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
stevengoddard says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:27 pm
And reports of dew all over the ground in parts of Sacramento yesterday. You wouldn’t know it if you didn’t live here, because those Anomalously GISSed Weather reports fed into the Great Climate Massagers.
“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.” ”
The statement is about heat waves, not average temps in selected states. SG is cherry picking as usual. Even so average summer temps in the lower 48 is going up.
June-July-August: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/jjatrend.gif
Also see January-February-March: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/jfmtrend.gif
Everyone knows the world is warming and every indicator is that our GHG are the primary cause. You want to wait until 90% of the phytoplankton is gone before we do something?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/edsumm/e100729-03.html
BillW
We had an extensive discussion last month where it was decided by our warmist friends that the only sensible way to measure a trend is peak-to-peak.
That is exactly what I did. Hansen prefers trough to peak – to get maximum BS effect.
I’m with Sonicfrog and Michael Griffin on this – maybe I missed it, but have any of the prognosticants of doom ever come out with a “normal” number for either CO2 or Temperature? Do they have the first frikkin clue?
Nah. Too busy spooking the herd by zooming in on relatively minor and temporary changes then proclaiming it’s the end of the world.
And can anyone tell me why a NASA research group that is only very tenuously connected to supporting NASA Ops is located in the middle of Manhattan? Maybe Hansen et al wouldn’t be on about “too many people” if their facility was in the middle of a West Kansas cornfield somewhere, and they didn’t have to commute in NYC traffic.
“Everyone knows the world is warming and every indicator is that our GHG are the primary cause. You want to wait until 90% of the phytoplankton is gone before we do something?”
want a glass of warm milk?
Mike, as long as you keep believing all this crap, you’re going to drive yourself crazy.
Gaylon: August 13, 2010 at 4:22 am
I swear, Holy Hologram and Bill Tuttle should start a Climate Comedy Club.
Thank you, but it really wouldn’t be fair — RC was doing it first…
To Steve Goddard
I’d be interested to see a simple scatterplot of every available actual atmospheric temperature measurement vs time with no adjustment, homogenization or etcetera with a simple OLS linear regression from first to last, followed by a series of breakouts of data by parameters which we can reasonably expect would produce predictable absolute cooling such as increasing altitude and latitude, or warming such as local population density, followed by breakouts of parameters which we can reasonably expect would produce increasing variability such as increasing distance from major bodies of water, followed by a an analysis which accounts for the effects of known periodic phenomina such as PDO, AMO, Arctic Oscillation, etc. I am really suspicious of attempts to “homogenize” disparate temperature records and to adjust for extraneous variables by ad-hoc algorithmic estimates, rather than accounting for them by explicit statistical analysis.
Bill W.
You (perhaps inadvertantly, perhaps purposely) have made a point that MANY of us have made in the past. The choice of starting point is either “where the data set started” which has nothing to do with “climate”, or “arbitrary pick of starting point” which also has nothing to do with climate.
For example, if you pick 1850 as the start date, we just started coming out of the LIA at that time, so anyone but a fool would certainly fervently hope that we had warmed since then (or it would still be way too cold!). Also, the 1930s (especially the mid-1930s) were pretty darn warm, so showing a cooling trend from the 1930s is pretty easy to do in many locations.
Starting point determines both the average and the trend, and you can make SIGNIFICANT changes to both the average and the trend just by picking a different starting point.
So, the question becomes, “How do we determine a VALID starting point to use?”
The other question becomes, “How much data do we need to REALLY determine true climatic trends?” (I would say at least 1000 years would be nice to have, but that is obviously no where near what is currently available).
And, finally (for now) how do we determine when a purported “trend” is statistically significant above the noise/error in the data? BOTH sides of the AGW debate are guilty of “uncertainty avoidance” in a BIG way!!! Scientists should always show the uncertainty in their data. If a purported trend is +0.1 F/Decade +/- 0.5 F/Decade, it becomes clear that the trend is probably buried in the noise and is perhaps not a significant trend. On the other hand, if a purported trend is +0.1 F/Decade +/- 0.001 F/Decade, we can see that the trend looks significant.
@ur momisugly Mike says:You want to wait until 90% of the phytoplankton is gone before we do something?
If phytoplankton is really disappearing at a rapid rate, why has the entire ocean food chain not collapsed? Use some common sense. This is garbage science.
Mike,
You really missed my point to Steve. I don’t have a problem with him starting in 1930; I just asked him to explain it – to avoid attacks like the one you make here.
The two trends you cite from NOAA’s data are not relevant in comparison – they use data from 1941 to 2005, with a trend beginning in 1976. Give me a break!
Furthermore, I’m not sure whether a single OLS regression covering 80 (or 115) years is really the best way to look at this data. Unfortunately, that’s the way NOAA/NCDC has always done it, so that’s the way it’s done in the climate change community. The OLS fit does produce a single slope estimate, which is useful in making correlations to other natural phenomena (and in spreading fear).
Perhaps it would be more productive to use statistical process control theory and re-cast the annual data in the form of a control chart. This is widely used in manuacturing when a critical product parameter can be measured (e.g., a dimension, mass, chemical composition), but the underlying process that determines this parameter is too complex to be expressed in a predictive equation.
Such an effort using the same NCDC time frame of 1895 to the present would yield a warming trend from the beginning of the data set up to about 1946, a strong cooling trend to 1980, and a warming trend from 1980 to a couple of years ago. The weakness here (or perhaps it is a strength) is that SPC methods do not allow you to make predictions long into the future. You can, however, react fairly quickly to changes in trend – like the one resulting from the most recent PDO reversal?
