Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
SEE UPDATE 1 AT END OF POST: I’ve provided a link to the slides from the teleconference and updated monthly and annual graphs.
# # #
On January 15th, NOAA Communications notified the media Wednesday: NOAA, NASA to announce official analyses of 2015 global temperature, climate conditions.
| WHAT: | NOAA, NASA media teleconference call announcing 2015 global climate analyses – brief summary remarks – questions and answers |
| WHEN: | Wednesday, January 20, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (U.S.) |
| WHO: | Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, N.C. and chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Global Change Research Program
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y. |
See the NOAA webpage for links to the live audio, etc.
We already know NOAA and GISS will tell us that their much-adjusted surface temperature data showed record highs in 2015. We discussed and illustrated this in the recent post Meteorological Year (December to November) Global Temperature Product Comparison through 2015. There may be some minor differences, but the calendar year results won’t be noticeably different than the meteorological year data shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015, as we presented in the post Annual Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Update – Distant Third Warmest for 2015. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
And just in case you missed it, because GISS and NOAA both use NOAA’s ERSST.v4 “pause buster” sea surface temperature data, today I also published The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts.
I’ll update this post today as GISS and NOAA release their data and slides. So stop back regularly.
UPDATE 1:
The GISS LOTI data rose 0.07 deg C in December, 2015.
Figure 3
Not to be outdone, the NOAA NCEI data jumped a whopping 0.15 deg C last month.
Figure 4
Figure 5 is a comparison of the annual GISS LOTI and NCEI data, referenced to the base years of 1981-2010. The upticks in 2015 are listed on the illustration.
Figure 5
The NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2015 is here in .pdf form.
I’ll provide a full update for December, 2015 in a few days
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You mean they will all lie AGAIN??? Will wonders never cease in this Age of Miracles!
On the other hand, if they announced this last month, they would have been applauded. But this month in New York has been very, very cold and we are facing a blizzard this weekend. People who thought we are warming up are switching to thinking another Ice Age is here.
Oh, by the way, NYC is considered the Center of the Universe mainly by our media giants who feed us information. So if they are freezing cold, the entire planet is cold unless they run off to the Bahamas, etc. every weekend in private jets which they love doing as our President is so fond of doing, too.
Hey – but they still have those “New York values” they can cling to ..
Clinging to their New York Values and cell phones?
One thing is certain though, We all know that these current temperature values aren’t correct (no more so than the temperatures were correct last year) and will be subjected to further data rape in the future.
Like Bill Clinton ad his friend who jet off to the island of lost boys.
Y’all talking bout that Heat-island NYC?
emsnews January 20, 2016 at 9:22 am
One word. Buffalo.
michael
Are Gavin Schmidt
and Michael Mann
related
Brian,
It’s like in a marriage, if you live together and do a lot of things together, both partner’s appearance will get more and more similar…
Actually for most of this month NYC has been significantly above average, it has not been ‘very, very cold’! Yes a Nor’easter is forecast for the weekend with the first significant snow fall of the year, not surprising for the second half of January (the coldest month of the year). What was surprising was over 70ºF record temperatures over Christmas! Last January we had lows below 25ºF on 11 days (lowest 8º), this year on 6 days (lowest 11º).
Elaine (for which ’ems’ stands for in part) can be a little ‘loose’ with the facts …
Note to people who cannot read, I mentioned that NY STATE is cold as hell. Below zero at night. I live upstate. DUH.
BTW, NYC is on the ocean and thus has a different climate mode whereas 90% of the rest of the state which also borders on Canada and Vermont, have a much more severe winter climate and more snow. This is why all the ski resorts in NY are upstate where I live like Jimminy Peak, for example.
Duzz ” we ” translate as NYC ??
g
Reading comprehension time: one poster remarked that it is sort of warm in NYC and I explained patiently that 90% of the state is not in the southern corner on the ocean but rather the opposite, next to Canada.
What is saddest here is why anyone is attacking me for saying the obvious. I strongly suspect that right wing political posters here have this desire to attack anyone in the middle who happens to disagree with the occasional discussions about politics here.
There are a lot of right wingers at this site. And won’t win many arguments if they mindlessly attack anyone who is even in the middle, much less, left side. I, after all, have since day one, talked about how the global warming business is senseless and I keep pointing out that our main danger remains Ice Age conditions in the probable future.
Thought provoking comment.
The PERCEPTION (and I have means to verify it) is correct. If the skeptics momentum is to quicken they’ll have to adjust this pov.
Sorry … I meant to say NO means to verify.
Elaine – making ‘friends’ and influencing people, one “right wing” website at a time. Elaine, are you a Bernie Sanders-class socialist … or worse? One is prone to properly conclude you are decidedly ‘leftist’ given your tack above … only making an observation here …
So I guess we can deduce/speculate/postdict/wag/whatever, that in 2015 the Antarctic highlands very likely (>50.1%) did not ever go below -93.5 deg C (179.66 K); because of the CAMMGWCC that threatened the survival of life on earth.
Those scientists that are entrapped with all that ice at Vostok Station should be airlifted to safety, before the whole place falls into the lake.
Yeah ! Russians are people too.
G
PS Just where would life be safe these days ??
The satellite data are more erratic than the ground temperatures, but the trends from 1978-2015 in Figure 1 and Figure 2 look very similar. Am I missing something?
I think you’ll find my article I just published: https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/48-inconvenient-truth-nytimes-lies-2015-wasnt-the-hottest-year-on-record/
and my reference article: https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/failures-of-global-warming-models-and-climate-scientists/
Interesting. The claims by Hansen and Mann finally put to rest the fact of the tampering with the historical record they have done.
Thanks L3.
Good stuff. Well written.
Saved for future reference.
Since you have such a deep interest I wonder if you know of an approved quality assurance project plan that uses agreed upon temperature adjustments methods … specifically published by NOAA and NASA. I haven’t been able to locate such and of course it piques my curiosity.
