New eBook – Kindle Edition: Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States?
And the subtitle is, Book 2 in the DAD, WHY ARE YOU A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER? Series
Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States? is presently available only in Kindle reader format, here. The price is $4.51 USD. I have no plans for a paperback edition.
The introduction begins:
Anna and her dad are back in the second installment in this series of short stories. Joining them is Anna’s mother. In this episode, they’re examining graphs of data from NOAA, USGS, EPA, and NIFC that do not support common views about human-induced climate change in the United States. Specifically, it’s typically believed by naïve and gullible propaganda-programmed persons that mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into Earth’s atmosphere has caused and is causing climate to change for the worse in the United States. In reality, however, if long-term datasets from U.S. government agencies (and fire agencies supported by government agencies) for the entire country are considered, the data show no increase in frequency, and no strengthening, of numerous types of weather events.
An important initial note: While the characters, settings and dialogue in this short story are fictional, the graphs are of real data from U.S. government agency sources, and some of them also include the outputs of climate models that are used to make crystal-ball-like divinations about future climate on an unrealistic planet that bears little relationship to Earth. Data are also included from the two wildfire agencies that are supported by U.S. government agencies. [End note.]
In Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States? the climate-related datasets that are examined include (data source in parentheses):
- Hurricanes Making Landfall on the Continental U.S. (NOAA AOML – Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory)
- Tornados for All 50 States (NOAA NWS – National Weather Service)
- Droughts for the Contiguous U.S. (NOAA NCDC – National Climatic Data Center, now known as the NCEI – National Centers for Environmental Information)
- Floods for the Contiguous U.S. Streams and Rivers (USGS – United States Geological Survey)
- Wildfires for All 50 U.S. States (Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group and the National Interagency Fire Center.)
- Surface Temperature Extremes for the Contiguous U.S. [Hottest Yearly TMAX and Coldest Yearly TMIN] (NOAA NCDC – National Climatic Data Center, now known as the NCEI – National Centers for Environmental Information) Note: These Surface Temperature Data Are Presented in Absolute Form, in Deg F, NOT As Anomalies.
When long-term data for the entire country are viewed as a whole, only one of those variables shows worsening climatic conditions in the United States, only one. And that metric is Stream and River Floods from 1950 to 2014, where, based on the linear trend, the annual percentage of U.S. stream gages above full-bank streamflow has risen from about 42% to roughly 46% over those 65 years. The other weather-related events aren’t increasing in frequency or strength. In fact, those other indices show noticeably improving climate conditions, contrary to what alarmists claim. And consider this, even the full-bank streamflow data show decreasing flood conditions since about 1970.
These facts confirm what many people understand: (1) that unscrupulous, dishonest, deceitful, and devious eco-profiteers, politicians, activists, lobbyists, mainstream media, and funding-hungry scientists are exploiting the misfortune and misery of our families, our friends, our neighbors, our fellow U.S. citizens each time a weather-related natural disaster strikes, and (2) that, over the past decades, the constant bombardment of climate change propaganda has, sadly, been very effective at manufacturing brainwashed adherents with unquestioning religious-like beliefs in human-induced climate change.
Important note: All illustrations are in black and white, so you don’t have any concerns if you have a non-color reader, like Kindle Paperwhite. FYI, I was the first person to buy the book. I downloaded it to my Kindle Paperwhite and the graphs show perfectly.
Additional topics:
- Sea Level
- Model-Data Comparisons of Sea Surface Temperatures in Absolute, Not Anomaly, Form—for Each Ocean Basin And Respective Hemispheres – Satellite Era through 2017
- Model-Data Comparisons of Land Air Surface Temperatures in Absolute, Not Anomaly, Form—for Six of the Seven Continents (Data Not Available from the KNMI Climate Explorer from This Dataset for Antarctica) – 1948 to 2017
In total, there are more than 80 illustrations, mostly graphs of data and model-data comparisons, in Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States?
As also noted in the introduction:
I suspect some readers will scroll through the short story to look at the graphs, without reading the text. If you do, you’ll miss some fun. I’ve added some side discussions to lighten and brighten things from time to time.
Like Dad, Why Are You a Global Warming Denier? I had a lot of fun writing it and preparing all of those graphs, so, hopefully, you’ll have as much fun reading it and learning from it.
And, yes, I’m planning a third book in the series.
To those of you who buy Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States?, THANK YOU.
Thank you, Anthony.
Cheers,
Bob
Bought Book 1; likely buy Book 2!
Thank you, Warren.
I sincerely hope you enjoy it. It was lots of fun to put together…and eye opening, because it was the first time I plotted those climate datasets.
Cheers
Bought the book, thank you for writing it!
I have had another lightbulb go off in my head. Since solar radiation is shorter wavelength and after it hits the earth surface has anyone checked whether the LWIR given off by the oceans is in the same wavelength spectrum(in other words the same range) as that given off by the land? Furthermore to this,since the direction in degradation is from shorter to longer wavelength, is that always the case when electromagnetic radiation enters a medium and then exits? If so, then I contend that the heat death of the universe will be all of it being radiowaves. I realize that heat isn’t the same form of energy as electromagnetic radiation and that all matter decays into energy at some point. However since there is a law of conservation of energy, all the energy must end up as radiowaves. Is there a maximum wavelength size of radiowaves? It seems that the shorter the wavelength the more dangerous it is to humans, so radiowaves should be the friendliest. The degradation from short to long would explain why deep space antennas always pick up lots of radiowaves. However this phenomenon is counter intuitive to our way of thinking. Normally we would expect things to break up into shorter pieces not longer ones.
This off-topic comment appears to be an attempt by you to redirect the thread away from my new book, Alan. Why?
I didnt mean to redirect any attention away from your book Bob. If someone is going to click on the article and is already reading the threads anyway, it won’t lessen interest in your book. However I should of waited for a more appropriate topic. My apologies.
Why you so worried Bob? If your article doesn’t sell the book, why do you think comments will?
Alan always respect your posts except this one. Having difficulty sleeping?
Any good book on physics will answer all of these questions.
Since changing the wavelength means changing the energy of the photon, the only way you can change the wavelength is by interacting with the photon to add or subtract energy.
And no, there is no minimum or maximum wavelength for a photon.
Wavelengths don’t “break up”.
Let’s give Alan the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there’s no other place he as to put this. Who hasn’t gotten a stream of consciousness thought like this before?
not m … SQUIRREL!!!!
Alan, Some short answers to your questions.
The wavelength of emitted radiation depends on the particular molecular bond releasing the energy. (The flux depends on temperature.) In a gas like CO2 or H2O there is only one type bond, so radiation wavelength is restricted. In a mixed solid and in most liquids, there exists many kinds of cross bonding of many energy levels. Consequently, emitted radiation tends toward being continuous within the allowed energy region. The same is true about absorbing radiation. Thus land and oceans absorb across a wide frequency range; gases do not.
When you speak of radiowaves in the universe, you may be thinking of the cosmic background radiation. Its wavelength is so long because of the expansion of the early universe and everything in it, including radiation wavelength, which began as much higher energy frequency. A photon emitted today is unlikely to shrink by much, because the universe is not rapidly expanding. But then who knows what its future will be.
Shorter radiation wavelength is more “dangerous” because it carries more energy. Gamma ray photons have more energy than visible light photons, which have more than a radiowave photon. A spectrum of radiation is really many photons of very closely spaced energy and wavelength, such that it appears continuous.
Good job Bob – thank you. I particularly appreciate the following paragraph. Next time though, don’t hold back – tell us how you really feel!
Regards, Allan 🙂
[BTW, I agree with you.]
“These facts confirm what many people understand: (1) that unscrupulous, dishonest, deceitful, and devious eco-profiteers, politicians, activists, lobbyists, mainstream media, and funding-hungry scientists are exploiting the misfortune and misery of our families, our friends, our neighbors, our fellow U.S. citizens each time a weather-related natural disaster strikes, and (2) that, over the past decades, the constant bombardment of climate change propaganda has, sadly, been very effective at manufacturing brainwashed adherents with unquestioning religious-like beliefs in human-induced climate change.”
