Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On Sunday, Death Valley temperatures reached 129oF, a new June record high for the United States, according to the National Weather Service. Temperatures at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas reached 117oF, tying the previous record set in 1942 and 2005. National Geographic, NBC News, and other media ran stories attributing the Southwest heat wave to human-caused global warming. But history shows that today’s temperatures are nothing extraordinary.
The United States high temperature record was set in 1913, measured in Death Valley on July 10th. Twenty-three of the 50 US state high temperature records date back to the decade of the 1930s. Seventy percent of state high records were set prior to 1970.
The alarm about climate change is all about one degree. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global surface temperatures have increased about 1.3oF (0.7oC) since 1880. Proponents of the theory of man-made warming claim that this is evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are raising global temperatures.
One degree over more than 130 years isn’t very much. In contrast, Chicago temperatures vary from about -5oF to 95oF, about 100 degrees, each year.
When compared to this 100-degree annual swing, the rise in global temperatures since the 1800s is trivial, captured by a thin line on a graph.
Nevertheless, NOAA repeatedly raises concern about global temperatures. The NOAA website proclaims that “May 2013 global temperatures were the third highest on record.” This sounds alarming unless one understands that “on record” refers to the thermometer record, which only dates back to about 1880.
Climate changes over hundreds and thousands of years. Data from ice cores show several periods during the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today, including the Roman Climate Optimum at the height of the Roman Empire and the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled southwest Greenland. The warm and cool eras since the last ice age were due to natural climate cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions. The “on record” period that NOAA references is only a tiny part of the climatic picture.
Global average temperature is difficult to measure. The data sets of NOAA are an artificial estimate at best. They start with a patchwork collection of thousands of thermometer stations that inadequately cover the globe. Station coverage of the oceans and of the far northern and southern regions is inconsistent and poor. To cover areas without thermometers, averaging estimates are made from surrounding stations to try to fill in the holes.
In addition to coverage problems, gauge measurements often contain large errors. Man-made structures such as buildings and parking lots absorb sunlight, artificially increasing local temperatures. Cars, air conditioners, and other equipment generate heat when operating, creating what is called an Urban Heat Island effect.
The accuracy of the US temperature record is questionable. Meteorologist Anthony Watts, creator of the science website WattsUpWithThat, led a team of volunteers that audited more than 1,000 US temperature gauge stations from 2007 to 2011. Over 70 percent of the sites were found to be located near artificial heating surfaces such as buildings or parking lots, rated as poor or very poor by the site rating system of the National Climatic Data Center, a NOAA organization. These stations were subject to temperature errors as large as 3.6oF (2oC).
Simple problems can throw off gauge readings. Temperature stations are louvered enclosures that are painted white to reflect sunlight and minimize solar heating. As the station weathers and the paint ages, gauge stations read artificially high temperatures. A study published last month found that after only five years of aging, temperature stations will record a temperature error of 2.9oF (1.6oC) too high. This is greater than the one degree rise in the last 130 years that NOAA is alarmed about.
In addition to temperature measurement error, NOAA makes “adjustments” to the raw temperature data. According to a 2008 paper, after raw thermometer data is received, a computer algorithm “homogenizes” the data, adjusting for time-of-observation, station moves, thermometer types, and other factors to arrive at the official temperature data set.
This sounds good until one looks at the adjustment that NOAA has added. For temperature data from 1900 to 1960, very little adjustment is added. But after 1960, NOAA adds an upward adjustment to the thermometer data that rises to 0.5oF (0.3oC) by the year 2000. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “man-made global warming.”
Heat waves are real just as climate change is real. But a heat record in Las Vegas or one degree of temperature rise since the Civil War is not evidence that humans should be overly alarmed when other factors have been shown to be contributors of the same or greater magnitude than the posited temperature rise from greenhouse gas emissions.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
========================================================================
I don’t know about the whole globe of Greenland or Death Valley but for my little spot on the globe I copy/pasted the record highs and lows from the NWS in 2007, in 2009, in 2012 and in 2013.
Despite the changes made to past records (No, I don’t mean new ones set. I mean old ones “adjusted”.), for all of those list most of the record highs were set before 1951 and most of the record lows were set 1951 and after. (The records go back about 135 years.)
jai mitchell says:
July 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm
2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.