I think trying to adjust thermometers is a losing proposition. There are so many problems and lack of metadata is huge. The distribution of them is terrible. It wouldn’t take that much money to rectify the situation but the historical record is what it is. Without metadata it is hard to know the answers to lots of questions. Why would we spend the effort anyway when the satellites are 1000 times better more redundant and verified by radiosondes. Hansen would like to focus on surface temperature but it is not clear to me why it should be different or why it is better to have that. It is a meaningless number. The surface of the ocean 1 meter above the ocean is meaningless. Nothing lives there. If the idea is to know how temperature change affects living things then it is the sea surface temperature or the temperatures of the entire ocean that is of importance where life lives just as above ground is where trees and humans and animals live. So giss throwing out sst and extrapolating 1m air temperature is pointless. If we are looking got energy balance then we should be using the broad volumetric satellite measurements.
I don’t know but perhaps:
1. Because however inaccurate compared to satellites it continues a centuries long traditional method ?
2. Minimizes the error of comparing data from different methods ?
3. Is spuriously chosen to support ones case ?
I can see your point though.
One of the arguments that believers ascribe to is that there is NOT a borglike allegiance among scientists to corrupt/bend their data and it is the skeptic who is overeaching.
I think it may be that the acceptable procedures for data adjustment are not well defined and this allows multiple variations of what is acceptable.
I’ll keep searching around. There’s bound to be an approved procedure for such adjustments.
Knutsea, the thermostats are missing a lot of metadata which makes it hard to adjust them. I don’t believe there could be any standard ways. There is for instance consensus around time of observation. Even that is quite controversial. The biggest issue arises around when a station reports data that is different than is expected. This happens remarkably often. In fact it seems maybe 50-70% of the data faces this issue. This seems unbelievable but apparently so many devices are reporting bad values they have to be adjusted. That seems bizarre. Anyway they look to surrounding thermostats to “homogenize” the temperature. Sometimes these close by thermostats are 1-2 thousand km away !! You may know that stations as far as 100 feet away can report 2 degree variations due to microclimate differences. I think the whole network needs to be trashed and a new network of similar devices measured in a laboratory to produce similar results with redundant thermostats at least 3 so they can vote. Completely automated with their own independent power supply, gps and cameras so they can observe tampering or damage of movement. We built such a network for the oceans with ARGO. We have such a network with satellites. However if you want to use land records I think the only solution is this kind of solution. I am surprised we haven’t already done this. Why are we living with such ridiculous stupid antiquated stuff. They have to be deployed in a uniform manner around the globe regardless of population centers. Trying to “fix” the data is hopeless. All you can do is to make the data seem better but in fact any adjustments will increase the uncertainty as each adjustment has its own error. There is also the issue of overlapping adjustments. 5 adjustments are applied. Do these create duplicity? Also there should be a rule that any adjustment which changes the record needs to be backed up with forensic data that validates the adjustment is valid. Maybe not on every case but I don’t believe they ever check to see if the adjustment actually is justified. If you compute that a station is reporting temperatures a degree too cold then someone needs to go out there and see the thermostat, calibrate it against known reference. Determine if a move of the device has actually occurred. They assume when there differences that the station was moved and apply an adjustment on the assumption it must have been moved. Can someone please go and check if that actually happened? For past data they throw out vast amounts of data once they don’t like data from a unit. Is that really necessary?
L3
Pretty much in agreement.
Satellites are far more reliable and verified but its not what is being used by the people in authority.
Meanwhile back in land based temperature land ole Dr Spencer recently voiced his frustration and evidently had to do it through Homewood’s site. His site was under attack. Swarmy behavoir. I hope Dr Spencer is grooming a protege. His work is good work.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/roy-spencer-on-that-2015-record-warmest-claim/
I’ve been rooting out sources for approved methods for land temperature adjustments and as you image they are pretty much left to the professional judgements of the reviewers. Holms gave a couple of links upthread. It’s a situation ripe for bias and warrants an independent and transparent review. Demanding such review is warranted since the taxpayer has paid for the collection of that data. Raw data is public record.
This is all a little suspicious to me because congress has the power to request this information and has the resources to ferret out the poor quality controls that are being used to make multi billion dollar policy decisions.
The question becomes … why are they not more aggressive in doing so ?
They were hot on the trail but have slacked off. The answer I’ve been given the most is that the GOP doesn’t want to make a big deal over a low voter interest issue in a Presidential election year. Actually makes sense.
Meanwhile science is dying under a corrupt peer review process that quells actual real science while promoting dogma. It’s a broken system and it will need some creative thinking to resurface as a credible means of promoting excellence in the scientific method.
I could not agree more. My biggest concern from the beginning of the climate debate was the science was poor. Things were being said without the evidence. Hansen and folks made it almost a religious crusade. The idea was if there is any chance they are right then the consequences would be so severe we need to lie and cover up so we can get our mission to save the world from itself. The same logic seems to apply to a lot of environmental research. The idea is to come out with scary prognosis whether justified by any real science or not based on the idea that tampering with nature is inherently bad and if they don’t have the science to back it up lets just pretend we do. I am as much of an environmentalist as anyone but I am evidence based not religious about it. I also feel no matter what science can’t be compromised. I guess I am more that science is my religion rather than the environment. I get that fossil fuels are dirty and kill. Producing them has many negative consequences environmentally and politically. I am fine with some level of effort to move away from fossil fuels but not because of global warming. We don’t need to wait till 2100 to see the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels. Millions die every year from the byproducts of every phase of fossil fuel usage. Far more than will ever be affected in any way by global warming 100 years from now. We don’t need to corrupt our science to come up with reasons to switch from fossil fuels.
It’s clear to me there is a lot of really bad stuff going on with this “science”. It is clear to me that there is zero chance these adjustments are valid. I don’t see how anyone cannot see that. 4 different ways we have of validating the satellite record and the damning evidence that when you remove the adjustments the raw data looks like the satellite data shows clearly the adjustments are tampering with reality. Looking historically the adjustments make the 30s and 40s look like cool times when they were NOT. It is obvious the MWP and LIA were not regional and literally dozens of papers confirm this. How they could be regional seemed unbelievable to start with. How could regions of the earth be warmer of cooler by degrees for hundreds of years? What mechanics could do that? That’s harder to explain than global warming. How could they assume the ocean was static? Why do they keep insisting it’s all settled and anyone who has an idea whose consequence might be that temperatures would not go up 3 degrees in 2 weeks then they were called antiscience and ejected from their tenured positions and fired or threatened with lawsuits and RICO statutes. It’s crazy. Every paper always has the required sentence something along the lines : “while this paper might suggest the impact of the amount of warming might not be as bad we aren’t saying that. We believe that global warming is catastrophic. Please publish our paper.” Reading those caveats always gives me the heebeegeebies like we are in a 1984 novel. I fear for science and where it is going.
