Reposted from Paul Homewood’s Blog, Not A Lot Of People Know That.
By Paul Homewood
The plot thickens!
I mentioned in my previous post that the latest draft climate report, published in June, had seemingly left out a rather embarrassing table from the Executive Summary, one that had previously been written into the Third Draft, published last December.
As the link to the Third Draft had disappeared from the NYT, I could not show it.
However, Michael Bastasch, writing over at WUWT, did have the link, so we can now compare the relevant sections.
First, the latest draft, the Fifth:
Note the emphasis on daily high and low records. As I pointed out earlier, the ratio of hot to cold has more to do with there being less cold records nowadays, rather than more hot ones.
But now compare with the same section on the Third Draft:
The headline box only talks about global extreme heat rather than US, and the next paragraph can only claim that extremely warm days have become warmer since the 1960s.
The maps and graphs that follow on the next page show just why. I’ll zoom in on the right hand map:
Remember that the maps depict the difference between the average for 1986-2015 and the average for 1901-60.
Although they try to blame the much lower temperatures on the dust bowl era, an average for 60 years should make this much less significant.
What this map shows is highly damaging to the global warming alarmism industry. It proves that, regardless of average temperature trends, temperatures at the top end of the scale are not increasing. Note that this applies even in the case of California, until recently the golden child of warmists.
We may be seeing milder winters and warmer nights, but, as far as the US is concerned, we are certainly not seeing hotter days.
Check out the maximum temperature graph as well:
We see that the hottest temperatures, (averaged over the US), were not only much, much higher in the 1930s. They were also higher during the 1920s. Indeed there have been many other years with higher temperatures than most of the recent ones.
And not just in the US. In England, according to the long running CET, the hottest day was recorded long ago in 1976, and equalled in 1990.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
The US temperature record is extremely important for this Report, both because it is the US, but also because the US has most of the long running, high quality temperature data, along with the likes of the UK.
Claims of higher temperatures in the rest of the world can be easily dismissed because of doubts about the quality of the data, or the length of the record.
Even in the UK for instance, we find that Faversham, which set the supposed record UK temperature in 2003, only has continuous data since 1998., making such claims utterly meaningless.
It would therefore have been extremely embarrassing, and arguably fatal, for the Draft Report to have admitted that maximum temperatures were actually higher than now for much of the 20thC.
It was imperative therefore that this information be suppressed.
This new piece of evidence proves beyond doubt that the purpose of this latest climate report is a purely political one, designed to get across a particular message, regardless of the actual facts.
SOURCE
The Fifth Draft is here:
And the Third Draft:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL
More moderate temperatures just doesn’t sound scary enough to keep funding the Apparat.
When I see – ‘DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE’, I wonder what has happened to science and why today’s science should invoke secrecy. Surely it should be an open, transparent invitation to discuss, debate and examine.
It’s not secrecy. As noted in another thread, it was on the web for discussion. It’s just a practical measure to ensure that there isn’t a whole lot of stuff being quoted as in the report, when it doesn’t make it to the final version.
Let’s hope the final version is allowed to see the light of day.
“Let’s hope the final version is allowed to see the light of day.”
Don’t worry. Obama is out of office.
“as far as the US is concerned, we are certainly not seeing hotter days.”
We are not seeing hotter maximums on average. But the metric for what year has hotter days versus another year is in most people’s mind the average temperature. And the average temperature has been increasing (if you believe the manipulated data) over the last 50 years in the US so we ARE seeing hotter days according to our temperature record data. What the plot is showing is the maximum temperatures for a year are not increasing, indicating less variation, and more stable weather. So the significance of that plot is more that it is evidence against climate change causing more severe weather than it is about the weather not getting hotter.
I have never understood the assertion that warmer temperatures mean more weather extremes. I get the energy part and warmer air holds more water, but where I live (Southern CA) the summers are extremely stable compared to winters. In winter there are many more storms, bigger swings in daily temperatures and bigger changes in wind speeds than there is in the summer. So it seems to me warmer weather would be more stable, from the vantage point of my little corner of the world.
“I have never understood the assertion that warmer temperatures mean more weather extremes.”
I also have never understood this. Given that energy is radiated in proportion to the fourth power of its temperature, the more temperatures rise, the more that the earth uses radiation to exchange heat internally (and releases it to space). I would think that this would mean that less heat is moved around via convection and conduction, which is where the weather extremes come from. In other words, the higher the temperature, the more efficient the Earth gets at radiating away the energy temporally, and climate is nothing more than the phenomena that occur as the Earth churns heat around before it is radiated to space.