Allan, thanks,. You’ll find more of those feelings throughout the book.
Cheers
I think, Bob, that you’re going to turn off a lot of people who might be on the fence with rhetoric like that. As true as it may be, you’re only preaching to the choir, and will not convert anyone. If that’s your goal, then carry on. Just my opinion.
Hi Jeff,
The leadership of the warmist conspiracy are lying criminal thugs.
It is long past time that they were called out.
There is no point in varnishing the facts of this criminality.
The alarmists have adjusted the 1930s temperatures into unremarkableness. A look at the raw temperatures on the Great Plains should convince anyone that the climate is not getting worse.
My mother was a teenager on the Great Plains during the Dirty Thirties. I got the stories. It was horrible. Trying to adjust that out of history is just plain corrupt.
I can verify that: I grew up on a farm about 60 miles Northeast of Hastings, on the Platte river bottom. July 1934 my 3 older sisters 6, 10 and 12 plus my parents all retained vivid memories of the summers of 1934 and 36. Here is a PDF record of July 1936 and a link of all monthly records back to 1893.
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-35A10829-64AC-4DEB-A5EC-E21493B5A261.pdf
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html?_page=2&state=NE&foreign=false&stationID=251825&_target3=Next+%3E
commieBob, the TMAX temperature data in absolute form from NOAA that I linked and plotted in the book confirm the 1930s were noticeably the warmest for the contiguous 48 states.
In the book, scroll forward to Exhibit 42, which is the 10-year running average of the Annual Highest TMAX (in absolute form, not anomalies) for the Contiguous U.S.
Cheers
“commieBob, the TMAX temperature data in absolute form from NOAA that I linked and plotted in the book confirm the 1930s were noticeably the warmest for the contiguous 48 states.”r
Does it take into account that Tmax was read and reset in the evening, and could therefore be recorded a second time the following day should t be cooler than at the time of reading?
Vis: “In 1934, there were 22 days >=100F, with four of 110F or more. The highest was 113F.”
In 1931 79% of US stations reported Tmax in the evening and 76% by 1941.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-necessity-of-tobs.html
Irrelevant for all time max temperatures. Irrelevant for annual max temperatures.
If you plot the % of stations that reached a certain max temp in any given year, it shows the 30’s as by far the hottest decade.
There is plenty of corroborating evidence or there, most people don’t bother to look.
Two thoughts from a Layman.
1. If the temps were reset in the evening (or morning) then the worst that would happen is that the high or low for the day might be recorded for the wrong day, that is a 24 hr period that didn’t start and end at midnight.
2. If just when the reset occurred somehow invalidates the past records, then we can’t really compare past to present and CAN”T claim that the present is warmer than the past since we don’t know what the past temps were.
(Except for trea ring readings, of course.8- )
AnthonyB’s link explains the problem. It isn’t that a max might be recorded for the wrong day, but that it might be recorded twice. That is, on a very warm Monday afternoon reset at 5pm, The true max counts for Monday, and the 5pm temperature counts for Tuesday.
You can quantify the adjustment. You know the before and after adjustment, and there is plenty of modern information to tell you the diurnal pattern, which determines the bias change. There is a worked example here.
Great to see something new from you Bob. I’ve been wondering where you have been.
And it’s great to prepare something new, TedM.
Where have I been? Lurking and learning.
Cheers.
When long-term data for the entire country are viewed as a whole, only one of those variables shows worsening climatic conditions in the United States, only one. And that metric is Stream and River Floods from 1950 to 2014, where, based on the linear trend, the annual percentage of U.S. stream gages above full-bank streamflow has risen from about 42% to roughly 46% over those 65 years.
Presumably, a chunk of the change in stream and river flow is due to the concreting over of much of the landscape and while man-made, has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions.
Indeed, and further, it probably has more to do with “flood control projects “ confining the flow of water into a smaller space (thereby reducing the spread of water into the “flood plain “ and guaranteeing both greater “flow” AND higher “crests”) than it has to do with increased rainfall.
Agreed, Bloke down the pub, and that topic is discussed and documented with links to a study.
Cheers.
In addition to the above mentioned factors, how negligible or non-negligible is the increase in surface waters due to reservoirs, damming of rivers, and pumping aquifers for irrigation? Would this contribute in any significant way to the 4% increase in the above-full-bank-streamflow-rise between 1950 and 2014?
But when we talk about climate, we can not limit ourselves to the US territory. Is the situation so good for the North Arctic Circle?
Why do we need to talk about the “North Arctic Circle,” where there is essentially no data, because you’re more comfortable talking about the places where they can make up any so-called “data” they want?!
Actual data is really important for keeping things honest. Even then the alarmists will adjust data to suit their narrative. Raw data is therefore the gold standard.
Other kinds of historical evidence also count. In areas where history was recorded, it is pretty obvious what the climate was doing.
It’s been adequately demonstrated that you can misuse proxies to produce whatever climate data you want, hockey sticks seem popular.
It is very hard to erase the historical record. People recorded rivers freezing, grain harvests, wheat prices, wine making in Scotland … the list is very long. No matter what they do, the alarmists can’t erase the written evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Anybody can read and understand the historical record. That’s a big problem for the alarmists.
In places where there is no historical record and no raw thermometer data, the alarmists can do whatever they want secure in the knowledge that very few people have the technical expertise to contradict them.
This comment is exactly the first thing my liberal relatives say when presented with information that goes against their global warming or climate charge views …”but what about the melting arctic ice cap”. It’s their binky, it’s what they always say. “What about all the plastic in the ocean” is usually their backup binky even though it is an entirely different subject. I figure there is something about solid objects like ice and plastic that they can relate to and understand.
It is called “deflection!”
Get used to it – present someone with incontrovertible measured data and deflection is the knee jerk reaction of the climate panick crowd!
Mihaly Malzenicky wrote, “But when we talk about climate, we can not limit ourselves to the US territory.”
Obviously, you missed the fact that I did exactly that. The majority of the linked book deals only with climate in the United States. And the reason I did it: The book is intended to disprove with data all of the alarmist nonsense about climate in the United States.
Cheers.
The situation is great north of the Arctic Circle.
The tiny bit of warming they have experienced is making life easier.
Evidence from the RWP and MWP is that a warmer climate makes things better. The exception is the arctic.
Depending on where you are in the arctic and subarctic, you will like winter way more than summer. In winter you can move around. Hunting is also easier. In the summer, the mosquitoes and black flies come out. You can’t move around because the ground is mushy. It’s a horrible time. YMMV
While it would be nice if it covered other places, particularly where I live (UK), the USA is a large area with good and uniform collection of data.
Attempting to do something similar for the entire world would be difficult and potentially misleading due to limited data collected in an inconsistent manner.
The DMI keeps a chart on the temps “North of 80”. Updated daily.
They also publish charts covering the Surface Mass Balance of ice conditions on Greenland. This summer, trends on temp have been below the mean. For SMB above the mean.
Although plotted daily, both are so fascinating that I check them out a number of times during the day.
Of course, no changes during the day, but the trend is fun to watch.
Bob Hoye
I also calculate Arctic averages daily, based on NCAR. They are quite similar to the DMI averages. You can see them here. You can also choose other regions to display averages of.
Summer averages of >80N are not very interesting, though. They are pretty much locked to freezing, and the small discrepancy doesn’t mean much. What counts is the heat flux into the ice, but that can’t be measured.
Mihaly Malzenicky,
I’m pretty sure that there has been negligible change in hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires above the Arctic Circle. Even if there have been increases in floods, it is of no consequence where so few people live. It would seem unlikely that the temperature extreme of Tmin has worsened. Now, what was your point again? Oh yes, the Arctic may be moving in the direction of the temperature conditions that existed prior to the Ice Age.
“I’m pretty sure that there has been negligible change in hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires above the Arctic Circle”
There have been wildfires. That seems new.
Sweden. nd Yamal.
Stokes,
Thank you for the links to the high-quality journals with the irrefutable anecdotal evidence.
The pictures at Ecowatch don’t resemble Arctic tundra, but instead, sub-boreal forests. Very little of Sweden is above the Arctic Circle! Even so, fires in the Tundra region are not unknown. What is missing is any sort of quantitative data on the frequency of Arctic fires and the acreage burned.
How soon will I be able to find either of these books in print form? I do not have Kindle, and I like books and other materials in physical form so that I can keep them to read and refer to later.
John, the first book in the series DAD, WHY ARE YOU A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER? has been available in a paperback edition since February.
https://www.amazon.com/DAD-WHY-GLOBAL-WARMING-DENIER/dp/198023115X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1515370466&sr=8-1
Also, Kindle software is available free for your PC, so you don’t need a Kindle reader. And since you would have bought, not borrowed, the books, they would remain in your library…until you delete them.
Cheers
Thanks, was wondering if this would work on pc.
In the short term, you can get kindle reader software for most popular computer platforms.
I own a kindle but find that my generic Samsung Android tablet a better tool, but I also would rather use the print form.
If he or she thinks climate is getting worse, then encourage that person to stop doing things, stop using the phone, stop using electricity, stop driving, stop flying, stop enjoying a heated house, stop eating imported food, etc. and only then will you listen to the person complain about the so-called climate.
I hate to hear libs complain and then continue to do the things that supposedly caused it all. I know lots of them and they are all hypocrites.
But they’ve been told we have solutions, so they feel as long as you support the solutions, you can continue to “pollute”. Well, that’s my best guess how they justify it.
In other words, don’t blame people because activist scientists deceived them
John Bell,
They are privileged because they are enlightened. They have paid their indulgence by ‘educating’ themselves.
gonna buy it for my 19 yo daughter….
“Dad. what does being dead feel like?”
That’s about the only question I have left for the old barsteward
Being dead and looking down upon the Earth, makes me feel sad as I see the many poor people that could have benefited from the billion$ wasted on the AGW fiasco.
However it does warm my heart as I also observe the ‘reward’ of those AGW charlatans that have passed on to the other place.
Leo Smith,
I have experienced many things in my long life. However, dying isn’t one of them. I’m saving that for last.
There’s also a site for children here: http://climate4kids.blogspot.com with all kinds of information on climate presented at children’s level
Many thanks Bob. Just bought both books on Kindle.
I look forward to reading them.
I guess I am going to have to get with the times and create an dadburn Amazon account so I can buy this book and part 1. I also need to adjust to reading on my phone or desktop. I am the curlup with a good book kind of guy.
Good debunking of alarmist propaganda! Unfortunately, you have multi-£billion organisations like the BBC targeting young people with dumbed-down propaganda (minutes 1-2) disguised as ‘news’ and ‘science’ as per their following ‘most watched’ video today…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-44961700/uk-heatwave-2018-why-is-it-so-hot
This kind of thing reinforces the blinkers down, angry outburst when trying to debate with the converts… It’s going to take a lot of water under the bridge before the tide can turn to sanity!
Great. Will pick up on Kindle today.
No dear, advocacy, the press, and politics are getting worse.
Then he promotes coal. Hypocrite.
Show us any example of how supporting the US coal industry decreases US air or water quality.
Ummm, is this an IQ question? OK in case your question is a serious one. Coal releases a number of toxins and contributes to poor quality air in the remaining countries that continue to use it. Here is a handy article about this toxic fuel.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-air-pollution#.W1pdtdIzaUk
I guess you haven’t heard of scrubbers. I would suggest getting your information from sources other than Big Green funded ones. UCS is corrupting science for political ends.
OH PLEASE!
They can be scrubbed in the stack.
How about the toxic stuff produced in building wind and solar? (Let what happens to the land cleared to build them and critters that used to live near them?)
And what do you do with them when they wear out?
How about the batteries …..
Do you guys get these links in email from the Rapid Response global warming and world governance, team? Did you automatically believe the Nat. Geographic article on polar bear death by global warming that was just been apologized for by the magazine after massive blowback against the article.
Just bought it with 1-click on Amazon.
Oceanic sea surface temperatures falling in response to very low solar as expected.
[off-topic -mod]
Thanks, Bob, i bought this immediately. it’s a great summary. Ironically, I have a 21-year-old science major daughter who is a strong warmer. She is sensible about some things like the need for nuclear, but firmly believes the earth is being destroyed. I want to show her your charts, but the fictional father-daughter format for the book is not going to go over well with her. Any chance that you will do another version with just straight description of the charts? Either way, thanks much for producing this.
I’d give her the book anyway. The father-daughter thing may be schtick, but surely she can see through that to what is being presented. If she is as sensible as you portaray her to be anyway.
Indeed, things are pretty much the same today as they were some 70 (plus or minus) years ago, when I was but a wee lad.
I’ve lived in the same geographic region (adjacent states), and there isn’t a dimes-worth of difference between now, and then. Winters are cold and snowy; summers are hot and dry. We have thunderstorms and blizzards (not at the same time, of course); floods and fires; strong winds, calm days; partly/cloudy and the most brilliant sunshine on God’s Green Earth.
If there is a difference, some fires may be worse now than then, but that’s been the result of the eco-fascists preventing the USFS and BLM managing the forests and wildlands, including (but not limited to) clearing deadfall, strategic thinning, incorporating firebreaks, etc. Even before the concept of ‘defensible space’, landowners were creating it on their own; now, unfortunately, they need to obtain a permit (which is issued at the discretion of the local eco-nazis) to create any defense. The last major wildfire took a number of properties which it should not have, had the owners been allowed to create their space.
The local political class have started taking a closer look at permit denial; ’bout time! Like most politicians, they’re thinking about their own interests, which might include some property that needs “defensible space.”
“We have thunderstorms and blizzards (not at the same time, of course)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundersnow
My favorite was a number of years ago, Jim Cantore was in or near Central Park, covering some major winter storm hitting the area. As the anchor was introducing Jim, his camera and mike were hot, and it was obvious that a very bright lightning discharge took place, which startled him, and caused him to interrupt the anchor’s introduction. There were several more discharges during his live remote. A few years after that, we had a thundersnow event in our area; first one I had ever seen, up close and personal.
I’m sure you understood I was referring to ordinary summer/winter events; decades of summers, and winters, I’ve only seen the one thundersnow in person, plus Jim’s experience.
Dad … why do you have to work so hard to pay the bills? My teacher said the government owes us all money, because of rich corporations and our rich neighbors. She said the government owes us a basic living wage. And free college. And free healthcare. And free food. Free abortions on demand. And a free self-driving, electric car. Why are you such a Free Market Capitalist?
Q: What did Communists / Socialists use for light before candles?
A: Electricity
I’m stealing that line.
But, Dad, how did they make candles without petroleum? They didn’t have to hurt any animals, did they?
(Had to throw a bone at the Animal Rights supporters of all this nonsense.8- )
Just bought both. Thank you Bob.
I enjoyed part 1 of this series and purchased the new book today and look forward to reading it.
I can’t purchase via Kindle UK, any ideas.
Martin, I just checked my KDP sales stats in response to your comment. Roughly 5% of the sales of this book today have been through Amazon.co.uk . That’s in the neighborhood of what I would expect for a book that’s about U.S. climate.
I have no idea why you’d be having problems.
Cheers
Bob
Perhaps Anna could meet James hansens ‘ grandchildren’ and convince them that Hansen was wrong. I lay claim to the film rights and look forward to the grandchildren looking mistily into the camera and saying
‘so grandfather was wrong..’ cue end of film and swelling music…
Tonyb
Thanks, Tonyb. That made me smile.
the political climate may be…..
Here in the US mid-Appalachians, winters are about the same, but big snowstorms a bit more common (1993,1994,1996,2003,2010,2015 for ex.). Spring is wildly variable as always. Summers are very slightly cooler, and late spring/early summers wetter. Falls are warmer & slightly drier. Crop yields are at record levels……