The timing is interesting, as the east coast may soon be buried in 20 inches of snow. That aside, I do regard all these arguments on “the temperature” to be a distraction. I am supposed to accept the premise that higher temperature caused by rising CO2 in the atmosphere is “bad” and that “it must be addressed”. I reject that premise, and for that reason, I’m jaded when I see a big media event about “the temperature”.
They’re having their day in the heat of the son,
‘Til this baby boy dies and his new sister comes.
When the ice caps have grown
They’ll panic and moan:
“Just look at what mankind has done!”
They simply have no shame. There is not one honest person working at NOAA or GISS as far as I can tell.
~Mark
“There is not one honest person working at NOAA or GISS as far as I can tell”
You just can’t tell, you’re only exposed to a few individuals. When working at a large corporation everyone follows what management says. Over a beer, you’d likely get the real story from the underlings.
Perhaps if Lamar Smith had taken Tom Karl out for a beer then he would have willingly handed over the emails that Smiths’s committee subpoenaed. Then again, perhaps not.
No. They are ALL complicit. Ok, maybe the secretaries and the executive custodians are innocently ignorant, but everyone else is a knowing and willing partner in deception.
In the USA, if a person is part of a criminal gang he is guilty of the crimes they pull. As an example; the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery is guilty of murder if there is a murder inside the bank during the robbery even though he was outside and did not pull the trigger. Even worse, the heist planner who did not even go with the gang to the bank is also guilty of murder. (as explained to me and a class by a defense lawyer in our town)
For this reason, all at NASA are guilty of the great temperature con job.
Mark: When it comes to GISS and NOAA, all I can think about is how, no matter the differences they have, they always GISS and make up.
It’s not just Government. i worked for a big defense contractor. It was not unusual for upper management to flip the results of engineering studies. When engineering protested, they were told to stand down and shut up – and consider looking for a position elsewhere. (Frequently, there would be large talent transfers at that point to other projects.) Management was just trying to satisfy our Government customer. It always amused us (engineers, lower management) when the government screwed us over anyway!
But the ‘official’ study results stood – as re-labeled by upper management. Big, fat, official lies.
This obviously can’t be true. It’s not just NOAA and GISS, either, for this to be lies you need the entire international climatological scientific establishment to be dishonest, including PhD students and post-docs without long-term loyalty commitments, as well as consultants like mathematicians and computer experts whose paychecks aren’t tied to climate research. I’m employed in the latter category in Sweden and personally know both young and established Swedish climatologists and geologists.
I just don’t see how dishonesty can even be a factor, scientists *love* nothing more than poking holes in each others’ papers. The climate and weather guys that I know are exactly like the cancer researchers and materials scientists with whom they share the computer systems I help manage.
Marcus,
It has been known for eons that men will follow the group-think if their well being (grants, jobs, prestige) depend on following the party line. I am surprised you know so little about human nature.
By the way, I have seen the proof of these
liars“scientists” changing the past on a continuing basis. The GD 1930s can not be changing daily for God’s sake. Why is the past continually being “adjusted”?????Note: I just used the 1930s as an example, the whole past is continually being “adjusted” to meet the needs of the latest lie.
Markstoval, if you think that 99% of the scientists in any discipline would rather toe the line and follow the group than point out a glaring flaw in someone’s method or results, then you know very little about the sort of people attracted to science. Climate scientists are a very heterogenous group of people in many different disciplines, they are not more susceptible to group-think than any other group of scientists.
“Changing the past” isn’t something bad, it’s something they should be doing. The raw data has all sorts of inherent problems which need to be addressed somehow. The data comes from unevenly arranged sources with unknown biases, and teasing out the truth from it is a necessarily complex task. Wouldn’t you rather they improved their methods of dealing with bad data instead of sticking with an older, inferior method?
In a transparent spirit, I would like to see their approved methods and the process with which they arrived at those methods.
If you have a link to that please share.
A link for the Hadcrut4 dataset: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq3
GISS has the following page: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
Couldn’t find a good page on the NOAA website, but there are references in the released data.
This probably isn’t enough to make you happy, but like I said above, it’s a complex problem. You wouldn’t expect to have a good time figuring out how physics data from the LHC is analysed, and this is analogous.
Thanks Marcus.
I had to laugh out loud concerning happiness. The establishment of facts that require action is a serious business esp concerning billions of people. I relegate terms like happiness to food, sex and heartfelt emotions.
I read the 2 links. My first impression is that given all the adjustments and conditions for adjustments, it is highly unlikely that “experts” can summon a united call to action unless those “experts” can subject themselves to a credible independent review.
Peer review is a broken process. There are many examples of its failure esp in the public health sciences. In order for CAGW to ameliorate the growing status of its skeptics, it will have to subject itself to a higher level of methods review, replication of data and experimental design.
It can also choose to not do so, but it running out of time. The public senses something is wrong and the global economies are beginning to shift into a deflationary cycle. CAGW is missing the window of opportunity as serious doubt continues to linger.
Marcus,
You wrote: “Markstoval, if you think that 99% of the scientists in any discipline would rather toe the line and follow the group than point out a glaring flaw in someone’s method or results, then you know very little about the sort of people attracted to science.”
Obviously you know nothing about human nature or the sorts of cowards who become “scientists” these days. The “scientist” will not go against dogma in any meaningful way or else his whole world is at risk, and scientists rarely risk all. There are not a lot of Tim Ball types in science — especially now that the government funds all of science directly or indirectly. Notice that almost all of the skeptical scientists are retired or towards the end of their careers. That is not a coincidence.
Great, now you’ve called my friends and colleagues cowards as well as liars, claiming you know them better than I. You’ve convinced me!
“Notice that almost all of the skeptical scientists are retired or towards the end of their careers. That is not a coincidence.”