Hurry, hurry read all about it. Winter getting warmer!
Clearly statistics can lie. Only now it is called “Fake News”. Clearly record warm temperatures are fake news, because the warming is in winter, not in summer.
Unfortunately, the graph fails to mention that the record warm temps are in winter. The reader assumes that the graph is talking about record warm temps in summer, because only an idiot would worry about winters getting warmer.
In a sane world, record warm temperatures in winter would be seen as a good thing. However, in the world of climate change, warmth in winter has now become a cause for alarm.
I’d like to see the regional models replicate the temperature graph of the USA 🙂
Like HAL 9000, computer models go insane when asked to lie.
Then IPCC has to be changing computers every ten minutes…
The decrease in daytime highs is especially at odds with the claims made (right in the section that deleted the charts of daytime highs) that rising global trmperatures are accentuated by an increase in extreme events. With average warming being so meager the alarmists need that accentuation claim but it is contradicted on the most fundamental measure of variability: whether highs are getting higher. Not many people USED to know that. Thanks Paul.
most fundamental measure of variability.
===========
climate science is forever using averages, but nowhere do we see variance (standard deviation) quoted. Yet variance is the statistical measure that tells you if climate is becoming more extreme. When we look at variance, climate is not changing. It is not becoming more extreme.
http://www.g-feed.com/2012/08/is-temperature-variance-changing.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JsqpxZWtlBw/UD0fchlvTYI/AAAAAAAAAF4/tC5wLr9TttE/s400/donat.fig1.jpg
The Left’s tool box contains two tools: lie, and hide the truth. These work quite well with a partially brain-dead public. Thank God for publications such as WUWT, that pull back the curtain and expose the charlatans.
Who edited the report and deleted the graph from the Executive Summary ?
Australia does the opposite they delete colder days in their climate fudge reports .
The new “progressive ” scientific method is delete anything that doesn’t agree with the
directed hypothesis . Hide the decline anyone .
We in Houston had some hot weather in the 1960s. I remember how we anxiously awaited the mid-September break in the heat. For example, according to the KHOU temperature records, August was pretty warm. Vide:
From Aug 5 through 12 (degrees F): 97,98,100, 100,105,102,100, 102.
Us old-timers remember how hot it was before we got global warming.
Don’t forget the EPA’s statistics for Heat Waves. The ratio between 1930’s and now is 2010 is 4x. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
EPA also has a graph that show hot daily highs were at their highest in the 30’s though the smoothed version doesn’t and the hot daily lows are much higher.
And changes in Unusually hot Temps
The EPA heat wave index chart deserves greater attention. I’ve seen many references over the years that confirm that the 1930s were the warmest decade of the 20th century.
Downloaded and have now read the whole thing. IPCCish. The attribution section is just awful. (1) The warming from ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from ~1975-2000. AR4 WG1 SPM figure SPM.4 specifically said the former period was mostly natural; just not enough rise in GHG to be explanatory. Well, natural variation did not magically stop in 1975. See my guest post on ‘Why Models run Hot for details. (2) This century comprises about 35% of the rise in CO2 since 1958 (Keeling curve), yet except for the now cooled 2015-2016 El Nino blip has seen no warming except by Karlization.
Trump should can this entire draft 2018NCA garbage prepared under Obama on those two grounds alone. I sent a similar comment directly to Trump at WH and Pruitt at EPA last evening. Wish he had already filled the OSTP position, because that would have been the most logical place to send the comment.
Or publish a final one, by the Red Team, concluding correctly that there is no evidence for global, man-made “climate change”.
“Who edited the report and deleted the graph from the Executive Summary ?”
Isn’t hiding or concealing data a federal offense? I understand it has no consequence under the lawless Obama’s administration but how the Trump administration still gives a pass to such malpractice ?
We would be much better off without executive summaries.
Paul Homewood, thank you for the essay.
ditto. I have downloaded it to reread at leisure.
I keep going back to this plot of UAH grid temperature data which shows temperature increase distributed by latitude. Consistent with others already presented the Report is flawed or intentionally distorts the data..
Studying it makes it clear that the data shows no significant warming in the Latitudes of the USA and the small warming trend is actually decreasing.
What am I missing?
Are they ignoring UAH?
I should have said USA “mainland”
Catcracking,
Everyone knows that hot air rises so it should come as no suprise that the northern latitudes are warming the most.
/sarc
I apologize if this has already reported elsewhere that the NYT has been forced to issue an embarrassing correction. Delete if already covered.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/fake-news-alert-new-york-times-issues-epic-climate-change-scoop-correction/
“Now, the newspaper has been forced to issue a very public, and quite embarrassing, correction.
Turns out, the draft report has been publicly available for seven months, meaning the Times “scoop” was no scoop at all.
The Times’s front-page story said that scientists were worried that the Climate Science Special Report — a multi-agency report that lays the blame for climate change on human activity — “would be suppressed” by the Trump administration, as cabinet members have expressed skepticism that humans are causing global warming.
But, as with many reports from federal agencies, there is a period of public comment before a final report is issued. The third order draft, which the Times had falsely hyped as an exclusive of unpublished material, has been publicly available since January on the Internet Archive.
The Internet Archive — also known as The Internet Wayback Machine Archive — is a San Francisco–based nonprofit digital library.
In its correction, the red-faced Gray Lady wrote: “An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.”
The heat of the embarrassment is so hot that I swear I feel it in California!
Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, is listed on the report as among the lead authors. The story started to unravel when he indicated that the report had already been made public”
Given circumstances like this are coming up all the time it would seem that more and more scientists would start to question their commitment to this effort. How much longer are they willing to come up with bogus reasons or intentionally hide data they know refutes what they are saying? I would like to think we have reached a turning point where integrity will start to kick in.
JohninRedding – can you elucidate what you are talking about? What circumstances? What effort? What hidden data that refutes their public pronouncements? We want to know!
Catcracking: Kopp at Rutgers. Rutgers, huh? Just up the road from NOAA/GFDL. ‘Nuff said?
“Climate Change”. Of course it does. Always has.
But when “they” say that they really mean “Man-Made Climate” change.
If that isn’t what they mean, they why should Government take any action to try to prevent it?
“Everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it.” was a common phrase. Nobdy does anything about it because nobody CAN.
All that can be done is prepare for it.
But, having said that, I do have proof that Man has changed the climate for may little spot on the globe.
Well, at least the “climate” regarding record high an low temperatures for my little spot on the globe.
PS I latter obtained the 2002 list of record highs and lows and compared it with the 2007 list. There were not changes.
Man-made change is REAL!
PS What prompted me, Mr. Layman, to get these record and compare them was all the hype about WARMING generated Al’s original and The Weather Channel. (This was years before i found WUWT.)
Back then TWC on their “Local on the Eights” they would report the record high and low for the day.
Over time I was left with the impression that, if Gore was right, my local record highs should be more recent.
Just an impression.
I got the numbers. They weren’t more recent.
He’s lying … er … just being the Gore I knew but would never vote for or believe because of that.
The maps of the United States in the Draft (cooler highs, warmer lows) seem to be just a reflection of humidity levels. A coast has much more consistent temperatures than a desert.
The 1930’s had the highest temperatures in the US, which is consistent with the low humidity/no rain Dust Bowl. Posters above have also shown this was true in other parts of the world.
Maybe we are just looking at changing weather patterns due to something like ocean circulation.
Once you enact a scheduled timely government report of any nature, its going to present itself in a manner to be rescheduled timely for the future reporting.
The highest official temperature in Norway (35,6 °C) was in 1970, with second Place (35,0 °C) in 1897, 1901 and 1975…..
So if I understand this correctly, we’re not getting warmer, we’re getting less cool, and since the average is calculated as Tmin and Tmax, as Tmin increases, so does the average.
Extrapolating from that, we’re actually have LESS extreme weather. There is less “change” from highs and lows, and we’re converging on an longer-term average. That would seem to go hand-in-hand with the reduction in cyclones/hurricanes and tornadoes. Less extreme weather events.
Given the huge amounts of money and policy implications isn’t it past time certain ‘reports’ were passed under sworn oath in court? Subsequent analysis that discovered material falsehoods (as per the graphs which are simply incorrect and clearly designed to mislead) would lead to perjury charges – with commensurate penalties.
This is a whole world away from speculative or research science. If scientists wish to merely produce a ‘report’ but do not want to swear to its veracity under oath the ‘report’ could be treated as speculation and left at that.
The ‘97%’ papers are perfect examples of activist-driven pre-determined rubbish being accepted as truth, when they’re plainly nothing of the sort.
The problem here is climate ‘science’ treats every last alarmist utterance as gospel even when it’s plainly activist junk, with the questionable main motive of securing more funding. Time to hold those people to account with a veracity reference system that has teeth.
The bastardisation of science is the loser here, the man in the white coat is a joke. Shame.