=================
average temps went up 10 C where I live in only 6 months. people are flocking to the beaches to celebrate the catastrophe.
Based on painstaking analysis, leading Climate $cientist$ project regional temperatures to increase 100 C over the next 5 years (10*5*12/6=100).
This figure is correct because it has been confirmed by billion dollar climate models which have been shown to reliably predict the past if someone tells then the answer. This shows great promise that with a few billion more invested, the models will be able to predict the future with almost the same accuracy as a dart board.
*SIGH*
Typo
“I don’t know about the whole globe of Greenland or…” should be “I don’t know about the whole globe or Greenland or…”
(Although if something is melting there warmers do talk about it as if it was the whole globe.8-)
@Patrick Guinness, in re the Bloomberg BS –
The CBS Evening News tonight also repeated the sane old mantra about how climate change is going to destroy everything – specifically now the Great Lakes. Puh-LEEZ!!! Evaporation from the lakes after one of the coldest winters in decades?!? How about late melting of snow cover, with resultant draining of the lakes because snowmelt comes into them late and they don’t get their refill at the usual time?!? DUH.
Somebody needs to tap these yoyos on the shoulder and tell them that even Briffa and the IPCC, those paragons of alarmism, ain’t buying their own hogslop anymore.
@Janice Moore –
If you’d like a musical antidote to some of the fluff these people, try listening to Mussorgsky’s Night on Bald Mountain or Dukas’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Much sorcery and ghosts flying around here, methinks.
See the excellent article by Larry Bell on the CFACT website, with admissions in various quarters that the so-called consensus is crumbling. Noted is the NYT’s admission that warming has stopped for 15 years. Larry Bell also reports on the findings by Russian scientists that the subn’s behavior is indicative of a long-term sharp cooling trend.
The article asks at the end, “does [Obama] care to know?” I wouldn’t bet on that, when it could unhinge his entire attack on the economy and on the Constitution if he were to do so, Der Fuehrer is bound and determine to bring down the country he hates, apropos Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” by any means he can muster.
Chad Wozniak says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm
I think we can assume a US president wants to be remembered as having done some good. Each of us likely has a personal definition of what “good” is and whether it is for all or a segment of the population. The current president seems to have latched on to “wealth redistribution” and has accepted various ideas he hopes will accomplish that. In the case of CO2 – facts be dammed. There will be a lot of resistance. His other problem is there are hundreds of folks with different agendas and they are able to use the president’s inexperience to their advantage. His now Sec. of State did just that with the health plan. It has been called “the Kerry Kickback”:
http://freebeacon.com/the-kerry-kickback/
There are 100 senators and 435 representatives and each has the potential to “improve” legislation moving through from the White House to the final product. Nancy Pelosi famously claimed the health reform bill should be passed so we could find out what was in it. See Kerry Kickback above as an example. This week the “Employer Mandate” has been postponed until after the mid-term elections. So, with just 3 ½ years until he is “the ex-potus” he is hoping for a legacy with a save-the-climate initiative. He hopes to climb atop a mountain from this molehill. Recall that hope is not a plan.
davidmhoffer says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Haha, ok yeah the steffan boltzmann law I remember using that about 20 years ago. . .the fact is that your application of it is dead wrong. The proof of that is you got the wrong value for the amount of temperature increase that 3.7 Watts per meter squared yields, almost by a factor of two.
I don’t know where you got the idea I was a consultant on climate change. I am an engineer. anywhoo, your basic math is wrong, not sure if you didn’t realize that the earth has a greenhouse effect when you did your blackbody calc, (when you assumed 288K is the blackbody temp) but the fact is that the earth is warmer than its blackbody temp based on average solar radiation. additional warming is given due to greenhouse effect, radioactive decay and tidal forces.
The thing is, if you have a point, well, why don’t you make it.
jm;
I am an engineer. anywhoo, your basic math is wrong, not sure if you didn’t realize that the earth has a greenhouse effect when you did your blackbody calc, (when you assumed 288K is the blackbody temp) but the fact is that the earth is warmer than its blackbody temp based on average solar radiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I explained which numbers came from the effective black body temperature of earth, and which from the average surface temperature. Go run the numbers again, you’ll find that not only am I bang on, my numbers agree with the IPCC. The point you continue to miss is that the IPCC calculations are based on 253K, NOT on 288K, which is why the numbers are misleadingly high, and cannot be used to estimate changes in surface temperature, and I provided you the specific link to their published position which states exactly that.