Yeah, they’ve lost their edge or need the petroleum dollars to extend their meagre academic pensions. A young scientist would *make* their career if they constructed a climate model that didn’t include AGW. To succeed where others have failed is pure gold and to fail where others have failed is no risk at all. Contrary to what you claim, a young scientist has everything to win and nothing to lose by trying to overthrow the dogma, and you are dead wrong if you think that today’s scientists are cowards.
Lastly, if you think that government funding somehow drives scientists to be more biased than any other funding source, you’re also wrong. At least in Sweden, where I know the processes for our version of the NSF.
…you are dead wrong if you think that today’s scientists are cowards.
Well, I’m still alive and today’s scientists are cowards. I’ve said that before.
There are exceptions. But most scientists know that the AGW scare is nonsense, but they keep quiet about it.
Not a single alarming prediction has ever happened. Not one. When one side of the debate has been consistently and completly wrong, what does that tell you about them?
Climate alarmism is an emotional issue. But looked at objectively, it’s bogus. There’s nothing unusual or unnatural happening. The story of Chicken Little comes to mind: the sky isn’t falling. It was just a little acorn.
The climate scare isn’t even an acorn. The whole thing is preposterous to rational folks.
All men are afraid of something.
I would like to believe that is true. I think eventually the truth will come out. I have never met anyone who isn’t part of this “cabal” i.e. Someone who gets paid to believe this crap who will say that they believe it and can back it up with any actual knowledge of the subject. Everytime I bring the subject up with someone intelligent they almost all are clueless. They spout the “common belief” as if they just practiced the lines from their Sunday preacher. I’ve never been able to have an honest scientific debate about any of these points.
I took a class at Stanford on global warming. The 2 professors teaching it never tried to prove there was any significant warming going to happen nor did they make any conclusions about catastrophic results. They knew they couldn’t defend those points. They brought in the head of LLNL climate modeling group who presented the models. He said the models were crap repeatedly. When the class looked stunned he repeated and said yes the models are crap. They are almost completely without any real effectiveness in predicting anything over almost any time frame. Nevertheless he repeated the same crap about the mwp and Lia were regional. When I asked how that was possible he shrugged his shoulders. When I asked about pdo amo cycles he said they stopped. The models don’t show them. It will stop. On the one hand I was blown away by how honest he was but on the other he still believed in these indefensible positions and could offer no scientific basis for his beliefs. I believe it’s because the mwp and Lia put the science in question so they must be regional. The amo and PDO can’t be modeled so since I can’t put them in the model they don’t exist. Nonetheless my point is that I had to go to the head of the climate modeling group to ask my questions and they were clueless. If I talk to my liberal friends who are all smart with degrees in sciences they haven’t looked into it. No interest or just willing to believe that the liberal scientists must be good people who have done it right. I don’t need to actually understand this at all. I got the impression they actually didn’t care about global warming really which is astounding because this is something that is supposedly going to practically destroy the earth and half the species. You’d think they would be interested in the science. I wonder if subconsciously they worry it is a bunch of crap and don’t want to have to face that.
The fact is I have never met a smart person who believes this stuff who can explain any of the points I bring up. This is opposite of what happens in every other science. If I say something stupid in physics to my physics professor he has an answer and is completely upfront about what we know or don’t know. There is no defensiveness or shut up you imbecile. If they spout a belief in something they are clear that it is their belief and is not proven. They never say things are settled.
The point is that for some reason there is a loud silence about the papers. They never admit being wrong. There is a protectiveness that is weird.
The adjustments are on the face of them defensible. They worked on that a lot. Many people have pointed out they clearly introduce a warming into the record that is significant. That’s doesn’t bother them because they need the warning for the models to be at all plausible at this point. They need to be able to scream it was the warmest year ever hoping that most people have no knowledge of the 1930s or 1940s and no memory of 1998 and don’t bother to look at how the record continues with each amazing iteration of adjustments look more and more like a perfect linear curve upward matching co2 to within 1% regardless of what satellites ocean buoys radiosondes or even common sense say. There are all these articles that show that the adjustments are making many station records into a joke. stations which have reported perfectly are situated perfectly and show a flat or declining trend in temperature for 50 years or more suddenly after adjustment show up to 2c change upwards. It’s shocking how blatant it is and yet that doesn’t bother your friends? I have simply asked. If you adjust a station significantly can we have some forensics to see if the station is wrong. Somebody go out there see if it was moved. Calibrate it against reference. At least some of them. This is all done abstractly as if it were even remotely possible that stations would show the results they posit. How could a station have a systematically growing error over 50 years? I’ve never heard of thermostats doing that. So many other points could be made but that would be a starting point. Can someone validate these adjustments have any reality in fact that can be shown to be something that actually happened.
logic,
The question implied in your last sentence is answered here:
http://www.surfacestations.org
LogicLogicLogic, you wrote a long post and I only have time to respond to some of it.
Regional MWP+LIA: I thought it pretty well established that something was happening with the currents in the North Atlantic, with other effects (both heating and cooling as well as other aspects) happening elsewhere.
Shortcomings of the models: My field is scientific computing. As a PhD student, when I learned that the “state of the art” meteorological models used for weather prediction in both the US and Europe (which form the basis of… I forget which *big* climate simulation) don’t even have the basic property of energy conservation and unphysically spiral out of control after just a couple of weeks, I was appalled. From a numerical analysis standpoint, the methods used are embarrassing and lack the theoretical support that I’d expected. I would never send a probe to the moon using an integrator that didn’t conserve energy, and I sure as hell didn’t want to guide the future industrial activity of humankind on a shoddy algorithm either. So I did the obvious thing and asked quite bluntly (to the guy responsible for Swedish weather and climate simulation), so how can you even use this code if you know it doesn’t behave? I’ve forgotten the details, but I received a convincing answer, the gist of which is that they had a “fix” which they’d been able to test against other, less developed but theoretically well-supported codes. Theory, it turns out, wasn’t everything, which is a lesson I’ve since seen confirmed in a variety of computational sciences. So yes, the models are crap theoretically and the models lack the resolution for modelling some important phenomena explicitly, but that doesn’t mean that they’re good enough. From what I’ve seen and heard, I think they are.
“The fact is I have never met a smart person who believes this stuff who can explain any of the points I bring up. This is opposite of what happens in every other science.”
