Y’hep! The Milo Minderbinders are finally sitting in the Cat Bird Seat and managing the World’s Everything for us. When you stop to think of it, really, I guess we deserve it. I know that’s very hard to swallow, kinda’ like chocolate cover cotton balls, but think about it, doesn’t it explain everything that’s happening? Really?
Yes Pascvaks. It’s a good observation. Methinks it’s because the ‘spin doctors’ have moved in on every source of power – Business, Banking, Insurance, Government. Once it was just car salesmen and the Wizard of Oz whose BS was easily recognised – now ???? And the 4th Estate has succumbed – so who asks the question? Kinda scary ain’t it.
Doug
The growing desperation of Warmists who visit this and other blogs is palpable. The flimsy climate model-driven science (as opposed to empirical evidence) supporting AGW’s shaky theoretical framework is now under assault by a growing body of respected meteorologists, climatologists, geologists and astrophysicists who refuse to stand by as the scientific method (which emphasizes skepticism and dissent) is trashed and replaced by politically driven “consensus science.”
As Geoff Sharp observed above, the combination of a quiet sun, negative PDO (characterized more La Ninas and weaker and fewer El Ninos) and, perhaps, increased volcanic activity will usher our planet into another period of long-term cooling –sooner rather than later.
As declining solar activity pushes earth towards another Dalton Minimum or, heaven help us, a Maunder Grand Minimum, today’s alarmist predictions of global warming will eventually border on tragicomedy.
CO2 is good (rising food production); warm is good (Holocene Optimum); cold is bad (Little Ice Age), as recent news reports from cold-stricken Peru confirm.
Our old pal Jeffrey Sachs in Huffpo today: ( a little OT, but not much)
Jeffrey Sachs: Making Sense of the Climate Impasse http://huff.to/creGCZ
“All signs suggest that the planet is still hurtling headlong toward climatic disaster. The United States’ National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has issued its “State of the Climate Report” covering January-May. The first five months of this year were the warmest on record going back to 1880. May was the warmest month ever. Intense heat waves are currently hitting many parts of the world. Yet still we fail to act….”