I really doubt you are an engineer, this is pretty basic stuff for an engineer.
davidmhoffer,
I always find it amusing that small minded folk will parrot misinformation without bothering to check it for accuracy, simply because it fits their schema.
The quote you said,
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3
is found in this interview
http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
In the article he is clearly talking about the methods of development and how modern industrialized countries used coal to get there, and that now developing countries cannot do that if we want to stay below 2 degrees C warming. Therefore, the reality of climate policy is not the simple deforestation/ozone hole policy, it is economic policy, development policy.
He believes that this will happen through some kind of international carbon credit programme.
Well, that DOESN’T mean that the ENTIRE theory of climate change (developed over 100 years ago) and the PHYSICAL SCIENCE of climate change (the work of hundreds of thousands of people with literally hundreds of millions of hours of effort amongst them) is some kind of CRAZY GLOBAL GOVERNMENT/RIGHT-WING/CONSPIRACY THEORY. . .
That is just the level of crazy going on around here. . .
J;
253K + 3.7w/m2 => +1.0 degrees
288K + 3.7w/m2 => +0.68 degrees
Feel free to show the math that proves my numbers are wrong. Go ahead, show me.
david,
when you said,
The point you continue to miss is that the IPCC calculations are based on 253K, NOT on 288K
That is exactly my point! The IPCC temperature is based on the ACTUAL measured incoming radiation and the fact that only half of the earth is warmed at any given time. The rest of the temperature is due to the non-blackbody reality of the earth-system. . .like I said before, if you put the earth, with no atmosphere, in the middle of an energy vacuum it would register 3K due to decay heat. Then, if you look at the real earth being warmed by the sun you realize that the earth is much warmer than the blackbody radiation coming into it.
That is because we know what the albedo of the earth is and what the incoming solar energy is.
we DON’T use the surface temperature to calculate the incoming energy like YOU try to do.
for examply. . .why don’t you do the same exercise with. . .say. . .Venus.
I will get you started. . .the average surface temperature of Venus is 733K
http://www.universetoday.com/14306/temperature-of-venus/
so, tell me, einstein. . .what is the incoming solar energy of venus. . .oh and don’t forget venus has an albedo of .75
http://www.universetoday.com/36833/albedo-of-venus/
so whatever amount of energy you get with your quacky steffan boltzmann law calc you have to multiply it by 4X to get the actual absorbed energy.
by the way and as an aside, this is the night when the entire western states have their own kind of fireworks. . .a huge complex of lightening storms are springing up from california north to utah and south to new mexico and arizona. Lots of fires tonight. 🙁
oops, meant to post the link http://www.weather.com/maps/activity/golf/uslightningstrikes_large.html
we DON’T use the surface temperature to calculate the incoming energy like YOU try to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m not trying to do anything. I’m explaining the definitions and calculations that the IPCC used in both AR3 and AR4. But if you are saying that what they did is wrong, then I have little choice but to agree with you.
@ur momisugly Chad — thanks.
Here’s some comic relief for everyone — AND it is an allegory [guess who plays Apprentice Mickey and who plays the Genius Sorcerer? LOL — at least Jai’s gibberish (and HOW!) elicits superb instruction for the rest of us from David Hoffer (and others)]
“The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” by Paul Abraham Dukas
…………… David Hoffer has gone upstairs to rest …….. aaand here comes JAI Mickey! #[:)]
so whatever amount of energy you get with your quacky steffan boltzmann law calc you have to multiply it by 4X to get the actual absorbed energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh my. You’re in so far over your head that you don’t know you are drowning.
average insolation at earth orbit ~ 1342 w/m2
accounting for day/night divide by 2 average is 671
accounting for curvature of earth divide by 2 is 335.5
acounting for albedo, multiple by 0.7 is 234.9 w/m2
Gives an effective black body temperature of 253.7 degrees K
How much does doubling of CO2 change the effective black body temperature of earth?
It changs the insolation by 0. It changes day/night by 0. It changes the curvature of the earth by 0. It changes the albedo by zero. So doubling of CO2 changes the effective black body temperature of earth by 0.
The average surface temperature of earth is 288K. The IPCC claim is that at that CO2 doubling increases energy flux by 3.7 w’m2 and that this increases temps by 1.0 degree. But they can’t be talking about the effective black body temperature of earth because that doesn’t change when CO2 doubles. So they must be talking about surface temperatures. But then they admit, I gave you the link, that changes in RF cannot be directly related to changes in SF. Since the number they quote, 3.7 w/m2 is only capable of raising temps from 288 to 288.6, we can conclude that they are referencing the effective black body temperature of earth despite admitting that this has nothing to do with surface temperatures. It just lets them quote a larger number on the flimsiest of excuses.
Normally I support contrarian views to enable debate and prevent WUWT becming an echo chamber. However, Jai Mitchell is wasting everyone’s time with his refusal to accept that he has made a bad mistake.
So Jai Mitchell – if you are so confident that you understand basic physics (and that davidmhoffer and the IPCC do not) will you please publicise this thread to all your customers or employer?
Such an achievement will assuredly take up your time in more worthy endeavours as people rush to you for your assistance.
Unless, of course, Messrs Stefan and Boltzmann are right. In which case you may have other calls on your time.
Jai Mitchell: The good news for us is that when people search for your name Jai, they will see your ludicrous statements here on the most visited science website in existence. They will then see your statements being debunked. They will see you for what you are.
So thank you Anthony, for allowing Jai to expose his ignorant rants where he’s free to let everyone know just how misinformed and unwilling he is to to apply science to his statements. He repeats political propaganda and fails at every single response to make a valid point.
Last decade the warmest
JOHN HEILPRIN
Last updated 12:58 04/07/2013
Share
Global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries’ temperature records than ever before in the first decade of the new millennium, UN climate experts have said.
A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organisation said Wednesday (NZT Thursday) average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average.
The decade ending in 2010 was an unprecedented era of climate extremes, the agency said, evidenced by heat waves in Europe and Russia, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, and huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina.
Data from 139 nations show that droughts like those in Australia, East Africa and the Amazon Basin affected the most people worldwide.
But it was the hugely destructive and deadly floods such as those in Pakistan, Australia, Africa, India and Eastern Europe that were the most frequent extreme weather events.
Experts said a decade was about the minimum length of time to study when it came to spotting climate change.
From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 per cent degrees Celsius per decade.
The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.
Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterised by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which came from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions.
Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said the data didn’t support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years.
“The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin,” he said.
“If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration.”
Jarraud said the data showed warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
By the end of 2010, the report showed, atmospheric concentrations of some of the chief warming gases from fossil fuel burning and other human actions were far higher than at the start of the industrial era in 1750.
Ad Feedback
Carbon dioxide concentrations measured in the air around the world rose 39 per cent since then; methane rose 158 per cent; and nitrous oxide was up 20 per cent.
– AP
The above article appeared in a New Zealand newspaper this evening
The temperature record doesn’t extend back to 1880 in a meaningful way for simple lack of relevant area coverage, so any claims of “on record” are by default bogus. You can make such a claim for individual stations, if they haven’t changed (and which have not?) but not on a global or continental scale and most often not even a regional one. So in the end “highest/lowest temperature on record in the continental US” or some such is just meaningless noise unless you qualify it with the level of coverage and measurement quality. But that of course doesn’t catch any headlines, because it is too much science.
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
Pity all those deaths didn’t include some of you retards, but that would have been too much like karma, one day though you won’t be able to deny any longer. Then, the new generation whose future you squandered will come looking for you, they will want to make the guilty ones who not only did nothing despite all the evidence, but who delayed vital action because it cost too much and would have impinged your selfish, greedy lifestyles. They won’t be pleasant about it. Cult ringleaders will get no mercy…
[Language above left only to show why this poster has made his last comment. ~mod.]
Wow – don’t usually get to actually LAUGH OUT LOUD, but… yeah… go ahead with that “quacky steffi graff tennis law” there, DMHoffer – but I still think the 2nd most obtuse poster on WUWT will continue to miss, well, everything!
jai – you really truly have no idea how stupid you sound. Really. Otherwise I’m pretty sure you’d have stopped posting already.
The problem with the theory of Karma is that, if true, there is no possibility of redemption if you make mistakes.So negative thoughts send negative Karma back onto the perpetrator.A sort of closed circuit.
I hope Peter the Printer is mindful of this.