As I illustrated above, this doesn’t match my experience. I think one issue is that climate science is so big, complex, and multidisciplinary that hardly anyone has all the answers. Since I primarily deal with the people who do the simulations, which are usually PhD students and other junior staff, I often get “I don’t know” when I ask a question that strays too far from the bit that they do know. The computer stuff they do seems to make sense, and my experiences with these people contradicts the talk about lies, fraud, and groupthink. To me the skeptics seem far more unscientific.
Marcus,
You wrote: “Great, now you’ve called my friends and colleagues cowards as well as liars, claiming you know them better than I. You’ve convinced me!”
I doubt seriously that one such as you could ever see what a bunch of cowards and liars the so-called “climate scientists” are. The CO2 controls climate speculation has failed over and over and over yet we hear nothing from your “colleges”. You think that people keeping their mouth shut about the truth is not cowardice. It is just like your crowd to redefine English words to try to keep the delusion going.
Call me when scientists across the spectrum defy their Universities, professional organizations, employers, grant funding bureaus, and so forth to denounce the alarmism and attempted destruction of our industrial society.
Markstoval, you said “scientists across the spectrum defy their Universities, professional organizations, employers, grant funding bureaus”
Scientists *are* the universities, professional organisations, employers, and grant funders. Who decides who to employ for a research project? A senior scientist does. Who reads grant proposals? Scientists do.
You’re literally asking for scientists as a group to defy themselves.
Marcus Holm,
You mention your field being computational modeling. One of the things I know the LLNL climate head told our class was that the models produced ridiculous values like +1000C or -200C if you let them run so they had to put in dampening and “fixes.” to prevent these ridiculous numbers and so the result looked like plausible results.
I also read an article recently from a computational modeler who examined the models and said there was obvious evidence of overdampening which is indicative that the models are seriously flawed. As a math and computer science graduate my belief in models which put in unphysical coding that would dampen the results would be zero.
I wonder if they’ll start a public assault on satellite temperatures today. Probably not, no point in drawing attention to something the media is mostly ignoring.
Readers, please bring it up in response to media coverage of the Tom and Gavin show.
Seth Borenstein at AP ran an article where satellite data is mentioned.
Earth’s temperature depends on where you put thermometer
“The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the Japanese and British meteorological agencies and the World Meteorological Organization all use ground data. It’s a matter of better accuracy and relevance, scientists say.”
As is pretty obvious, they are going to try and attack the satellite data.
They’ll have to attack the radiosonde data and the sea surface data and they will ha e to explain the amazing coincidence that when you remove the adjustments the data looks remarkably like the satellite data. Isn’t that strange? You’d think if these adjustments have to do with technology and some problems with siting or whatever that removing the adjustments would produce either something very similar with pluses matching negatives overall or maybe some scattered Unrecognizable curve. Instead you remove the “adjustments” and suddenly 1998 pops out as the hottest year like the satellites say. The 1930s and 1940s are hot again.
I did a simple computer model myself of temperature. I used a number of very simple techniques to arrive at what I thought was a reasonable way to estimate the effects of soot, solar, co2 and pdo/amo cycle. I was astonished to see that I could make a model with produced an almost perfect match to the historical record. Unfortunately that was the unadjusted historical record. When I put the adjustments in the model doesn’t converge with any values for forcing. Sometimes the model is going in the opposite direction of history. Sure my model could be wrong. Almost certainly is however what was shocking was how the adjustments made the data nonsensible. Maybe this is part of the problem they are having. They have so f*d up the data that now nothing fits the data. Anyway interestingly my model showed tcs=1.2 (higher than I have guessed) and PDO wavelength = 60 years and forcing = +-0.23C. The result is astonishing. I can model the unadjusted data to produce an almost perfect match. Solar comes in at about +0.11C peak in later part of 20th century and soot decreases by almost nothing.
I hope for their sakes these guys have their statistical ducks in a row because if The Donald strolls into the oval office I suspect there will be interesting times. I wouldn’t want to be shown to have fiddled climate data on which the US spent $billions…
“I wouldn’t want to be shown to have fiddled climate data on which the US spent $billions…” And the rest of the world! They might get arrested for fraud? (Hopefully!)
Regrettably, it is doubtful that the combined global facilities for incarceration would provide the required accommodate, even with enthusiastic overcrowding?
I can assure you these guys have their ducks in a row.
Mildred !! ( re commercial on tv ) (8>))
Their ducks are in a row only as long as we let them get away with denying first principles physics. Otherwise, the house of cards called ‘consensus climate science’ collapses. The longer the bogus science is propped up by the likes of Schmidt and Karl, the harder the crash will be and the more politically damaging it will become. The simple fact is that false truths are not sustainable in the scientific domain.
If we consider an ideal black or gray body planet whose average temperature and input power are equivalent to Earth, the sensitivity is precisely calculated as the slope of the SB relationship and is bound to between 0.2 and 0.3 C per W/m^2. There’s no possible physics that can inflate the sensitivity of a gray body (a non ideal black body) by the factor of 3 to 4 required to support the insanely high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC and its self serving consensus, especially since the externally measured LTE behavior of the planet is indistinguishable from that of an ideal gray body model of the planet whose temperature is the average temperature of the surface and whose emissivity is approximately 0.62 (planet emissions / surface emissions).
Furthermore, the T^4 relationship between power density and temperature dictates that the incremental sensitivity must be less than the average sensitivity, which for the LTE Earth is measured to be about 0.3C per W/m^2 where this absolute upper bound on the sensitivity is less than the lower bound suggested by the IPCC.
CO2is not evil says:
“Their ducks are in a row only as long as we let them get away with denying first principles physics.”
and
“There’s no possible physics that can inflate the sensitivity of a gray body (a non ideal black body) by the factor of 3 to 4 required to support the insanely high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC and its self serving consensus, especially since the externally measured LTE behavior of the planet is indistinguishable from that of an ideal gray body model of the planet whose temperature is the average temperature of the surface and whose emissivity is approximately 0.62 (planet emissions / surface emissions).”
“gray body (a non ideal black body)” and later in the same sentence, “ideal gray body model”.
What is an ideal, non ideal black body?
Simplicity and clarity are principles of any logic.