Steven,
Thanks for the great work – it is further proof of the old saying. “nothing ruins the truth like stretching it.”
I am in the desert southwest of the US and we have had another mild summer. Where is the heating? CAGW can’t account for it and it’s a travesty that they can’t.
MJB says:
August 13, 2010 at 5:49 am
Re: Henry Chance
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. Stephen Schneider PBUH
MJB says:
While I do not agree with everything Mr. Schneider says, I believe this quote is taken entirely out of context. In the full and original quote he was actually arguing against the soundbite methdology of typical climate “science”. The misquote that gets the most circulation started with an editorial in the Detroit News where important phrases were selectively removed.
——————–
The most glaring deficiency in Schneider’s statement doesn’t concern his scruples but his mathematical and analytical prowess.
He speaks of a “double ethical bind” when there is clearly, at most, a single bind, and it is not clear that it’s even an ethical one.
When one is between a rock and a hard place, one is in a bind, equally perhaps, when between the devil and the deep blue sea. That is to say that two unyielding entities create a single bind. For the formation of a double bind a third unyielding entity would be necessary.
Schneider cites only two obstacles and, though one of them is clearly in the ethical domain, the other is more, from his own words, of a desire. I take that to be something between a yearning and a whim.
So, I question whether the dilemma can even be rightly characterized as an ethical bind; it’s akin to being between a rock and a figgy duff.
The factor-of- two exaggeration is extraordinary, even in the arena of politiclimatology.
Mike,
In 1995, most of the central US has 30+ days of 90 F temperatures. In 1998, most of the central US again had 30+ days of 90 degree temperatures. In 2010, most of the central US has had 20 days of 90 degree temperatures. Hardly notable as far as “heat waves” are concerned.
Further,
“Everyone knows the world is warming and every indicator is that our GHG are the primary cause. You want to wait until 90% of the phytoplankton is gone before we do something?” These 2 sentences are completely unscientific and lack any backing whatsoever. If you want to debate with people here, you might want to try using facts instead of fiction. Debating fiction is a complete waste of time, so 99% of us here will not indulge in that practice.
Yup, that Amanda Staudt is some climate expert:
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/Faces-of-NWF/Amanda-Staudt.aspx
At least she has a Ph.d in Atmospheric Science, but her publication record is REALLY weak. She’s got some JGR publications on biomass burning that aren’t listed there, like the game changers:
“Global chemical model analysis of biomass burning and lightning influences over the South Pacific in austral spring ”
and
” Continental sources, transoceanic transport, and interhemispheric exchange of carbon monoxide over the Pacific ”
Now adays, in the weather IS climate department, she’s into calling everything Global Warming’s “wake-up call” hahaha.
Man I wish I could write biased non-peer reviewed literature reviews citing irrelevant non-actual climate-related references! What a joke!
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/Faces-of-NWF/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Reports/NWF_Heatwaves_Optimized.ashx
MJB says:
August 13, 2010 at 5:49 am
… which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change…
Please note the built in bias in the above. He assumes a “risk of potenially disastrous climate change”. So right there he violates the if, ands, buts idea of telling the whole truth. He cannot be doing both as his last sentence indicates because of his bias.
BW: I was not responding to you. I didn’t read your post. I suggest you and others not read this link either:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/nasa-giss-what-global-warming-looks-like.html
But maybe a few of you out there aren’t completely overwhelmed with fear and can still think for yourselves a bit.
DCC: Grow up. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/edsumm/e100729-03.html
Re the first graph: Population density is the independent variable and should be on the x-axis. Then ,since it can be reasonably assumed that density has negligible random error,a least squares regression analysis of y on x is appropiate to give the trend line and statistical parameters(which will differ from an x on y analysis.) . L00k at the graph sideways to get my point. Otherwise,keep up the good work Steve .
Anthony Mills
I would have preferred to plot it the way you suggested, but gnuplot generated a much more readable plot with the current formatting.
Why start at 1930?
Steve,
Peak-to-peak. Got it. Thanks!
It is sad that I cringe every time someone links a “Nature” article. I think that at one point it used to be a fairly respected “science magazine” although it never rose to the level of “scientific journal”. Now it is simply a propaganda instrument and has little, if any, real scientific value.
NCDC data – fine for proving summer temperatures in Vermont are decreasing since 1930. Authoritative. National Climatic Data Center. Data you can trust.
What else does NCDC say ?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
Using NCDC data to prove some irrelevant point about summer temperatures in Vermont just sets up skeptics for bigger losses in bigger battles – you’re really going to have to step up your game in the coming decade. The data is going to get worse – concentrate on those attack pieces on Mann, Hansen, Gore, etc.
Like clockwork. It’s been a week or so since a “hottest EVAH” story, so the Associated Press is happy to oblige
Trend continues with second hottest July on record
Don’t confuse them with the facts, this is a MEME, baby
Mike, I know you dont read much but just think about this. Phytoplankton is estimated to generate 70% of O2. If it had halved over past 100 years dont you think we would have noticed this through a declining O2 level? That the AGW supporters would stress heavily the O2 depletion? Maybe reading some articles here is not such a bad idea after all? Start with the one avaluating your Phytoplankton article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/walking-the-plank-ton/
http://www.dailytech.com/Oxygen+Depletion+The+Next+Great+Environmental+Scare/article12691.htm
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/mister-cherry/
Anyone want to see Goddard and Tamino argue about this post?