By Steve Goddard
The National Wildlife Federation has quite a history of stretching the truth when it comes to “global warming.” But I think they have outdone themselves.
This summer’s stifling, deadly heat along the Eastern Seaboard and Deep South could be a preview of summers to come over the next few decades, according to a report about global warming to be published Wednesday by the National Wildlife Federation and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. In fact, according to NWF climate scientist Amanda Staudt, the summer of 2010 might actually be considered mild compared with the typical summers in the future. “We all think this summer is miserable, but it’s nothing compared to what’s in store for us,” she says. … The report, a supplement to a 2009 report on heat waves, notes that more extremely hot summer days are projected for every part of the country by the year 2050: “Summers like the current one, or even worse, will become the norm by 2050 if global warming pollution continues to increase unabated.”
Interesting theory! Only problem is that summers have been generally getting cooler across those regions for the last 80 years. Below are the NCDC summer (Jun-Aug) trend graphs for all of the states discussed in the article. More than half of those states have seen declining summer temperatures, and the average trend is -0.1°F per century.
Temperature degF / Decade Louisiana 81.17 0.01 Mississippi 79.75 -0.15 Alabama 78.96 -0.15 Florida 80.93 0.08 Georgia 78.9 -0.1 South Carolina 78.55 -0.03 North Carolina 75.8 -0.02 Virginia 73.41 -0.06 Maryland 73.34 0.09 Delaware 74.15 0.14 New Jersey 72.23 0.08 Pennsylvania 68.98 -0.15 New York 66.83 -0.08 Connecticut 68.97 0.12 Rhode Island 68.77 0.18 Massachusetts 68.15 -0.02 New Hampshire 65.41 0.04 Vermont 65.24 -0.07 Maine 63.84 -0.1
As CO2 has increased from 330 ppm to 393 ppm, summer temperatures have declined.
But it gets worse. Note in the plot below that the states with the highest population density generally also have the highest temperature trends. There is a UHI signal which is corrupting the temperature trend. NCDC is supposed to adjust for UHI, but it is pretty clear that they are not doing a good job. Rhode Island has the second highest population density in the US, and the highest summer temperature trend in the group.
If UHI was properly adjusted for, there would likely be little or no upwards trend in most of the states which currently show one.
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.
Apparently NWF believes that three weeks of hot July weather is more significant than a couple of centuries of climate data. Because hot weather is climate – when it is your job to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
Maryland
Delaware
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Are those graphs of the topographical relief of the east coast, because if they are, they are pretty accurate [Basically FLAT].
Oh….temperature trends. Wow.
Once again, in trial, the case gets thrown out.
Excellent job, Steve.
Who are the contributors to the NWF? Whoever they are…are wasting their money on a large scale.
With a scientists like the NWF employs, who needs an idiot?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Please stop posting such heresy. My little head is about to explode.
One really has to wonder on what they are basing their “predictions”, because it certainly isn’t observations.
This scientist says, “in my report the Ouija Board predicts just the opposite in 2050”. That and a couple of dollars will get you a cup of coffee, if the frost doesn’t get the beans first.
Dave N
They are basing their predictions on religious faith in CO2 and government scientists.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. Stephen Schneider PBUH
I don’t think they have been very effective either.
We are about to head into a hot spell in NE Oregon if not the rest, I expect the Warmist Trolls to emerge from under the bridge and start screaming…
The link below will take you to a set of graphs for Yakima, WA, USA.
There is nothing out of the ordinary shown. It all looks so normal that watching corn grow is more exciting. A signal of “global warming pollution” seems not to show itself for this part of the globe. How does “NWF climate scientist Amanda Staudt” explain all the places in the world with a similar non-signal?
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?stn=KYKM&submit=Change+Station&wfo=pdt
I asked this question on another thread, and it fell flat. Maybe this thread is more appropriate.
If you can use meteorology to explain why the temperature outside is X degrees (well, weathermen are punching bags, but generally do a very good job of it) then why do we suddenly need to assume missing components?
From what I can see, the temperatures don’t become hard to explain until you start the statistical process on them. That, I fear, is when they beg for mercy. So I will trust the weatherman’s 3 day forecast, and no one else. Because at least (s)he can get it right(ish) 99% of the time.
I wonder why such organisations have a corporate policy on AGW? I could be wrong but how are their finances structured and who is pulling the financial strings?
Over here in little old England land we have groups like the RSPB set up to protect birds yet which has its own AGW corporate policy and receives large amounts of government funding and wind industry funding.
It seems that money talks in the modern world of wildlife protection, wildlife takes second place to funding stream needs?
I suppose there are quite a few organisations that were founded by the desire to protect wildlife which have now evolved into corporate money hungry machines and have become so money hungry that the need to increase and protect funding streams overtakes the needs of the wildlife they were set up to protect.
Over the last decade I believe there has been a concerted effort to subvert and buy off our most valued and trusted national assets, national bodies that mark us out as modern 1st world democracies. These groups have grown in size and wealth and power and influence yet have degenerated into little more than propaganda outlets, a tragedy for us all not least those august bodies who took the bribes in exchange for their independence and effectiveness.
Corporate funding comes with strings attached, there is always a price to pay when the money men come to town.
I know NWF can help you make your backyard more attractive to local wildlife:
http://www.nwf.org/gardenforwildlife/certify.cfm?campaignid=WH10ANWF
but who knows what kind of scientists they hire… lots of low-tier scientists are little better than data crunchers.
But it’s nice to see WUWT give such respectful prominence to NCDC (National Climatic Data Center of NOAA) graphs. NCDC is an organization that certainly knows global climate:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/GCAG/images/timeseries/global_merged.png
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/global-jan-dec-error-bar.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/glacial-decrease.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/human-and-natural-influences.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/solar-variability.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/oisst/ann.ocean.60s.60n.png
I’d like to hear more about the climate scientists employed by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, if you have that information…
The trend toward lower temperatures is not trending as fast as it should be because of man-made global warming. Oh, and we are responsible for everything evil under the sun: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012609669_climate13.html
It’s all of our fault. If only we had been born monkeys instead of humans, the world would be a better place, sigh.
Dave F
Three day forecasts tend to be very accurate because of very high quality models that have been developed.
If you talk to the people who make those models, they will tell you that the models break down quickly due to chaos – after three days.
They put a weasel word (could) in the very first sentence. I’m impressed you continued reading it.
I may have to up the challenge by recognizing weasel phrases going forward. While the weasel words jump off the screen into your face, the weasel phrases require a bit of sleuthing to ferret out (no, I’m not above mangling a metaphor!).
Steven:
Of course, I am aware of that. What is a little puzzling to me, though, is that there is a portion of the temperature record that is unexplainable to scientists studying climate when this portion of the temperature record is explainable by modern meteorology. Or do meteorological models include CO2 in the model?
If they don’t, then what happens to the temperature, which has been explained once already by meteorology, that makes it suddenly mysterious to climate scientists, who need to add forcing to explain it?
In short, is there a way to quantify which portion of the daily temperature is CO2?
Anu says:
August 12, 2010 at 9:28 pm
I’d like to hear more about the climate scientists employed by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, if you have that information…
—–
Personally, I’d be interested in what the unemployment rate for climate scientists is lately!
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but the MODELS! The MODELS!
Uh, um, er, uh, and, erm, uuuuh, and you are using UNADJUSTIFIED raw data, you rascal you! Now be a good boy and cover your eyes and I’ll just automagically ADJUSTIFY that baaaaaaad old data into something that mommy and daddy approve of…
I’d put $100 against her theory but by the time 2050 rolls around it will only be like betting 10 cents.
I suppose it would be silly to point out that the USA in not the world?
Meanwhile, it’s Fall already in Breckenridge, CO. I’ve already seen leaves turning yellow, mushrooms and fall berries are appearing, and Canada Geese are honking overhead, already on their migration to the South. We had about 10 days of warm, sunny weather this summer, and the rest of the time we had cold, rain, hail and thunderstorms. It’s just weather though.
I lived and worked in Singapore for some years. Hottest most humid place I have experienced. Took about six weeks to get used to it. Life was quite normal. As far as I am aware it is still the same fifty years later.
The “y” axis on your graphs makes it look as though something is happening.
When the left axis is in tenths of a degree we are talking INSIGNIFICANT!
Goddard,
Just a couple of unbiased points.
1. The article reads:
“A federal report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 2009, which much of this report was based on, found that average temperatures in the USA have increased more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past five decades, largely as the result of emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which are produced by burning fossil fuels.
But can this summer’s heat be directly attributed to global warming?
Staudt concedes that it can’t, as does Chris Fenimore, a physical scientist at the National Climatic Data Center, who was not part of the study: “It’s not really possible to pin a single event on climate change.”
However, Fenimore notes that the frequency at which these extreme weather events are occurring — such as extreme heat or cold — are on the increase.”
The NWF does’t attribute the weather to AGW.
2. Why is it that it is that this organization is ridiculed here in Confusionist Village, for predicting higher future temps. when at least they have a record of increasing US temp. to go on. While its an accepted, even central article of faith for confusionists here to predict an imminent Great Cooling based on what, the last centuries global temps.?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
For about every year of my life that I remember, my mother has complained that the summers in Kansas just aren’t hot like they used to be. So with this really hot summer hitting us as well, temperatures are reaching historically precedented levels. Oh my!
Idiot,
What part of “those states are not warming” is confusing you?