I’d say the chances of that happening are about as likely at the much promised solar driven global cooling happening. Zilch
Hillary stands a very good chance of being indicted. Trump is way ahead in almost every poll. Who will stop him…Bernie?
Love it or hate it, it is looking more and more like Trump may well be our next President. But a Cruz or Rubio win may have the same result, as far as these crooks are concerned. Fraud and malfeasance are serious crimes when billions of dollars are at stake.
Whether Trump gets his feet under the table or not, I sure hope global cooling doesn’t arrive. With any luck, the currently stalled warming will start up again and we’ll approach a much warmer and nicer world.
However, if the unwelcome cooling did happen to occur, solar driven or not, your blanket pronouncement of “zilch” would look rather foolish. Mind you, even if the Sahara was under 6 foot of snow Gavin and the gang would still keep adjusting the record upwards and scream, “warmest evaaaah!”
Yep. I am constantly amazed their basic premise, that warming is bad, goes so unquestioned. People, plants and animals generally like and do better in warm climates. Add the benefits of increased CO2 to plants, and it’s win win. Not to mention the higher standard of living from cheap fossil fuels, especially coal. Win win win. Mountaintop removal provides valuable level land in unglaciated KY and WW too. Win win win win. Finally, the current interglacial is overdue to end. Win win win win win.
The odds against somebody winning the $1.6B Powerball Lottery were 1:292 million; same as the odds of winning the following $40M “peanuts” drawing.
Yet somebody did win it; three people in fact.
So I guess it isn’t all that unlikely after all. Well unless you don’t buy a ticket, in which case the odds of winning are in fact “zilch”.
G
Statistics tells you nothing about something that may only happen once.
It may happen or it may not happen; and nobody knows which.
So what are the odds of spending $292M and buying every possible combination then realizing you missed 1 possible combination and having that combo be the winning numbers?
Just like the solar driven warming? That didn’t occur either did it?
I wish it would rain, and rain heavily, on this parade of lies.
I’d rather have it snow on their parade. Oh – check out the eastern seaboard forecast for Saturday. NYC and DC may get clobbered. Yay. And miss me. Boo. (However, if I’m going to miss a storm, I’m quite content to let DC have it.)
I just wish that the long-awaited El Nino rains would arrive in SoCal.
Southern California is a desert. For some reason, people who came there for the sun are surprised that this means little rain.
I downloaded Environment Canada daily data back to 1900 for a number of stations. The numbers for Ottawa, in Ontario, shows that the average of the mean temps has been going up. However, summer TMax has been dropping. That means summers have become LESS hot. The number of days above 30C has dropped. Winter TMin, the coldest it gets in winter, has been getting less cold. The growing season has also increased by some 30 days.
So what has happened in the last 115 years is that the 1920-1930 era had short hot summers, with long deep cold winters. That has slowly changed to milder winters, with longer more moderated summer temps, and more time to grow crops.
And this is supposed to be bad, trending to a catastrophic future?
Good point well made.
If you ever want to wind up a warmist, the best answer to give them when they scream at you about a warming world is to reply, “Good. Long may it continue”. They really have no answer to that apart from screaming even more about imminent Thermageddon. Then you laugh at them and then their head explodes. It works every time.
They actually are wishing for your head to explode, hence the horrible commercial we’ve all seen.
Richard Wakefield
I too looked at the Canadian data but for the last 18 years when things began to change.
Canada like US has been mostly cooling since 1998. NORTH AMERICA has been cooling.
REGIONAL PATTERN FOR ANNUAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES or DEPARTURES FROM 1961-1990 AVERAGES TREND SINCE 1998
• ATLANTIC CANADA – FLAT
• GREAT LAKES & ST LAWRENCE -DECLINING
• NORTHEASTERN FOREST –DECLINING
• NORTHWESTERN FOREST –DECLINING
• PRAIRIES – DECLINING
• SOUTH BC MOUNTAINS – DECLINING
• PACIFIC COAST- RISING ( RISING DUE TO EXTRA WARM NORTH PACIFIC LAST FEW YEARS)
• YUKON/NORTH BC MOUNTAINS – DECLINING
• MACKENZIE DISTRICT- DECLINING
• ARCTIC TUNDRA-RISING ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010
• ARCTIC MOUNTAINS & FIORDS -RISING ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010)
TOTAL ANNUAL CANADA – DECLINING
SEASONAL PATTERN FOR CANADA AS A WHOLE SINCE 1998
Winter trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Spring trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Summer trend RISE IN TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES
Fall trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
All Canadian temperature data comes from the Environment Canada web page
“All Canadian temperature data comes from the Environment Canada web page”
Is this data ‘adjusted’ in any way prior to placement on EC’s website?
From EC’s website;
“Data collection, processing, quality control checks and procedures have evolved and changed over the years since the earliest data was observed in 1840. Changes have been particular rapid in recent years. For example, the advent of automatic weather observing stations established a new set of challenges for quality control.
The vast majority of observational data is accurate but the database contains some incorrect values, which show up from time to time. Environment Canada continues to review quality control procedures, both as current data is observed and incorporated into the database, and retrospectively for historical data. Be aware that data can be erroneous and that some values may change over time as quality control procedures identify and deal with doubtful data.”
Richard Wakefield
You said that Canadian winters have slowly trended to milder winters since 1900. This may be true when comparing the 1920-1930 era with today, but perhaps you should have noted that since 1998 the trend of winter temperatures is actually getting colder as you are probably aware. There are regional differences but on a national level the winters are trending cooler not milder for the last two decades .
The past 2014/15 winter set new cold temperature records across most of eastern Canada. February temperatures were the lowest since 1889 or 126 years in Quebec and new cold records were set in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London. Some Maritime Provinces had double the normal amount of snow. Charlottetown had the highest amount of snow ever recorded, 18.1 feet of snow. Similar snow records were set in St Johns and Moncton. The Great Lakes and St Lawrence River Valley had the 4 th coldest winters in 68 years. Quebec and Ontario had the 10 th coldest and the Atlantic Coast provinces had the 16 th coldest The trend of Canadian annual temperature since 1998 is declining in 7 out of 11 climate regions. It is also declining on a country wide or National basis.
Correct, but from what I have seen in the data, we are still not as cold as we were in the 20-30s. The pause since 1998 is there in the winter numbers and the summer numbers.
I have started to post this data here:
https://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/table-of-contents/ottawa-data-station-4333/
I’m slowly updating that site. But 4333 station is current to 2015.
Richard Wakefield
“Correct, but from what I have seen in the data, we are still not as cold as we were in the 20-30s.”
Canada wide I agree with you, but in the 2014 /2015 winter ,in Eastern Canada, there were many all time cold temperature and snowfall records set in all eastern Provinces . Some new records that were broken go back to 1889 like Quebec. February 2015 was the coldest on record for Toronto.
Richard Wakefield
http://globalnews.ca/news/1856489/coldest-february-on-record-in-quebec/
Another reason why global warming records are meaningless and why NOAA never tells the complete picture.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/charlottetown-breaks-snowfall-record-1.3053391
Richard, have you done any graphs on the Arctic stations? The “experts” said the Arctic is warming “more rapidly”. They may also have said Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. But then in the briefing on Nov 23, they used data starting in 1948.
GERALD MACHNEE
Temperature changes in Canada during the last 67 years per Environment Canada.
Lower Canada (excluding BC) I.18 C (51.3 % of total Canada area)
BC 1.8 C (10.4 % of total Canada area)
Arctic and North 2.06 C (38.3 % of total Canada land area)
CANADA TOTAL 1.6 C
Per NOAA, the GLOBAL LAND TREND 1948 -2014 is 0.19/DECADE which equates to 6.7 decades x 0.19 = 1.27 C in 67 Years
So Canada is not warming twice the world rate but only 1.6/1.27 or 1.25 times as fast and Lower half of Canada it is rising 1.18/1.27 =0.93 as fast as the globe( this is where most of the people live)
Only the Arctic region of Canada was warming about twice as fast as the globe . However I have noted that the annual temperature anomalies in the Canadian North have dropped about 3 degrees since 2010 indicating that Canadian Arctic is cooling too.
J Richard Wakefield:
I did the same thing from Alert,Nunavut to Medicine Hat, Alberta to Grand Forks, BC covering 82N to 49N. I found the same thing. TMax is often decreasing, some much the same and a few cases slightly increasing but TMin is LESS COLD. A good example is Medicine Hat where there is 125 years of continuous records. It is a virtual desert in southern Alberta that depends on irrigation to produce crops, without which it would be a grazing area with a grazing area loading of about 30 acres per animal unit.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/13b0jmek3vuqwjv/MedicineHatMeans.tiff?dl=0&preview=MedicineHatMeans.tiff
https://www.dropbox.com/s/73bzb5btpja32ms/MedicineHatExtremes.tiff?dl=0&preview=MedicineHatExtremes.tiff
Richard, we have the exact same trends from our local data here in Palmerston North, New Zealand. Our best world class site goes back to June 1928. Our hottest summer T-Max records show a slow decline from a peak in 1934-35. If there is a strong La Nina next year we should see another “hot summer” here, but with a lower T-Max than the last major one in 1998-99. The winter trend here is same as yours, milder but with the odd cold one thrown in. It doesn’t seem to have held back the frosts down here near sea level though (my records go back 35 years). I have also recorded mountain snowfall numbers and quantity which shows a resurgence since the “warmest winter” on record, 2005.
Perhaps a last grasp for more funding grants which will most likely evaporate under a Republican President.
Wasn’t there a recent post about the “ignoratio elenchi” fallacy? An argument that fails to address the issue in question?
Earth has been warming since the 1800s, about when the thermometer record begins, so any given year has a reasonable chance of setting a new high temp record. The real question skeptics should be asking is, “Yeah, and…???” The question isn’t, “is Earth getting warmer”, the question is, “Is it warming over and above natural variation?” The burden of proof is on them.
> any given year has a reasonable chance of setting a new high temp record
Makes a lot of sense. Records go back to about 1880– about 135 years. There are 135! (factorial) ways these could be ordered by average temperature. Let’s assume there is no trend and so all orderings are equally probable. The last two years would be the hottest in 133! * 2 of these orderings. So the probability that the last two years would be the two hottest is 133! * 2 / 135! = 2 / (134 * 135) = 0.01%. This isn’t a huge probability, but chance can’t be ruled out.
Eric:
Your sums are wrong. They are based on your assumption that “there is no trend” but in reality the world has been warming from the LIA for centuries.
As Notanist says, “Earth has been warming since the 1800s” (and before) so recent years are the warmest.
The interesting thing is that the warming stopped ~18 years ago otherwise every year would probably be the warmest since the instrument record began.
Notanist also said
And the answer to that question is,
Recent warming started before the industrial revolution and has stopped at temperatures below the peaks of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period. Nothing out of the ordinary has been observed to have happened to global climate that is not explained as being the same natural climate behaviour as has previously happened.
Richard
Dr Carter would be proud that his line of thinking is being spread around.
Who is surprised? With COP21 they were always going to claim 2015 as the warmest on record and make the required adjustments to make it so. And they will do their best for 2016 as well unless Mother Nature intervenes. The missing graph here is one with the surface and sat records together to show the growing divergence of late. Hence the attack on the sat records as it is starting to become obvious that their fiddling is creating the warming.
From Mark Steyn Tribute to Dr., Bob Carter.http://www.steynonline.com/7430/a-principled-man-in-a-corrupted-field
If I understand the big picture correctly, NOAA’s “adjusted” surface temperature data now includes ocean temps—which is probably being heated up by cyclical submarine volcanoes or mega plumes such as our current El Nino. Of course, NOAA would have us believe the oceans are warming due to our over use of SUVs and electric blow dryers. Can’t somebody with some credentials offer up a current layman’s article about submarines volcanic impact upon ocean temperature? I found one in the NYT published in 1998 but we need to throw this in their face when they claim “the hottest year ever!”
2015 may well be the warmest year on THEIR records.
On the actual, honestly represented record, not so much.
The detail annual global temperature data from NOAA for 2015 has not been released yet . However up the end of 2014 when 2014 was supposed to have been the warmest ever, the trend of global land area temperatures was flat for 10 years and the pause was clearly there for most land areas. So all the hype about ONE YEAR records is just that.
The trend of annual global land temperature anomalies since 2005 or the last 10 years has been flat for most regions of the globe or in a pause, but regionally there is cooling in Asia and North America and warming in Europe .
• Global -0.02 C/decade (flat)
• Northern Hemisphere -0.05 C/decade (flat)
• Southern Hemisphere +0.06 C/decade (flat)
• North America -0.41 C/decade (cooling)
• Asia -0.31 C/decade (cooling)
• Europe + 0.39 C /decade (warming)*
• Africa + 0.08 C/decade (flat)
• Oceania + 0.07C /decade (flat)
*The European warming was mostly due to warming of one year only(2014) The temperature anomalies for the period 2005-2013 were also flat (- 0.02 C/decade)
All data per NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE web page
So. The Earth appears to be a bit hotter than previous years. How much is a “bit”? I wouldn’t want to live on the difference.
Wake me up if it is getting hotter when oceanic/teleconnected conditions should be making us cooler. Under current conditions, I would expect natural warmth.
zzzzzzzzzzzz…
I guess the POTUS has a global warming/anti-coal media announcement being prepared for sometime in the next couple of weeks? He’s preceded every other POTUS media announcement with an orchestrated “it’s worse than we thought” proclamation from his compliant pals at GISS and NOAA.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
Doesn’t this graph sum it all up ????
I’ll be turning 47 in a couple months. I remember the weather back in the 70s and I still live in my small home town. I really do not see all this record warmth. It seems more likely to me that the weather today is much more like it was back in the 70s. I am currently sitting and shivering in my living room. There is snow on the ground and it hasn’t been above freezing for days. (It was 8F a couple days ago.) I live in Arkansas so I’m not very accustomed to the cold. I like it warm so I notice when times are colder than usual. It’s cold. Trust me. With more snow and cold on the way, with February looming like an ice cube. Lord, end this winter and bring me spring! I don’t care how many talking mouths declare global warming. It ain’t warming nowhere near my house, and the summers have been mild of late. Blowing one’s hole does not change reality.
Given a big enough hole…
Gary, I have been a surfer since the 50’s, and, when I go back to my old Sydney surfing beaches, I do not notice any change in sea levels, except for the usual tidal effects. Tidal swimming pools were constructed all along the NSW coastline, since the late 1880’s until the early 1900’s, and, none have been inundated.
Venice’s history is all-enveloping and the grandiosity of the architecture is as breathtaking as the city’s locale: smack in the middle of a vast lagoon. That the city’s massive stone buildings are built on soft sediments is something that is not generally appreciated. Some gravitational settling of these structures might be expected over several centuries, moreso since the city is within a seismically active region. But no, most commentators prefer more exotic reasons for rising water levels.
One way to capture the sense of that sinking feeling in Venice is by touring its ubiquitous art galleries and collections. Some oil painted streetscapes date back six centuries or so, and it’s quite a surprise to realize that water levels in some of these paintings look suspiciously similar to what is witnessed today. It’s quite an eye opener.
[Comment deleted. Strike two for today. Do NOT label other readers “denhiers”. –mod]
Harry Twinotter:
There is no explaining necessary except from warmunists. As I said to another troll upthread,
Recent warming started before the industrial revolution and ~18 years ago stopped at temperatures below the peaks of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period. Nothing out of the ordinary has been observed to have happened to global climate that is not explained as being the same natural climate behaviour as has previously happened.
Richard
Reminds me of the 100 year flood plain, then when a ~100 year flood happens, wow must be global warming. And they don’t even look at the 500 year and 1000 year flood history. A little “short sighted” to be sure.
Richard.
“Recent warming started before the industrial revolution and ~18 years ago stopped at temperatures below the peaks of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period”
True in the universe you inhabit, maybe.
Me, I stick to what the established science says. I recommend you do the same.
Harry Twinotter:
Perhaps you would tell us when you think warming from the LIA began in your universe and why it stopped over 18 years ago in ours?
Or is science too hard for you?
Richard
LOL!
The “deniers” have to explain why political shills like Gavin Schmidt have news conferences on cherry picked/massaged data, shoddy reasoning and speculation to disseminate poorly substantiated conclusions.
Yeah right, if you are up to it, that’s your job.
“[Comment deleted. Strike two for today. Do NOT label other readers “denhiers”. –mod]”
What bizarre double standards you have on this blog.
I am looking forward to the end of the Ice Age.
I certainly hope the irony of Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ignoring the satellite data will not go unnoticed when it comes to future funding.
+1
Hyping a weather event and pretending it is a climate trend seems sort of anti-science. But this is what NOAA and GISS are reduced to.
Considering we been living in some of the coldest times in the last 5000 years, one could only hope it might warm up a little. The little Ice age was the coldest it been for a very long time and we have a long way to go before the climate get back to normal, yet our government is tell us it the hottest ever, What a pile of adult male bovine fecal matter.
These press releases are meaningless when one looks at what has really been happening in North America and more locally in United States . Instead of giving a balanced analysis of what the past climate trend is for their home country, they are just spreading climate alarmism which is inconsistent to the observable data . One year records are just anomalies, nothing else . The temperatures in US and North AMERICA are declining but NOAA and GISS will not call a press release to tell America the real facts.
The trend of United States annual temperature anomalies ,including the 2015 anomaly shows a decline over 18 years or since 1998.
WINTER (-1.44 F/DECADE) COOLING
FALL (-0.04 F/DECADE) COOLING (FLAT)
SPRING (+0.12 F/DECADE) WARMING (FLAT)
SUMMER (+0.24 F/DECADE) WARMING
ANNUAL (-0.22 F/DECADE) COOLING
Regional trend of US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998 including 2015 show that despite the 2015 record global temperatures, 6 out of 9 climate regions in United States show a cooling trend since 1998. Is it any wonder why Americans do not buy the alarmists climate change claims. It is simply not happening in most parts of the country.
• OHIO VALLEY -0.7 F/decade
• UPPER MIDWEST -1.2 F/decade
• NORTH EAST -0.2F/decade
• NORTHWEST + 0.4 F/decade
• SOUTH -0.4 F/decade
• SOUTHEAST -0.1 F/decade
• SOUTHWEST + 0.1 F/decade
• WEST +1 F/decade
• NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -0.5 F/decade
ALL data is from NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE