EPA Updates Its “Climate Change Indicators”

From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

It appears that some time last month the EPA provided a major update of what it calls its “climate change indicators.” The EPA’s web page for this is headed “Climate Change Indicators in the United States,” with the sub-heading “Climate Change Is Happening Now.” The update is an initiative of the Biden administration, now eager to invest a few trillion dollars of your money in new “green” infrastructure, after several years in which the Trump EPA paid no attention to keeping these data up to date. The New York Times reports on the big update on today’s front page, under the headline “Climate Change Is getting Worse, E.P.A. Says. Just Look Around.”

The basic technique here is to propagandize you with every sort of essentially irrelevant anecdotal information, while diverting your attention away from the only indicator of “climate change” that actually counts, which is temperature. After all, if temperatures aren’t going up, it isn’t “global warming.” Here, we have some 54 supposed climate “indicators” — everything from rain to drought to ice to sea level — out of which the things relating to actual temperature are only a handful, and then are buried deep in the midst of all the others, probably in the hope that you will miss them. And moreover, the temperature data are then grossly misrepresented in what has to be an intentional effort at deception.

But let’s start with the official line from the new Biden EPA.

The Earth’s climate is changing. Temperatures are rising, snow and rainfall patterns are shifting, and more extreme climate events – like heavy rainstorms and record high temperatures – are already happening. Many of these observed changes are linked to the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, caused by human activities.

The Times then picks up on the theme by its headline calling for you to “just look around” to determine that “climate change” is happening. The idea is that you can determine that there is “climate change” by observing ice on ponds, or something, without having to bother with those complicated thermometers, let alone sophisticated satellite measurements:

Wildfires are bigger, and starting earlier in the year. Heat waves are more frequent. Seas are warmer, and flooding is more common. The air is getting hotter. Even ragweed pollen season is beginning sooner. . . . [EPA’s indicators] map everything from Lyme disease, which is growing more prevalent in some states as a warming climate expands the regions where deer ticks can survive, to the growing drought in the Southwest that threatens the availability of drinking water, increases the likelihood of wildfires but also reduces the ability to generate electricity from hydropower.

So how about the temperature guys? As you can see, the Times does throw in a couple of references to “heat waves” and “hotter air” in the midst of all the stuff about flooding, ragweed pollen, ticks, and whatever else. What’s missing is any citation or link to any source to support the assertion about actual temperatures. But over at the EPA page, under the heading “U.S. and Global Temperature,” we find the following graph, which is said to have been updated to April 2021:

EPA temperature graph.png

That appears rather scary! Everything looks like it is going up sharply with passing time. Check out especially the green line, which is identified as the “lower troposphere [temperatures] (measured by satellite) of UAH.” The green line ends with a steep uptick, leaving it with the latest data point just below a record reached in 2016, and a full 2 deg F above the 1901-2000 average.

Oh, but here is the actual lower troposphere temperature record from UAH, available at the website of Roy Spencer, who is the guy who compiles the UAH record:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2021_v6.jpg

There are a few differences in the presentation that require a little interpretation, like the EPA graph is in deg F and has anomalies from a 1901-2000 mean, while the UAH graph is in deg C and shows anomalies from a 1991-2020 mean. But still, it leaps out that the green line on EPA’s web page, said to be the UAH record, ends with a sharp uptick and with the last point a full 2 deg F above the mean line; while this record, from UAH itself, ends with a sharp downtick and the last point actually below the mean line. Although EPA explicitly says on its web page that it updated the information in April 2021, this downtick in the UAH record began in January 2020 — a year and 4 plus months ago — and reflects a decline in lower troposphere temperatures of some 0.65 deg C, which is almost 1.2 deg F.

In other words, well more than half of the seemingly scary increase in temperature since 1901 shown in the EPA graph has just gone away in the last 16 months. So the Biden EPA, not wanting to complicate the official story of “climate change is happening now,” simply truncated the data in its graph at January 2020 to shut out the last year plus of big temperature declines. There is no way to characterize the EPA graph as other than intentionally deceptive.

The full post is available here.

5 39 votes
Article Rating
134 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 16, 2021 10:13 am

It seems to be the return of the Obama crew at EPA, so BS is to be expected.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 16, 2021 10:22 am

It all begins from a hopelessly corrupt political system and goes on from there.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/10-things-we-have-learned-during-covid-coup

BobM
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 16, 2021 5:35 pm

My guess is that fairly shortly they will be rolling out those signs again at the Glacier National Park Visitor Center saying how man-made global warming will make the glaciers disappear by 2020.

Alan
May 16, 2021 10:14 am

My hay fever usually starts in early March. Here it is mid May and I’m just now starting to suffer. So does that indicate the world is warming, cooling, staying the same or is my body changing? I suppose it can mean anything I want.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Alan
May 16, 2021 11:40 am

I means they knew 30+ years ago that they had to change the PR from scary “Global Warming” to scary “Climate Change”.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 17, 2021 12:35 am

They changed the term Global Warming to Climate Change for that very reason, if the temperature goes up, it’s Climate Change, if the temperature goes down, it’s Climate Change, it’s known as a “Heads I win tails you lose”, scenario, the cause is still the same, Human Beings, especially the free-enterprise capitalistic generally democratic West!!!! It’s all about a One World Global Guvment, unelected members, no democracy, no say by the people, they must simply obey their intellectually superior masters!!! For the record, I’ve met Sir David Attenborough, & he really does think he is God’s gift, he is arrogant too, the tv persona is just that!!!!

Reply to  Alan
May 16, 2021 12:26 pm

I recently moved to Florida to escape the next Ice Age, and the temperatures down here are still below normal. What happened to global warming?

Peter W
Reply to  John Shewchuk
May 16, 2021 4:02 pm

Same here, John. So things are changing just as we figured they would. We just have to hope they don’t change too much, too fast. Good luck to us!

Reply to  Peter W
May 16, 2021 4:25 pm

Let me know if you’re in The Villages area so we can plan our Ice Age survival plan (at least for our great-great-grand kids ….).

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John Shewchuk
May 16, 2021 9:17 pm

You must have moved to the wrong part of Florida.
I have renamed my neck of the woods, Goldilocks.
Because it is always juuuust right!

AWG
Reply to  Alan
May 16, 2021 4:05 pm

It proves that The Damned Mask works! All ailments wither in the presence of The Mask!

Nick Schroeder
May 16, 2021 10:15 am

F looks bigger than C.

A1.5 C rise in the GMST anomaly over 140 years out of a min/max range of 150 C is a statistical aberration and not a meaningful number let alone a trend. 

Ron Long
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 16, 2021 12:47 pm

Same for sea level, NIck. Nothing visible in the data except recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 10:37 am

We will see a lot more of this sort of thing. Earlier this week AW pointed out uS gov have just disappeared most of the historical forest fire record, in order to falsely claim increases due to climate. In February, the media tried to claim the Texas ERCOT disaster wasn’t caused by iced up wind turbines. This summer we will most probably have hurricane examples. The false narratives are needed by the Biden gang to push GND.

Scissor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 12:03 pm

A thorough house cleaning of government organizations is in order starting with DOJ, FBI, Homeland Security, FDA and CDC. None of these, and many others have fulfilled their obligations to the American people.

Unfortunately, it’s questionable whether anyone in a position of power will have the integrity to do so.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Scissor
May 16, 2021 10:14 pm

You mean Drain the Swamp? How did that work over the last 4 years?

Roger
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 18, 2021 12:58 pm

Draining the swamp efforts resulted in alligators and nasty snakes run amok.

Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 10:46 am

I consider any global average from a satellite to be either fraudulent or irrelevant or both. The data from a set of, say 100 or so, well-understood land thermometers is all we need to decide whether anything precipitous is happening.
“Averaging” and “remote calibration” are simply means of defrauding the public in order to get more funding.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 11:10 am

Aww.. you seem to be unaware that Anthony has put quite some work into this question and found that there are lots of problems even with the best surface based temeprature stations (UHI being the most obvious)
And while you are right that sattelite data is corrected and these corrections changed/improved over time, at least the method is quite homogeneous over the surface.

My personal all time favorite always will be M. E. Mann selling Bristlecone Pines as good thermometers! (just google for images for these survival experts and ask yourself if there cannot possibly be any other factor than local temperature influencing their growth)
BTW Mann had more than 30years to correct the Hockeystick paper giving those trees a statistical overweight, maybe someone could ask him if he could find some time for that between writing all his alarming climate books..

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Laws of Nature
May 16, 2021 11:33 am

Aww.. you seem to be unaware that Anthony has put quite some work into this question

No, I am aware, hence, “well-understood”. Insinuating that I might consider a pine cone to be be a thermometer is a bit beyond the pale.

If the satellite said that the world was heating up, but not one thermometer on the ground registered that fact, should we be worried? Conversely, if the satellite said that the world was fine, but a global array of well-studied baseline thermometers on the ground kept rising, should we ignore it?
All that matters is what is experienced on the ground. Tellling me that the world is burning up (but it just isn’t registering on ground thermometers) is ridiculous.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 11:51 am

First tell me what that ‘array of well-studied baseline thermometers on the ground’ are actually measuring – is it the local air temperature or is it human activity (UHI effect)? Over 90% of those thermometers in the USA and UK are on contaminated sites (don’t conform to the strict rules for siting of temperature stations) and are not fit for the purpose of measuring local air temperatures.

MarkW
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 12:49 pm

100 thermometers tell you what 100 discrete locations on the surface of the planet are doing.
They tell you nothing about what the planet as a whole is doing.
Could the temperature at 100 stations be going down, while the surface as a whole is heating? Easily.
Could the temperature at 100 stations be going up, while the surface as a whole is cooling? Easily.

The satellite readings are the only means we have of measuring nearly the entire globe. (They don’t reach all the way to the poles. But then again, we have few if any surface station near the poles either.)
Yes, they have been adjusted. But the reason and method for each of the adjustments have been posted. If you disagree with either the reason or the method you are free to dispute them and write up a paper indicating where they have gone wrong. Just declaring that they must be wrong because they have been adjusted is both lazy and cowardly.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  MarkW
May 16, 2021 4:27 pm

“100 thermometers tell you what 100 discrete locations on the surface of the planet are doing.
They tell you nothing about what the planet as a whole is doing.”

While I agree totally with your first sentence, I have to take issue with the second. The planet isn’t doing anything “as a whole”. One place is doing this, one place is doing that, another place isn’t doing anything of significance, but it’s all happening here and there, and not collectively.
It would be a bit like asking are cars getting bigger or smaller “as a whole”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 6:35 pm

“If the satellite said that the world was heating up, but not one thermometer on the ground registered that fact, should we be worried?”

You don’t have to worry. The UAH Satellite data has been compared to weather balloon temperature data with a correlation of about 97 percent. So we have the UAH satellite data and the weather balloon data telling us the same thing. That should give us confidence in the accuracy of the UAH satellite.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 17, 2021 5:02 am

“You don’t have to worry. The UAH Satellite data has been compared to weather balloon temperature data with a correlation of about 97 percent.”
That is why the UHA is the only measure I trust.

Gene
Reply to  Laws of Nature
May 16, 2021 3:11 pm

Mann can’t even find his data (apparently) or he would have complied with at least two court orders to do so!

Patrick B
Reply to  Gene
May 17, 2021 9:19 am

Actually, a real “scientist” wouldn’t need a court order. In real science, you show the world everything you have done, show your methods, your raw results, your statistical analysis and your conclusions.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 12:01 pm

They’ve “adjusted” or ignore (delete) past local data and the compilations of it.
The satellite data is the closest we to a “global” temperature.
Many indications are the “climate” tends to be on a 60 or so year cycle.
They want us to look at only events in the “now” and ignore/never mention what happened before they were born.

(A PR side note: I noticed a while ago The Storm Channel has introduced a new metric when talking about storms or weather fronts. They’ve started to mention “The Millions of People” under a frost watch, flood watch, etc.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 16, 2021 6:40 pm

ABC News always hypes extreme weather, even weather that is not extreme, and they almost always start out like that by claiming so many million people are under a weather threat. They try to make it sound as scary as possible.

The Leftwing Media is out there selling leftwing memes 24 hours per day, and hyping Human-caused Climate Change is part of it. Question everything they say.

H.R.
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 16, 2021 8:29 pm

If they’d convert how many Olympic-size swimming pools a million people would fit into, then I could probably follow along.

I like things in standard units.

Gene
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 16, 2021 3:08 pm

Mr Lee… you are living in the “Twilight Zone”… or posted your comment to see what others would reply. If the former, you somehow missed the fact… land thermometers are notoriously poor… as so many of them have become compromised, as civilization has encroached around them.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Gene
May 16, 2021 3:42 pm

They aren’t really poor technically. They do have siting issues but that is fixable with the correct location. The real problem is that statisticians have glommed onto the data records and use numbers that are far beyond the accuracy and precision of the measuring instruments.

Claiming that using averages and anomalies to artificially increase the precision of measurements by a factor of at least 100 is simply fraud. ignoring the uncertainty in the original instruments and saying that averaging reduces the original uncertainty is also fraud. It would be like a police DUI arrest by saying they ran a blood sample two or three times and averaged the two decimal precision readings together and found you over the limit by 0.08001.

commieBob
May 16, 2021 10:50 am

As the evidence on Ivermectin mounts there is also mounting evidence that it is being studiously ignored.

After WW1, the Germans were fed the story that they didn’t lose fair and square. They easily believed they had been betrayed. We all know how that turned out.

When the level of corruption we’ve seen lately becomes unignorable by the masses, things could go very badly indeed. The Democrats learned nothing from Trump’s election. They have also obviously learned nothing from history. They can’t continue to throw the majority of Americans under the bus without that being noticed.

Scissor
Reply to  commieBob
May 16, 2021 11:43 am

It seems that some of their own are being thrown under the bus too. Will this just be a bump in the road or what?

https://noqreport.com/2021/05/16/the-end-of-faucism-is-nigh-as-democrats-ditch-the-doctor/

Last edited 1 month ago by Scissor
Gunga Din
Reply to  commieBob
May 16, 2021 12:18 pm

They did learn something.
They learned that without Covid related loosening of some states’ voting laws, Biden would have lost.
That’s why the first Bill proposed was HR1. (Eliminate voter ID nationwide, etc.)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 16, 2021 1:33 pm

But they DID lose. It is beyond fantasy that O’Biden received over 80 million votes.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 16, 2021 6:43 pm

It seems pretty far-fetched.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 16, 2021 8:17 pm

Doesn’t it, though?

Neo
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 17, 2021 9:35 am

markl
May 16, 2021 10:54 am

Nothing but propaganda.

ResourceGuy
May 16, 2021 10:56 am

All the policy levers are in place for Joe to pull as needed or directed from activist groups. Yes, the same groups are back that wrote speeches for Obama to read and attack American that does not believe. Xi is not so different after all.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 16, 2021 4:32 pm

I seriously doubt that Biden is pulling any levers. He is nothing but an avatar.

Climate believer
May 16, 2021 11:14 am

Ironically when people do actually “just look around” they generally find very little “climate change”™, and certainly nothing that comes close to an emergency.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Climate believer
May 16, 2021 6:46 pm

Yes, people should look around. Notice how cool it is even though the alarmists claim the Earth is overheating? How do we reconcile this discrepancy? Answer: Believe your own eyes, and reject the claims of extreme warming. Warming exists only in Hockey Stick charts, not in the real world.

philincalifornia
May 16, 2021 11:21 am

“just look around”

I’m obviously not very good at buying into bullshit. It must be in my genes. Try as I might, I look around really, really hard, and I can’t see any.

It rained here in Oakland in the early hours of Saturday morning. Could that be some climate change?

Scissor
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 16, 2021 11:50 am

Other than a handful of warm days, 2021 in my locale in Colorado, has been below average in temperature but above average in precipitation, especially snow. The change of late has been to the cool side.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Scissor
May 16, 2021 1:31 pm

Tony Heller has lots of videos this year of spring snow in CO and WY.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 16, 2021 12:45 pm

I’ve been looking around in the UK for over 70 years and I’ve not seen any climate change. I’ve seen a lot of weather, but that is what we get a lot of in the UK.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 16, 2021 4:34 pm

I’d be very interested in seeing how the alarmists say climate has changed at any specific place on earth. Just tell us what the climate was 30 years ago and what the climate is now.

Robert of Texas
May 16, 2021 11:39 am

Fact: The climate, on average over the past 100 years is warming. It could be 100% natural or some percent less than 100% caused by man. No one can determine the ratio – it’s all guess work, so no amount of measuring warming is really telling us anything about what to do. Common sense tells us to just adapt to changes.

Fact: Storm intensity is not increasing, nor the frequency of droughts or fires or hurricanes. Death rate are trending down due to these events – so what is all the panic about?

So far, we can’t even get a decent set of non-tainted data started to take any measurements. As long as the HIE of cities is ignored, the data remains tainted. If you use only data from rural areas where the collection point is proper and pristine, most warming just vanishes. This is the elephant in the room…it PROVES that the global data sets are just plain WRONG.

Models are predicting more warming should occur then the tainted overly warm data sets indicate. This PROVES the models are just plain WRONG.

Until the climate community accepts these facts and starts dealing with them, no science can occur in their community.

Scissor
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2021 12:06 pm

Can we really say it’s warmer globally than it was in the 1920’s and 30’s? With what degree of certainty?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Scissor
May 16, 2021 12:40 pm

The data used in the 1988 Senate hearings to kick off all this nonsense showed the 1930’s as an all-time high that current temperatures have not yet exceeded. But then late papers, using supposedly the same data set showed a remarkably cooler 1930’s than what appeared in 1988. What’s Up With That?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
May 16, 2021 5:42 pm

Yes
I did an experiment
I took that USA temperature graph from Hansen’s 1998 paper, and then went on the GISS website where you can graph the same item, 5 year mean temp from 1880-2000 and you get a much different graph
1930s cooler, late 90s warmer.
From the same supposed data.

And people claim it’s not fraudulent.

Criminal lies

Gene
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2021 3:19 pm

Robert… you are aware that the measurements from those groups trying to sell the warming theory, are from roughly the end of the Little Ice Age… a period of lower temperatures. Naturally, climate would warm towards the present time. I have not seen those groups include what temperatures were… prior to the LIA as a comparison! I wonder why?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2021 4:38 pm

Robert, just to pick a bone…

to make a statement that the climate on average is warming you need to be able to say how the climate in any particular place is warming. I am yet to see any statement of the climate in any particular place 30 years ago alongside a statement of the current climate in that particular place now.

Rick C
May 16, 2021 11:56 am

These claims often say “just look around” and then proceed to throw deceptive graphs and cherry picked data at the reader. That’s because no one will actually be able to see the climate changing through their own direct observation. And that is because we are used to and adapted to highly variable conditions daily, weekly, monthly and annually. No one could tell you whether this year was warmer, cooler or about the same as last year without looking up actual temperature data. No one can go to the beach and tell you how much sea level has changed since 2011 or 1980 just by looking (most people wouldn’t even know how much the apparent sea level changes between low and high tide).

When I talk to true believers I often ask for examples of climate change they’ve personally observed and measured. I usually get a blank stare followed by “scientists say …”.

When I “just look around” I see weather, highly variable and constantly changing just as it has been for my entire life.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Rick C
May 16, 2021 12:44 pm

Worse yet, all these changes that are supposedly “catastrophic” are so tiny they are overwhelmed by the variation from one breeze to the next, or one wave to the next, or even which direction you’re facing. Every species on Earth has adapted to an annual variation of at least 10°C between winter and summer, and we are to believe that a change in the overall average of less than one tenth of that will Kill Us All™?!?!?!

hiskorr
May 16, 2021 11:58 am

I generally agree with the post, except for the suggestion that temperature, especially “average temperature” as measured: (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is a useful indicator of “climate”. Let’s compare summer “average temp” of Honolulu, (85+75)/2=80, with Denver, (110+50)/2=80, and tell me what that has to do with “climate”. Especially when “climate change” can be (86+76)/2=81 and (108+54)/2=81 means some “nominal” change of +1degree, the effect is completely unknowable.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  hiskorr
May 16, 2021 5:28 pm

Yes, Tmax and Tmin should be tabulated and plotted separately, not presented as the mid-range value!

Herbert
Reply to  hiskorr
May 16, 2021 6:54 pm

hiskorr,
In an early chapter “What we know about Warming” of Steve Koonin’s new book, “Unsettled”,he posts Figure 1.1 The Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (1850-2019) being the Annual global surface temperature anomalies as determined by four independent analyses, Berkeley, HadCRUT4, NOAA and NASA.
Since 1850 using HadCRUT4 data employed by the IPCC, the world temperature increase is 0.85C +/- 0.25C (1.5degrees F).
Significantly the reliable data collection by terrestrial thermometers began around the time that many researchers deem to be the end of the 500-plus-year Little Ice Age in the mid 1850s.
Steve Koonin stresses “Temperature Anomalies” rather than “Temperature” in the graph and comments-
“Moreover, the annual average temperature in,say, New York ( about 13C or 55 degrees F) can vary from year to year by more than 2 degrees C (3.6F), greater than the entire range of the graph.
So should we be concerned by these long term changes, which the inset shows are quite small in terms of the globe’s actual temperature?
What is the graph really telling us?
Even as a five year old I was able to see that temperature varies from place to place and changes over time….”
He goes on to say that a location’s climate is the average of its weather over decades (UN WMO: climate is defined as its weather over a thirty year average).
This is the point you make comparing Honolulu and Denver.

Thomas Gasloli
May 16, 2021 12:08 pm

Facts don’t matter.

What matters is can “Climate Change” provide a majority of campaign contributing corporations a government subsidy and can you keep Big Media repeating the talking points.

All the public health research pre-COVID said masks & lockdowns don’t work. Post COVID comparisons of states shows the same death rate regardless of restrictive measures. And yet most people still think the masks & measures worked. There are now 4 variants resistant to the vaccines and yet most people (who were never at risk in the first place) think now they are safe and can stop following the measures they mistakenly think worked.

When it comes to government policy: Facts don’t matter.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
May 16, 2021 4:55 pm

“When it comes to government policy: Facts don’t matter.”
When it comes to bashing EPA, it seems facts don’t matter.

As I pointed out below, the graph shown here had a heading, which has been suppressed. It said
Figure 1. Temperatures in the Contiguous 48 States, 1901–2020

Francis Menton then took that, and compared it with UAH global, 1979-Apr 2021, and said, look, they are different. Then cue the chorus about EPA lies.

hiskorr
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2021 7:57 pm

If what you’re saying is that “‘global warming’ really means that different regions react differently to whatever is affecting temperature”, then I welcome you to the beginning study of the real world.

whiten
May 16, 2021 12:10 pm

There is few basic climate indicators, but there is only one that will never “lie”, and clearly indicate what point in time happens to be, in consideration of climate…
…the sea level,
provided that the sea level variation in long term climate is known.

cheers

garboard
Reply to  whiten
May 16, 2021 1:23 pm

unfortunately nasa trivializes tide gauge data , which show no acceleration and base all their sea level info on satellite data , which they brag is accurate to 2 cm, tho the issue is over a mm or two difference

Last edited 1 month ago by garboard
Rich Davis
May 16, 2021 12:18 pm

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. “The Science” (Climastrology) is designed to be unfalsifiable and will not be falsified.

If we are entering a period of cooler weather as many of us believe, then we can expect extensive lying by the climate-industrial complex attributing the change to reductions in emissions. This will be claimed even if it’s necessary to “discover” that earlier fossil fuel statistics were unreliable and missed a lot in the past, while for some other hocus pocus excuse, recent stats have been inflated. Here’s a suggestion—Trump forced us to lie about how much coal China has been using. OrangeManBad!

Enough bird choppers and hideous solar farms have despoiled the environment that their deceptions will be able to fool a critical mass of sheeple. I think that for a while they were worried that things would cool before they could plausibly claim credit. But now they realize that yes, the public is that stupid.

The warmunists got them to believe that warming causes unusual cold snaps, major snow storms, even snow in the Sahara. What will they NOT believe? Apparently only the truth is unbelievable.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 16, 2021 4:48 pm

Agreed but by tying their boondoggle to CO2 levels which can and are being continuously monitored the alarmists have made a rod for their own backs.

I know that any logical reasoning can be dismissed these days but it will be a big step to claim that reducing emissions has saved the world at the same time as measured CO2 levels keep increasing.

My guess is that the story line will be that the warming is making it colder.

H.R.
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
May 16, 2021 9:00 pm

Yup, Forrest. Gonna have to disappear that CO2 data.

The narrative will change. Enough young’uns have been dumbed down such that they will be unable realize it and say, “Wait! Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what they were saying yesterday?”

Instead their response will be, “Okey-dokey.”

At this point, the ‘Board Of Education’ should be a nominal pine 2″ x 4″ applied to the side of their heads. The “Woke” are actually sleepwalking.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
May 18, 2021 4:50 am

Mauna Loa adjustments may be determined to be necessary. We’ve just discovered that it’s on a volcano.

John Bell
May 16, 2021 12:26 pm

When I was working on a project for the EPA in Ann Arbor 15 years ago, their parking lot was full of SUVs, it was laughable, what they say versus what they do.

Frank from NoVA
May 16, 2021 12:36 pm

I thought this graph looked familiar, so I’ll just recycle my post from MC:

“So back to the EPA graph – according to these guys, we were just cycling around zero between 1900 and 1970, and then off to the races. As an aside, the cycling itself, if real, ought to have raised some questions about natural variability within EPA, but I digress. My main issue, is that we know there was no way in hell there was sufficient areal coverage prior to the advent of radio sonde and satellite data to produce this graph. In other words, it’s just the usual garbage”

Anteros
May 16, 2021 12:36 pm

I think you are comparing apples to cabbages. Roys graph is global. The EPAs is for the contiguous United States.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Anteros
May 16, 2021 4:33 pm

Did Roy produce a graph of just the contiguous 48 states? What UAH graph did the EPA use?

Reply to  Steve Reddish
May 16, 2021 5:08 pm

The EPA did not use a UAH graph. It made its own, using the USA48 column from the table posted by UAH.

MarkW
May 16, 2021 12:42 pm

So the Biden EPA, not wanting to complicate the official story of “climate change is happening now,” simply truncated the data in its graph at January 2020 to shut out the last year plus of big temperature declines.

Where are the usual trolls who regularly accuse Lord Monckton of cherry picking data because he chooses to start each month’s analysis with the most up to date data?

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
dk_
Reply to  MarkW
May 16, 2021 8:12 pm

I think you may have just been a little more awake. They sure came out after your post.

H.R.
Reply to  MarkW
May 16, 2021 9:16 pm

You won’t be seeing them for a bit, Mark. It’s National Eat Maggots Month and they are busy obediently observing all of the Save The Planet festivities. Just wait for June. They’ll be back.
.
.
(What?!? You didn’t know? Be sure to put that on your calendar for next year. And before you ask, no. Eating the worm at the bottom of the tequila bottle doesn’t count.)
😜

Danley Wolfe
May 16, 2021 12:44 pm

As I commented on Francis Menton’s Manhattan Contrarian blog, ranting on blog sites is not going to have any effect. I was hoping that the publication of Steven Koonin’s book might get some traction. The climate movement and Biden Administration are now in the driver’s seat and need to be revealed for their lying, distortion, hyperbole and scare tactics… reminiscent of Josef Goebbels propaganda machine in Nazi Germany. So what are you ACTUALLY going to do about it folks.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 16, 2021 1:10 pm

What I have done is write three ebooks, and financially support Peter Ridd in Aus. What I am doing is financially support Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell as they work to expose the 2020 stolen election that created the current mess. And what I will do is work my tail off in the 2022 election to recapture the House and Senate. Physical and financial support of MAGA candidates.
You?

Danley Wolfe
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 2:44 pm

Rud, I have followed your work going back to Judith Curry’s Climate etc. blog and others and respect your ideas and educated and thoughtful opinions. I have also had own character assassination attempts for speaking up for science and facts e.g., by climate gestapo websites such as “hotwhopper” or other self-appointed “fact checker” when they are not attacking science but personal attacks. Good luck and count me in on your efforts.

Sara
May 16, 2021 12:48 pm

The Earth’s climate is changing. Temperatures are rising, snow and rainfall patterns are shifting, and more extreme climate events….” etc., etc., etc.

It is SO WARM today where I live in the upper Midwest that my Little Black Cat burrowed her way to the underside of the warmest blanket I have on my bed, folded into four layers, and refuses to emerge. I had the smallest window open – the bathroom window – because she likes to sit there on warm, sunny days and watch the world go by…. or maybe the postman shows up with mail. Now, the window is closed.

It is mid-May. Sorry I did not get photos of the snow we had in the beginning of May, because I like to record these things. And that snow was ephemeral in nature – did not last long at all, but there is always a next time, eh?

The things I notice are how thin the tree canopy is everywhere now in my AO, as well as how the spring wildflowers like trilliums and mayapples are emerging late and showing buds instead of blossoming. Lack of rain lately has something to do with it, but rain is in the forecast for tonight and this week. The sun’s heat is not being retained at ground level, not at all. Not enough humidity in the air to hold it in. In mid-May, I should not have the furnace running at all, period. And turning it off for summer is occurring later and later each year. Turning it on in the autumn is also a changing date: earlier and earlier each year.

If these things are not significant, especially since they are recurring consistently, then what are they? Brownies, perhaps?

taxed
Reply to  Sara
May 16, 2021 1:43 pm

lts also been a late start to spring here in England as well. The Bluebells flowering in the local wood has been delayed this spring by at least a week or more. The same is true with the leaving of the trees. During April in my local area we had at least 13 nights of frost and so far during May we have had 4 nights of frost.

ATheoK
Reply to  taxed
May 16, 2021 8:24 pm

Sara and taxed have just proven anecdotally how easily wildlife adapts to small changes in temperature. Though weather and temperatures they refer to are well documented.

Changes far smaller than those when Earth plummeted into an ice age or warmed it’s way out of that ice age.

Changes far smaller than even the recent Little Ice Age, or the gradual warming from the LIA.

Changes very small indeed when plotted against proxy temperatures since the last Ice Age. Proxies that show Earth temperatures are again declining towards an eventual new Ice Age.
No matter how warmists claim their hundredths of a degree matter, or how warmists insist tiny daily temperature changes forebode flights of fanciful dooms and disasters. Their rantings, claims and predictions are absurd from every angle.

Rah
Reply to  taxed
May 17, 2021 1:15 am

Here in Central Indiana we put our garden in 2 weeks later than usual due to frosts and the emergence of the cicada has been delayed. Have not heard a single one and we’re supposed to be ground zero for the largest emergence in the country this year.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Sara
May 17, 2021 3:40 pm

Only the tops of my mulberry trees have leaves so far (about half-way down). The bottom halves have buds but very, very few leaves. It wasn’t the hail we had the first week of May because that would have taken off the top leaves. It has to be the three frosts we had in April and the first part of May. I’m on my third planting of tomatoes and they are just now starting to take off. The broccoli and lettuce is doing fine (cold weather veggies). It hasn’t heated up enough to stunt them yet.

If this spring is the start of a trend they may have to redo the growing season maps!

Doonman
May 16, 2021 12:48 pm

The EPA has no climate endangerment finding on carbon, only carbon dioxide. So, reducing your “carbon footprint” to change the weather, which is the basis of the democrat’s Green New Deal, is not supported by law.

Patrick Harcourt
Reply to  Doonman
May 16, 2021 1:39 pm

There are liies, damned lies, and the EPA

Gunga Din
Reply to  Doonman
May 16, 2021 2:01 pm

No more diamonds. No more graphite. No more “Bucky Balls”. …. No more carbon-based life forms.
Only some in DC will survive.

H.R.
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 16, 2021 10:12 pm

“Only some in DC will survive.”
.
.
.
No they won’t. If the truckers ever decide to flex their muscles and park ’em, every bright Blue woke city in America will be on its knees and eating ‘long pig’ within a week or two. The pols in D.C. will be viewed as USDA Prime from all the 3-Star, 3-martini lunches they’ve had. The diet Coke will be gone in 3 days, The avocado toast will disappear overnight. Starbucks won’t be able to produce a single soy latte after 5 days.

It will be the End Of The World As They Know It.

D.C. would become a ghost town.

Rah
Reply to  H.R.
May 17, 2021 1:20 am

It wouldn’t take starvation. When the women folk run out of maximum cramp relief and man hole covers/plugs the jig will be up.

ATheoK
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 17, 2021 5:38 am

That’s an excellent suggestion, Gunga!

Form a company to turn captured carbon into diamonds.
Get big grants and loans from governments and then start making diamonds.
Liberal urban puff balls should love the idea.

Then sell the diamonds at significantly higher prices.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doonman
May 16, 2021 7:02 pm

In the courtroom:

Judge to the Alarmist lawyer: “What is your complaint about, Mr. Alarmist, carbon, or carbon dioxide?”

Alarmist Lawyer: “There is a difference?”

garboard
May 16, 2021 1:15 pm

CBS quoted the report saying that this past year arctic sea ice reached its second lowest extent ever , but failed to mention that the following month sea ice had its sharpest rise ever seen and that sea ice was near the 30 year mean . maybe if people can be made aware how dishonest the EPA is with this stuff they’ll understand how they are being manipulated . but I doubt it

Gary Pearse
May 16, 2021 1:28 pm

“Lyme disease, which is growing more prevalent in some states as a warming climate expands the regions where deer ticks can survive,”

This I know from personal experience to be total BS. We used to call it Tick Fever or Rockymountain Fever in Manitoba, in the early years of the 20th century which I can ensure readers is colder than the states they may be referring to where its expanding.

The ticks survived “The Ice Age Cometh” period between the mid 1940s to 1980s. I was a newspaper boy in Winnipeg in the late 40s and early 50s and had a very long route that ended at a dairy farm just out of city limits. When I collected for the paper in the evening (every 2 wks), my mother insisted on coming with me because she worried I might freeze to death.

Ticks (and a number of biting flies) can survive by attaching to their host and use their body heat. Even caribou and European reindeer (including those in Siberia) carry the larvae of large biting flies. In fact, when these animals are skinned, the big knots in the skin are delicacies cut out with a knife an popped raw into the mouth!

It’s sad that so few biologists (Jim Steele and Susan Crockford) come to WUWT to share their real knowledge. It obviously has to be done at great risk professionally because biologists have been corrupted by the environmental movement for over 70yrs to interpret an endemic crisis.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 16, 2021 2:34 pm

Gary, a gentle correction. I just double checked. Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) is caused by the bacterium R rickettsi, and transmitted by dog and wood ticks (both fairly big). Lime disease is caused by the bacterium B.bergdorferi and transmitted by blacklegged (aka deer) ticks which are very small. Other than both caused by bacteria and transmitted by ticks, the diseases have little in common including treatment. I know this only because Lime disease is endemic on my Wisconsin dairy farm because of all the deer. When spring morel hunting or fall grouse hunting, we had to check carefully when coming out of the woods. Not a big problem summers when we mostly went fishing for walley on the Wisconsin river or trout on the headwaters of Otter Creek when not sailing on Lake Michigan.

Editor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 2:50 pm

Rud and Gary ==> I have covered the false vector borne disease meme here twice at least twice: here and here. The idea the warming wether is spreading vector borne diseases is utterly and completely false, at least in the United States.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 16, 2021 5:38 pm

Yes, one of the problems the moose on Isle Royale have is infestations with ticks. The cold (sometimes enough to freeze the Great Lakes and allow animals to walk between the island and the mainlands) hasn’t eliminated the ticks of any species.

Editor
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 17, 2021 6:13 am

Clyde ==> Deer ticks are found everywhere there are deer. It is Lyme Disease that is slowly spreading through the deer/tick population — and that spread has nothing to do with slight changes in weather patterns.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 16, 2021 3:25 pm

Lyme disease is becoming more prevalent in NE because previously open farm land is quickly reverting back to woodland and the local enviros have gone out of their way to discourage deer hunting.

goracle
May 16, 2021 1:34 pm

the whole thing is a “frighten the masses” scam… from global warming to covidstan… if you tell a lie long enough, people start to believe it… like Stockholm syndrome, a certain % of population will sympathize with the abusive govt if they’re consistently told climate change misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies.

May 16, 2021 1:39 pm

Thank you for this informative article.

However, I don’t find +2°F “scary.” Farmers in the American heartland can compensate for that amount of warming by planting about six days earlier. Ho, hum. 🥱
comment image

dk_
May 16, 2021 1:45 pm

There’s probably something immoral in double-dipping by commenting on both the Contrarian’s site and this one. Here goes: Most of those indicators have proven to be false, and/or shown to have nothing to do with global, or even localized warming. Who is responsible in U.S. government for detecting, retracting, correcting false statements by public officials? If material gain is obtained through the issuance of false statements by public officials, who is responsible for prosecution, restitution, dismissal, and/or punishment? Who can pursue damages in civil court? Who can petition the government for redress of grievance?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  dk_
May 16, 2021 5:07 pm

Hmmm. I think you have highlighted the governance problem faced particularly in the USA.

The public officials responsible for correcting false statements are part of the corrupt executive branch. Prosecution of those materially gaining through false statements are also part of the corrupt executive branch although to be precise most of your justice department appear to see themselves as unaccountable to anybody. Pursuing civil damages means working through the corrupt court system. And petitioning the government takes you before the corrupt legislative branch.

The short game is to keep pointing out the false and misleading nature of government misinformation, and the corruption rife in the whole of government. The long game is to wait for the whole fake edifice to collapse under its own weight.

dk_
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
May 16, 2021 7:52 pm

Having taken and multiply renewed what was described as a lifetime oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies, and having several current examples of the former as well as latter, with a few that are evidently straddling both categories, it is now down to tactics and target acquisition.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  dk_
May 17, 2021 4:21 am

Tactics and target acquisition. Agreed.

cerescokid
May 16, 2021 1:54 pm

I wonder if anyone will get around to looking at the Antarctica Sea Ice. As anyone who has followed it knows, there is not much change over the last 40 years. Regular NYT readers won’t be interested. They have been conned for decades.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-antarctic-sea-ice

Paul C
May 16, 2021 2:03 pm

On the UAH temperature anomaly graphs – “That appears rather scary!” should be qualified with “to climate fearmongers”. To knowledgeable people, it is the second graph which is scary – if that recent drop in temperature becomes a trend, we could be facing many hardships, especially concerning food and fuel.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul C
May 16, 2021 7:12 pm

Unusual Cold weather is not good for humanity. Early and late freezes can harm millions of people. But cold weather might be the only thing that breaks the back of this Human-Caused Global Warming scam, though.

I’m hoping for an extended pause. Just stay the way it is now. 🙂

But if history is any guide, we can probably expect a few decades of cooling. A repeat of the temperature decline from 1940 to 1980, perhaps.

taxed
May 16, 2021 2:08 pm

lt always makes me smile when l get told not to confuse weather with climate, like they is no link between the two. Just how do they think the climate changed during the LIA without any change in the long term weather patterning. Am convinced that the climate change during the LIA and the recent warming here in England at least. Has been mostly down to longer term changes to the weather patterning. Which the current state of the jet stream explaining to me how this can happened.

May 16, 2021 3:08 pm

“There is no way to characterize the EPA graph as other than intentionally deceptive.”

That’s rich. Let’s see what Francis Menton has done. He took this EPA graph
comment image

but cut off the heading, which clearly says that it is 
1. ConUS, and
2. 1901-2020
Then he compares it to Roy’s plot of global temperatures, monthly to Apr 2021 and says, hey they’re different, the EPA is lying.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2021 5:10 pm

… and talking of intentionally misleading, here’s Nick.

Quick, look over there!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Hey Nick. You complain about misleadingly truncating a graph. Did they disclose it? Yes. Does anybody but you know it is also dishonest? Yes, many and increasing numbers every day.
So where does that leave your disingenuous comment?

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 16, 2021 5:29 pm

” Did they disclose it? Yes.”

Did who disclose it? EPA simply provided a graph clearly labelled “Temperatures in the Contiguous 48 States, 1901–2020”. Francis Menton (echoed on this site) suppressed that label (without disclosure), represented it as a global plot, and said it was deceptive because of differences to a UAH global plot.

dk_
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2021 8:07 pm

Nick you have misread both articles and are over emphasizing the significance of what are in truth your own deliberate omissions.

Menton quotes the EPA web page at the same link, where you suppressed the EPA title: Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature
From the EPA graph on that same page, same link, you have ommitted the caption that Menton quotes in the article:
Data source: NOAA, 20211
Web update: April 2021

For the periods covered commonly the two graphs are different, which is exactly Menton’s point.

I find nowhere in the self-published article where Menton uses the word lying. Since he is a practicing and accomplished attorney, he certainly knows how to present evidence so that a reader or juror or judge can come to a conclusion. Just how did you arrive at it?

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Reply to  dk_
May 16, 2021 8:30 pm

“For the periods covered commonly the two graphs are different, which is exactly Menton’s point.”
Of course they are different, because one is USA48, the other is global. But Menton cut off the heading which showed that, and attributed the difference to EPA malfeasance.

“uses the word lying…Just how did you arrive at it?”
He says
“There is no way to characterize the EPA graph as other than intentionally deceptive.”

dk_
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 17, 2021 2:14 am

Still willfully wrong, in exactly the same way.
I’m pretty sure that Menton thinks in terms of fraud, gross negligence, and, as stated, deceptive information used as propaganda. Misrepresenting or omitting information, is deceptive, but not lying, just not truthful. There is a difference, and it is your word choice that is demonstrably incorrect, not the authors.

Marcus
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 18, 2021 7:28 am

In addition to CONUS v. global, I believe the EPA graph is annual averages so of course it won’t include the months in 2021.

ResourceGuy
May 16, 2021 3:22 pm

Stop trying to make things in America, just order out including Chinese EVs.

John in Oz
May 16, 2021 5:52 pm

“Climate Change Is Happening Now.”

And now…and now…and now…ad infinitum

RoHa
May 16, 2021 6:40 pm

A government organization being deceptive? Never!

ATheoK
May 16, 2021 6:45 pm

Providing the real reason “National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)” deleted inconvenient history.

Biden’s corrupt government is looking to justify their scaremongering while destroying science and America’s economy in the process.

eck
May 16, 2021 7:06 pm

Zero evidence scare-mongering. No problem here see Willis’s

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

Herbert
May 16, 2021 7:38 pm

Regarding the EPA and its endangerment finding of 7 December 2009, a “day that will live in infamy”,(OK,wrong 7 December!),despite using what the SCOTUS itself describes as a “capacious” definition of ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act, CO2 is neither a pollutant nor toxic.
Here is the Chief Scientist (just retired) of Australia, Dr.Alan Finkel AO,writing in The Quarterly in the latest edition, Issue 81,2021, “Green Zero”-
“A brief digression on carbon dioxide: it is not a pollutant.
Calling it a pollutant runs the risk of trivialising the toxic effects of true pollutants.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic.
It is a product of human metabolism and we exhale it at more than 100 times higher concentration than is found in the atmosphere.
In the reverse cycle, plants absorb carbon dioxide to use as the foodstock for photosynthesis.Carbon dioxide is a fundamental part of our lifecycle but it also happens to be a greenhouse gas.”
So is carbon dioxide a declared “pollutant” in Australia?
Yes and No.
In 2018,The Department of Science etc.undertook a revision of the National Pollutants Inventory (NPI) a list of 93 elements and compounds first set out for business and commerce in 1996 as a result of a Commonwealth ordered committee.
Neither CO2 nor Carbon were listed in the NPI.
The Review lists “non-greenhouse gas pollutants”, (the original 93 listed) and “greenhouse gas pollutants”.
The latter seem to arise from Australia’s obligations to identify and report to the UN and others,pursuant to its obligations under various international covenants e.g. Kyoto etc.
Who determined CO2 was a pollutant at the UNFCCC or UN IPCC?
I don’t have that answer nor when.
The EPA policies are scientifically baseless and economically senseless.

Joel O'Bryan
May 16, 2021 9:32 pm

The OBiden Adjustment Bureau is on it. Soon to be fixed.
NASA/GISS will be back to calling it the “Warmest year evah!” as people freeze in powerless homes, and unable to afford skyrocketing food prices, under renewable energy grid blackouts in coming winters, and as crops fail due to late Spring frosts and early Fall freezes. Because Global Warming.

Josie
May 17, 2021 12:17 am

Five stars for the illustrations already.

SAMURAI
May 17, 2021 1:14 am

Leftists are hilarious.

CAGW advocates know the UAH 6.0 global temp anomaly is now at -0.05C and will probably be at -0.15C by the end of May or June.

The disconfirmed CMIP6.0 models predicted the global warming trend would already be at 0.26C/decade by 202, which is about TWICE that of UAH6.0 observations (0.14C/decade).

When the PDO and AMO soon reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles, we’ll have to suffer through 30+ years of global cooling, and by 2050, the UAH global warming trend will likely be around 0.07C/decade since 1979.

The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years so I don’t know why Leftists can’t wait 3~5 years to see what happens to global temperature trends when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective cool cycles rather than waste $100’s of trillions on this silly CAGW scam.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  SAMURAI
May 17, 2021 4:31 am

Waiting 3-5 years would bring the gravy train to a halt.

Bruce Cobb
May 17, 2021 4:46 am

Space aliens are here. Just look around!

Eric Vieira
May 17, 2021 7:56 am

The current EPA curve seems to have all the temps “shifted upwards” about 1°F compared to Roy Spencer’s graph. Also the scale seems to be different: a rise of about 0.4°C for one of the peaks in Roy Spencer’s graph corresponds in the other graph to 1.5F when it should be about 0.7°F (doubling of the vertical scale?).

Reply to  Eric Vieira
May 17, 2021 12:46 pm

As I noted above, they are plots of different things, which Menton’s post conceals. The EPA plot is of USA48; Roy’s plot is global.

But the main reason for that shift Menton does explain; they are plotted to a different anomaly base. This is necessary if comparing to a surface measure.

CapitalistRoader
May 17, 2021 9:44 am

The earth is flat, not a sphere. Just look around!

Tim Gorman
May 17, 2021 3:55 pm

While the various “average” (which are really mid-point) global temperature data sets and the satellite data sets are interesting metrics they really don’t tell you the full picture of the the CLIMATE.

The climate is the ENTIRE temperature profile at a location – meaning it is a time series with a certain variance that is location and geography dependent. If you really want to know the *climate* then you need to integrate the entire temperature profile over the entire period of time that is of interest. Just picking two arbitrary daily data points to create a mid-point value for a day (or a single point from a satellite data dump) is *very* misleading as it pertains to climate. It really doesn’t tell you anything about the climate and the matter gets further compounded when trying to use anomalies to represent the climate.

If I give you an “average” temperature for a location and you can’t tell me exactly what the high and low temperatures were that generated that average then exactly what do you know about the climate at that location? If I give the average *anomaly* for each of the temperatures does that increase or decrease your knowledge of the climate at that location?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 17, 2021 4:43 pm

Agreed, but aren’t rainfall patterns, winds, and cloud cover also climate?

Jeff Reppun
May 17, 2021 5:48 pm

Until these agencies are challenged on their lack of compliance to congressionally mandated quality standards, this garbage will continue.

Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency (epa.gov)

OMB Guidelines In Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658), Congress directed OMB to issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies….” The OMB guidelines direct agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3502(1)) to:
• Issue their own information quality guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, by no later than one year after the date of issuance of the OMB guidelines;
Establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines; and
• Report to the Director of OMB the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding agency compliance with OMB guidelines concerning the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and how such complaints were resolved. 

%d bloggers like this: